No I will not invest in this venture. Psychologically, the pitch was not engaging for its lack of human face. It said nothing about the CEO & team. The venture concept was on a slide titled as On-The-Go Learning for a Lifetime, targeted from school to college and job, ranging from language, math/science, medicine to law. I can’t help wondering: what a really big range they’ve covered! How many employees they need to provide apps in all these areas? Or, maybe it’s not a venture to develop educational apps, but to distribute them. That made it a weak challenger against Apple, Google and other channel giants. The pitcher highlighted their technical advantage — a patent pending technology that enables apps to be published on all in-market smartphones & tablets. What’s his point? The major effort needed for an app is not in publishing, but in developing its software and content. And the effort is just multiplied when trying to cover so many mobile OS. So I don’t think their “technical advantage” stand itself actually. In the last slide, the pitcher lay out their business success including fund, cash-flow, revenue strategy and a good number of paid customers, that is interesting to me. But, what’s the ARPU (Average Revenue Per User)? What’s the profit ratio for investors? Will the apps be paid per purchase or be paid during its lifecycle? A last question: What’s my relationship with the existing Angel funds? I’ll not think about invest when so many questions are open there.
You bring up some interesting questions in relation to this venture pitch. After viewing and re-viewing, I tried to make sense of what is being proposed. There are few details to elaborate what the end user will be receiving for money spent. The information is big on buzz words and hype with few details on product, requirements or returns on investment. Some elaboration about the patent pending would at least present a ‘tease’ to catch investors’ interest. – Helen
It was clear to me that I would not invest in this venture. The ideas was very general, giving no specifics as to how the operation works or who is involved and to what degree. As mentioned, they tried to show they had a corner on educational app making when that clearly is not the case, especially when there are so many quality and free educational apps available.
Based on the pitch given I could NOT invest in this venture. There was just not enough information to get a firm understanding of what the product does or how it works. There are many free apps that seem to do the exact same thing offered by Real Simple EDU.
CEO & Team
There was not much information given either in the narrative or in the few slides presented. The pitch was very general in nature, poor in quality and short on information.
Venture Concept
I don’t see anything compelling from this presentation. Teachers can now create their own apps for their classroom, which have all the capabilities talked about in the pitch.
Marketability
I cannot tell if the presented did their homework and if they did it is not presented in the 62 second 4-slide show. I even looked them up on YouTube to watch a longer version of the video but came across nothing more to offer in their 3-minute pitch. Any competitive advantage they may have had is now gone with the ease of app creation that has evolved over the last couple of years.
Venture Plan
I don’t like the plan that is presented as it does not seem to be well researched or presented. After watching the pitch I know nothing about the product or the company behind it. I could not find a website for further information.
No I would not invest in this venture based on what I’ve seen in this 5 minute elevator pitch. I was actually really excited at the venture idea when I read the short description, but after watching the video pitch I was highly disappointed.
CEO & Team: Firstly, there was no face to the venture. The lack of personality and the monotone voice of the presenter completely deterred my interest in the idea. I was bored by the CEO, even though his concept has the potential to be quite exciting.
2. Venture Concept: Though the concept is not original per se, given that there are a number of apps out on the market that do the things which the venture describes it can do. It is definitely a feasible venture, however perhaps it tries to take on too large a market.
Marketability: It is trying to enter the school, college and workplace markets which is perhaps too much. Although the pitch presents that it is constantly learning and responding to customer feedback, it seems slightly unrealistic if they are putting out so many apps. The slide says that the apps are easy to use with bookmarks which looks like it might be some kind of an innovative advantage, however the presenter does not address this point in their presentation.
Venture Plan: There is no clear cut plan outlined in the pitch that would help the investor discover the path to success. I definitely don’t like the person presenting and even though I like the concept, I see no plan outlined that supports it well. I do have a lot of expertise that I could add to this venture to ensure its success but I fear that I would then be the one doing all this work – the presenter/CEO doesn’t sounds like a very dependable person who could be trusted to use my investment well.
All great venture analyses. This really is an example of a very poor pitch, from the presenters tone, the actual content delivered (ie lack of it) to the fact that he read the slides (needs to be encouraged to listen to the vimeo video with New Ventures BC!). It might be a great idea and good company but it would go nowhere with this pitch.
No, I would not invest in this venture. This video really does “On the Go” an injustice based on its poor sound quality, low engagement level and energy, and lack of useful information. The presenter doesn’t provide much useful information other than the generalities of its business plan and the basic outline of the product’s technology. It doesn’t go into the specifics of how it can improve the learning of students or why institutions can benefit from it over other similar products (which it never outlines). There are some flaws in this pitch from beginning to end.
CEO & Team:
As others have mentioned, the faceless presentation really is an obstacle for this venture pitch. It’s a challenge to understand his passion for his own product with the monotone stillness of the presenter’s voice.
Venture Concept:
There is little discussion about the concept. It seems to be just basing its app on the assumption the investor knows what it is, that it helps students, and can be easily installed on mobiles and tables as an app.
Marketability
I don’t see too much marketability with this presentation pitch. Without any presentation or demonstration on how this app works, especially in a learning environment such as a school, I don’t know how useful this product is, or as an investor, whether I want to invest in this technology — regardless of how potentially cutting edge it may be.
