"At this point, the first 5 minutes are almost up and there’s just time to run through an agenda slide, which covers all the usual ground (e.g., product, market size, team, etc).
"From here, many entrepreneurs roll right on to tell the story in greater detail. But your 5 minutes are up, and we suggest you pause and check in with your listeners. Most likely, they have seen businesses in the past which they think are similar. Maybe they have some biases based on prior experience in a similar market. It’s best to flush those out early so you can address them as you go through your presentation. So after laying out the agenda, we like to ask the investors whether there are any particular areas of concern or questions we should be sure to address.
If its good business the right investors will poke 'through' your presentation to find the right answers. No good investor will skip on a break-through business because of a shoddy presentation.
It might seem that from the authors prose that they belive that their presentation skills got them funding - which is why this is all wrong and sends exactly the wrong message out. Most first time entrepreneurs who raise funding can't stop gushing how they were able to convince investors - the root cause is very rarely that simple. Fund raising is not about 'convincing' anyone - it can almost never be done - more often than not its more about 'discovering' the right investors and your ppt has no role to play.
I think the most compelling point about the article is the emphasis on stacking your cards for the first 5 minutes.
I've seen many entrepreneurs approach pitching like a rolling boulder, where they think they gain momentum as more time goes on. More often than not, this isn't the case.
I agree. It's kind of like interviewing a candidate. Typically you know in the first five minutes if they're going to work out or not. Put your good stuff up front. I'm not convinced most investors are necessarily going to be able to "tease out" that your company is great.
Of course, take this with a grain of salt, as I haven't raised a round yet (we haven't yet started). Even when I do, a sampling size of one is hardly empirical evidence either way.
gerad|12 years ago
"At this point, the first 5 minutes are almost up and there’s just time to run through an agenda slide, which covers all the usual ground (e.g., product, market size, team, etc).
"From here, many entrepreneurs roll right on to tell the story in greater detail. But your 5 minutes are up, and we suggest you pause and check in with your listeners. Most likely, they have seen businesses in the past which they think are similar. Maybe they have some biases based on prior experience in a similar market. It’s best to flush those out early so you can address them as you go through your presentation. So after laying out the agenda, we like to ask the investors whether there are any particular areas of concern or questions we should be sure to address.
dheer01|12 years ago
It might seem that from the authors prose that they belive that their presentation skills got them funding - which is why this is all wrong and sends exactly the wrong message out. Most first time entrepreneurs who raise funding can't stop gushing how they were able to convince investors - the root cause is very rarely that simple. Fund raising is not about 'convincing' anyone - it can almost never be done - more often than not its more about 'discovering' the right investors and your ppt has no role to play.
hansy|12 years ago
I've seen many entrepreneurs approach pitching like a rolling boulder, where they think they gain momentum as more time goes on. More often than not, this isn't the case.
Patrick_Devine|12 years ago
Of course, take this with a grain of salt, as I haven't raised a round yet (we haven't yet started). Even when I do, a sampling size of one is hardly empirical evidence either way.
verticalflight|12 years ago
So hopefully others that don't know this, can adjust their behavior, and possibly have a chance at getting funded.