While Whooo’s Reading’s elevator pitch video is not brand new – it is from 2018, I thought it was quite interesting to share. This elevator pitch video is for a venture that claims to promote a higher-level thinking alternative to multiple choice questions. The video also claims that Whooo’s Reading enables teachers to track independent reading, monitor progress, and motivate students to read more.
More info can be found on: https://angel.co/company/wr2
Would you invest in this venture?
No, I wouldn’t invest in this product. Although the spokeswoman in the pitch appears confident and gives background on the history of multiple choice tests in education demonstrating knowledge and credibility, I am still not sure who she is and whether or not she is the CEO of this brand or just a teacher who uses or is paid to endorse it. Although the product itself has some visible benefits from easing marking via AI algorithms and benefiting students with a more thorough comprehension of texts, this market seems to already have quite a few similar products such as Bug Club by Pearson Education so, I am therefore am unsure that it will give a good return on investment.
Hi Alexis,
Thank you for adding to the discussion. I agree with your feedback. Solely based on the video pitch, I would not invest in this venture either. I tried to find out who the woman in the video is, and surprisingly, there is absolutely no mention of her anywhere. Having said this, I found the video pitch quite interesting, as it’s a perfect example of how the pitch videos “should not be”. Whooo’s Reading claims that over 250,000 teachers are using their services, however, there is not one (1) single video that properly explains their venture on their official website. On the other hand, the fact that they have other competitors such as Bug Club, does not bother me at all. In fact, having strong competitors could have been a perfect opportunity for Whooo’s Reading’s video pitch to demonstrate how they differentiate themselves and what their competitive advantage is. Then again, they failed to use this opportunity. Solely based on this single video, I would say that it’s a total failure from a business, marketing, and investment perspective.
No, as an EVA I would not invest in this product. The product claims to use an algorithm and does all the grading and provides individualized feedback pin pointing where students need help. This seems too good to be true. The pitch is directed at teachers as the potential customers and students as the users. However, the pricing model or “the ask” isn’t mentioned. The pitch says that it’s free for teachers, however only the “starter” package is free. I’m not convinced that teachers will open their wallets to pay for the upgraded features for something that has a very narrow range of ability. The market for this type of technology may be limited to school districts buying for their resource teachers to use, or to divisions with a specific focus on reading literacy. The pitch also doesn’t explain how the algorithm works, nor what age/grades this product targets. The pitch itself was engaging and the use of anecdotal evidence from a teacher is effective, but too much time was focused on talking about the history of multiple choice questions, and the negatives of multiple choice questioning in general. Instead I think more emphasis should have been on the product and its potential benefits.
Thank you for the response. I agree with your feedback, the video pitch fails terribly at utilizing the golden two minutes that is has for introducing its venture, by wasting it on the history of multiple-choice questions. I do understand where they are coming from and what they are trying to say by providing that kind of background, however, that could have been explained in 10-15 seconds. This video pitch clearly shows how easy it is to lose a potential investor if a venture cannot construct a clear, concise, and effective marketing message.