Recombo 2004 VS Ingenia

I compared the Ingenia pitch with the Recombo 2004 pitch because both were similar in style, with a management figure delivering a pitch to investors. I wrote this in Word, and copied and pasted to this blog. I then realized how long it was – I’ll try to keep it briefer in the future.

CEO Credibility: I based my evaluation on the presenters (they weren’t necessarily the CEO’s). The Ingenia presenter made what felt like a more formal presentation. The Recombo presentation involved more “thinking on the spot”.

Management Team: The Ingenia pitch seemed to highlight the high academic level of the management team, while the Recombo pitch did not focus on the team. Some YouTube videos gave a bit of a mixed message about management teams: strong teams were essential components, but venture capitalists were willing to “fill in the gaps” if necessary. Overall, however, I’d have to say that Ingenia had the edge in this area.

Business Model: Ingenia seemed to have much smaller goals than Recombo, and was targeting much less money for investiment. However, Ingenia presented more relevant and detailed research than Recombo. Recombo maintained that focus is key (2005 video), but the implication is that it has shifted plans quite a bit over time. This could be interpreted as adaptability over time, or as a lack of a focused model in the 2004 video.

Competitive Products: Selling price was not addressed. In addition, not much was mentioned about market share. Both pitches mentioned market size. Recombo showed huge possible markets which could perhaps be tantalizing for investment purposes, but could also be overly inflated. Ingenia was much more conservative about market size, but that could be less appealing to investors.

Market Readiness: Ingenia seems to have made contacts within the targeted market. Recombo already has business clients and contracts, with saleable product.

Technical Innovation: It is tough to determine whether each company has an edge or whether they can keep it. Ingenia is a boutique company but acknowledges stiff competition. Recombo is an early adopter, so could be swallowed up in the adoption rush at a later date.

Exit Strategy: Recombo is not committed to a particular exit strategy (I may have taken this information from the 2005 video). Becoming a large income producing company is the goal, but buyout is a possibility also. Ingenia doesn’t mention future size beyond “major learning services provider in Vietnam” but suggests a possible 20-25% percent return for the investor.

Overall Investment Status: Ingenia seems to be a well-researched company but with a lower return (20-25%) than is possible in other technology sectors (product). It seems to be a smaller, “safer” investment, but with possible correspondingly small returns. Recombo is definitely aiming for the big leagues, with higher possible returns, but with higher risks.

As an EVA representing a more conservative venture capital company (my lack of experience in the business world leads me to be less of a risk-taker!), I would lend money to Ingenia.

1 comment

1 Melissa Anders { 09.10.08 at 1:50 pm }

Hi Gillian,
I did not mind the length of your post because it really expressed similar ideas that I had when viewing these pitches. It was interesting to see Recombo’s pitch from 2005 before their pitch in 2004. It seemed like Mr. McPhee was a lot more comfortable with the product in 2005 than in 2004, perhaps this also has to do with the forum the two were being presented in.

As you mentioned, there was a shift in plans from 2004 to 2005 and if you visit their website, there has been a shift once again. Knowing that the business plan has changed at least three times in 4 years, I too would be more willing to invest in Ingenia.

You must log in to post a comment.