Alternate Approaches – M Triangle

In reading the various analysis using the Cubs and also a couple alternative approaches it seems that there are Micro and Macro considerations.  I would suggest in the pitch tool that the Macro issues should be addressed first for the audience to become comfortable with the “big picture” and following that the details or some of the Micro issues can be addressed.  Am thinking that as the EVA, you likely have more input (with your money) over the Micro issues than the Macro issues thus Macro is the first hurdle.

To this effect, I created something truly innovative, its not a “Cube”, its a… wait for it… Triangle formed by the product, the market, and the management team with a focus on the competitive advantage offered by each.  The centre of the triangle is return on investment, the central focus of the EVA.  This one even has colour coding technology with the red shadow on the competitive advantages linking to the red ROI (maybe red was a poor colour choice – next them profit will be black). The M stands for Marc Macro.

I went with a triangle as its a strong self-reinforcing structure so hopefully it will be able to withstand your comments and critiques – bring it on.


1 Michael Peterson { 09.22.08 at 7:31 pm }


First – great thoughts on Macro/Micro pitch considerations. I think this is bang on. My EVA firm needs a lot more than 60 minutes to decide if we are going to put real money into your company, but we can’t spend 60 minutes on everyone who wants to share their idea.

Second – I’m interested in getting a demonstration of your model. The flow diagram does a good job of mapping, but an example would help illustrate. Send me a note michael.peterson at if you want to work on something together.

2 David Vogt { 09.23.08 at 9:14 pm }

Well, people have been saying that the world is flat, and a triangle is definitely flatter than a cube…

Thanks for this, Marc! Your triangle has strong appeal for general venture analysis. We originally developed the Cube for the special curiosities of the learning marketplace. For example, the issue of “Who is the Buyer?” has unusual complexity in learning – mapping the relationship from “product” to “market” is rarely linear, and always interesting. I don’t think your triangle covers this – or am I missing something?

3 Marc Kampschuur { 09.25.08 at 5:51 pm }


Lets be honest here, it’s a little more likely that I missed something than that you missed something.

Having another look at the triangle, think I was trying to focus on value proposition offered by the product, the people and sustainability/profitably in the market. Thought the buyer would drop out of that (and tried to keep it simple and the buyer analysis, well, isn’t).

Am just looking at and – quite interesting who the buyer is / who pays the bill for the “free” software. Agree that buyer integral in pitch, if not know buyer, who pitching it to?

Cheers, Marc

4 nancy castonguay { 10.06.08 at 2:24 pm }

Correct me if I’m wrong Marc. In the case of Moodle, the meal ticket is product extensions which are the various services/in-services offered to support Moodle licensees? The real open source appeal, in my opinion, is not in that it is free but that it will always be competitive… The market is created by the community, in response to the need for a product that is never dated and free to use, who in turn pitches to the buyer, be it a school district or some other organization?

I am just new at this and don’t understand this topic as well as others in this course, but I like that your model places a lot of weight on the ‘competitive advantage’ of a business venture… something I thought was neglected in both Ingenia and Rocombo’s pitches, but is an integral part of Butler’ model… In my opinion, unless you can prove to investors how your product is superior to what is already out there, there is not much hope for anything…

You must log in to post a comment.