Pitch comments-Cori

As promised, the pitches have been extremely interesting and worthwhile.  In my mind, however, no self respecting EVA has enough information in these 12 short minutes to make an educated, quality decision regarding investment of any dollars. I’m sorely lacking in any business knowledge and I find that the credibility of the pitches is really hard to decipher. In trying to analyze the most promising pitch, many areas stand in the way (whether they should or not) such as likeability of the presenter, choice of presentation style, technological jargon overload, lack of critical evidence, etc., etc. Ingenia has definitely crossed all the t’s and dotted the i’s as far as the key components of the pitch analysis is concerned but for some reason I end up with a somewhat shaky sense of believing in Ingenia as a profitable investment possibility.  I think that this company’s spokesperson demonstrates passion but does not necessarily have a realistic & compelling argument regarding investments of huge capital in E-learning in Vietnam.  Much more proven data is required.  The Recombo company has proven success in terms of dollars, timeline, business expansion and flexibility in the IT industry.  The company has faced and overcome business crises but appears to be goal oriented and most importantly, people oriented, in order to succeed and achieve its goal of being a 100 million dollar business. So I guess I’m finding the Recombo pitch to be the most credible and compelling of the two.  Hmm, interesting stuff.


1 Katherine Lithgow { 09.11.08 at 12:39 pm }

One of the criticisms that I have regarding the recombo and Ingenia pitches is that the interesting information comes at the end. If, as the article, How to Pitch a Brilliant Idea (Elsbach, 2003) contends, that “only 1% of ideas make it past the initial pitch” and investors hear hundreds of pitches, the value proposition should be made clear right from the start to capture the investors’ attention.
You’d want to keep their attention, not overload their minds ( or your ppt) with details, but make them want to take the time to look into your proposition further.(As Cori states, I don’t think that an investor makes the decision on ONLY the pitch, but if you have lost their attention during the pitch, I doubt they would take the time to inquire further. …. How to deliver a good pitch, contends that investors listen to hundreds of these pitches. I would start off with I would like this from you, and you are not going to want to miss this opportunity to get this much on your investment. And here’s how I’m going to get there …
I just heard about this presentation style today…MINTO presentation—it refers to text, but the priniciples behind it could refer to your presentation too.


2 Cheryl Milner { 09.11.08 at 7:02 pm }

Hi cwickes,

Very astute observation regarding the differences between Ingenia and Recombo. Ultimately the next step is really doing the due diligence because it’s not enough to simply produce a compelling presentation. Recombo may not have had the polish but he did communicate his passion when he said he “bet the company on transitioning from an engineering company to a solution house you bought services from.”

3 Joey Dabell { 09.11.08 at 7:31 pm }

Hi Cori, Katherine, Cheryl,

You raise an interesting point about more info being needed in some cases. Also about whether the investors rely solely on the pitch.

I have encountered the Ingenia name in the past, through my own work. I already had the impression that Ramona seems very credible and knowledgeable. But in my role as a VC, would I be remiss if I didn’t do a little background research of my own to supplement the pitches I watch? Or does a round of pitching truly all depend on the info in the pitch? And then, in the end, as a pitcher, if my pitch isn’t caught, would the general approach be to regroup and try again? Any thoughts?

You must log in to post a comment.