Venture Plan
What’s not clear in this pitch is how it will be implemented to the K-12 sector. It talks about “listen, respond, and learn” but beyond that there is little indication it has user feedback or any real statistics regarding its improvement of a students’ grade.
ping 12:26 pm on May 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
No I will not invest in this venture. Psychologically, the pitch was not engaging for its lack of human face. It said nothing about the CEO & team. The venture concept was on a slide titled as On-The-Go Learning for a Lifetime, targeted from school to college and job, ranging from language, math/science, medicine to law. I can’t help wondering: what a really big range they’ve covered! How many employees they need to provide apps in all these areas? Or, maybe it’s not a venture to develop educational apps, but to distribute them. That made it a weak challenger against Apple, Google and other channel giants. The pitcher highlighted their technical advantage — a patent pending technology that enables apps to be published on all in-market smartphones & tablets. What’s his point? The major effort needed for an app is not in publishing, but in developing its software and content. And the effort is just multiplied when trying to cover so many mobile OS. So I don’t think their “technical advantage” stand itself actually. In the last slide, the pitcher lay out their business success including fund, cash-flow, revenue strategy and a good number of paid customers, that is interesting to me. But, what’s the ARPU (Average Revenue Per User)? What’s the profit ratio for investors? Will the apps be paid per purchase or be paid during its lifecycle? A last question: What’s my relationship with the existing Angel funds? I’ll not think about invest when so many questions are open there.
HJDeW 5:34 pm on May 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
You bring up some interesting questions in relation to this venture pitch. After viewing and re-viewing, I tried to make sense of what is being proposed. There are few details to elaborate what the end user will be receiving for money spent. The information is big on buzz words and hype with few details on product, requirements or returns on investment. Some elaboration about the patent pending would at least present a ‘tease’ to catch investors’ interest. – Helen
Dennis Pratt 7:55 pm on May 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It was clear to me that I would not invest in this venture. The ideas was very general, giving no specifics as to how the operation works or who is involved and to what degree. As mentioned, they tried to show they had a corner on educational app making when that clearly is not the case, especially when there are so many quality and free educational apps available.
Dennis
Dennis Pratt 8:07 pm on May 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
s Real Simple EDU Too Simple?
Based on the pitch given I could NOT invest in this venture. There was just not enough information to get a firm understanding of what the product does or how it works. There are many free apps that seem to do the exact same thing offered by Real Simple EDU.
CEO & Team
There was not much information given either in the narrative or in the few slides presented. The pitch was very general in nature, poor in quality and short on information.
Venture Concept
I don’t see anything compelling from this presentation. Teachers can now create their own apps for their classroom, which have all the capabilities talked about in the pitch.
Marketability
I cannot tell if the presented did their homework and if they did it is not presented in the 62 second 4-slide show. I even looked them up on YouTube to watch a longer version of the video but came across nothing more to offer in their 3-minute pitch. Any competitive advantage they may have had is now gone with the ease of app creation that has evolved over the last couple of years.
Venture Plan
I don’t like the plan that is presented as it does not seem to be well researched or presented. After watching the pitch I know nothing about the product or the company behind it. I could not find a website for further information.
Dennis
sheza 3:49 pm on May 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
No I would not invest in this venture based on what I’ve seen in this 5 minute elevator pitch. I was actually really excited at the venture idea when I read the short description, but after watching the video pitch I was highly disappointed.
CEO & Team: Firstly, there was no face to the venture. The lack of personality and the monotone voice of the presenter completely deterred my interest in the idea. I was bored by the CEO, even though his concept has the potential to be quite exciting.
2. Venture Concept: Though the concept is not original per se, given that there are a number of apps out on the market that do the things which the venture describes it can do. It is definitely a feasible venture, however perhaps it tries to take on too large a market.
Marketability: It is trying to enter the school, college and workplace markets which is perhaps too much. Although the pitch presents that it is constantly learning and responding to customer feedback, it seems slightly unrealistic if they are putting out so many apps. The slide says that the apps are easy to use with bookmarks which looks like it might be some kind of an innovative advantage, however the presenter does not address this point in their presentation.
Venture Plan: There is no clear cut plan outlined in the pitch that would help the investor discover the path to success. I definitely don’t like the person presenting and even though I like the concept, I see no plan outlined that supports it well. I do have a lot of expertise that I could add to this venture to ensure its success but I fear that I would then be the one doing all this work – the presenter/CEO doesn’t sounds like a very dependable person who could be trusted to use my investment well.
Denise 5:57 am on May 27, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
HI,
All great venture analyses. This really is an example of a very poor pitch, from the presenters tone, the actual content delivered (ie lack of it) to the fact that he read the slides (needs to be encouraged to listen to the vimeo video with New Ventures BC!). It might be a great idea and good company but it would go nowhere with this pitch.
Denise
Allan 2:25 pm on June 28, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
No, I would not invest in this venture. This video really does “On the Go” an injustice based on its poor sound quality, low engagement level and energy, and lack of useful information. The presenter doesn’t provide much useful information other than the generalities of its business plan and the basic outline of the product’s technology. It doesn’t go into the specifics of how it can improve the learning of students or why institutions can benefit from it over other similar products (which it never outlines). There are some flaws in this pitch from beginning to end.
CEO & Team:
As others have mentioned, the faceless presentation really is an obstacle for this venture pitch. It’s a challenge to understand his passion for his own product with the monotone stillness of the presenter’s voice.
Venture Concept:
There is little discussion about the concept. It seems to be just basing its app on the assumption the investor knows what it is, that it helps students, and can be easily installed on mobiles and tables as an app.
Marketability
I don’t see too much marketability with this presentation pitch. Without any presentation or demonstration on how this app works, especially in a learning environment such as a school, I don’t know how useful this product is, or as an investor, whether I want to invest in this technology — regardless of how potentially cutting edge it may be.
Venture Plan
What’s not clear in this pitch is how it will be implemented to the K-12 sector. It talks about “listen, respond, and learn” but beyond that there is little indication it has user feedback or any real statistics regarding its improvement of a students’ grade.
Allan