Mingle
A venture in global language learning;
Continue reading Mingle Posted in: UncategorizedPage 16 RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
David Vogt
-
David Vogt
Real Simple Edu
A venture about apps for education:
Continue reading Real Simple Edu Posted in: Uncategorized-
ping
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-
karonw 7:54 pm on May 22, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
No, I will not invest in this venture. The selling point of Myngle is that it will allow students to take lessons anywhere and anytime so it is like a multi-language online school. However, the elevator pitch lacks clarification it mentions that Myngle can be used globally but it does not provide a realistic market size or target audience in the pitch itself. It states that it is more competitive compared to other ventures because it brings the traditional language to an online platform yet it lacks clarification as to how it outbeats the other language learning ventures that’s out there as many of them can be accessed globally and can teach traditional language online as well. In my perspective the innovative advantages presented in the pitch were too general and do not really have a winning point.
The pitch was a very brief summary about the product including personal connections; I felt that minimal information was really provided.
The presenter lacked some excitement and enthusiasm which did not successfully capture my interest nor attention.
The elevator pitch was done by the founder of Myngle which I believe did have some credibility.
Reference:
Myngle elevator pitch – 2008 accenture innovation awards( myngle 1.0 ) (2008). [Video podcast]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpCIcy4W0ec&feature=player_embedded
ping 11:14 am on May 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
No, I will not invest in this venture. The pitch was performed by the founder of Mingle, who introduced herself as an qualified language education businesswoman, but she mentioned nothing about her team, neither instructors to design and deliver the online language lessons, nor managers help her to run the venture. As we know those people are crucial for the success of an educational venture. Her venture concept was unclear, with little information about the online platform and no information about courses. I’ve got no idea of how this venture is different and competitive compared to existing online language schools. Their marketability is not credible too with unclear target customers, unstated market size, no share or revenue estimation. She did point out the pain point that people need to learn languages for communication, but there was not persuasive solution to solve the pain. There was not venture plan, no roadmap to show where the venture would go, and no word about the Ask and Return of an investor. In a word, I will not put my money in a venture only run on a dream.
Yes Karon, I also think the presenter was not enthusiastic enough. It seems she’s not very optimistic or confident about the venture’s prospects herself.
janetb 3:18 pm on May 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi,
I agreed with both your and Karon’s critique – a personal approach to a pitch but not enough hard information. I had said that the presenter was “enthusiastic and sincere” but after reading your critiques, I think I agree with you. I do think she seemed sincere and somewhat enthusiastic about making a difference in the world, but not particularly enthusiastic about the venture.
karonw 9:17 pm on May 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi Ping,
I felt that the presenter tried to use the personal connection to grab the audience’s attention but really too little information was provided. I find that this venture pitch to be relatively short as well, 8-10 mins would be the ideal timeframe perhaps the pitch should have been a couple mins longer and cover the additional information that it is missing.
Karon
janetb 3:12 pm on May 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
NO, I would not invest in this venture. Overall, I felt that this pitch lacked information and left me wondering exactly what Mingle is, but without the hook or inspiration to make me want to find out.
I gathered that Mingle is an online language program that came about because the creator wanted to “make a difference…loved languages…and knew enough about eCommerce”. While wanting to make a difference in the world is certainly laudable, there was nothing in that opening statement that made me feel like the creator had the knowledge or background to make this venture work. I would have preferred more concrete information about the presenter’s skill with languages and her training or background in eCommerce. The phrase “knew enough about eCommerce” left me skeptical and uncomfortable from the start of the pitch. Does that mean she knows just enough? Or knows enough to get by, but is not really proficient?
The presenter did an adequate job of explaining why learning a different language is a valuable goal. She stated that languages help us understand other cultures and that learning another language might help people find employment in some countries where employment opportunities are limited. However, she failed to indicate any of the reasons that Mingle might be better than existing online language programs, or how it might fill a niche that the others do not. She did indicate that the program could bring language education to the general public, but did not explain how that public would be reached.
The presenter seemed very enthusiastic and sincere, but the pitch left me with the impression that there was little concrete knowledge to back up that enthusiasm. I support the idea of someone wanting to make a difference in the world, but it is not enough for me to stake money on the venture.
karonw 9:19 pm on May 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi Janet,
Great critique! I felt the same, it seems like this venture is only providing us the basic information about Mingle but not really in depth as to why it is more competitive compared to the rest of the other online software out there.
Karon
ping 10:47 am on May 25, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi Janet and Karon,
I totally agree with you that the pitch provides no in-depth information, and the presenter is trying to draw in audiences by her enthusiasm but not for the venture. I find the EVA criteria are very helpful for us to see through the coverage of a pitch and find its true value for investment.
Ping
maybacon 7:32 pm on May 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
No, I would not invest in this venture. While Ms. Tognetti appears congenial and professional as a presenter, she did not explain what the product was in enough detail for me to know what I might be investing in. She describes Mingle as something that would allows students to take lessons anywhere or at any time – but how? Is Mingle an on-line service? A global language program? I did not know. In terms of marketability, the product sounds somewhat similar to asynchronous distance education, but without a clearer understanding of what the product is, it is not possible to assess its marketability. Finally, the pitch did not really delineate the direction of the venture, making it hard for me to calculate the benefits and risks involved.
Kenton Hemsing 10:02 pm on May 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree completely with you on these points. She doesn’t provide much, if any, information about what the service is they provide and how they plan to achieve their goals. Or even, what is their goals.
Kenton Hemsing 10:00 pm on May 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Based on the elevator pitch supplied, I would not invest in Myngle. But not based my personal research of the company, I am more intrigued and interested and would possibly invest. The elevator pitch does little to provide the necessary information about the company and how I, as an investor in the company, would be able to make money, or even how the business works.
Language learning is a globally wide education market, but the CEO, even though passionate, failed to make me confident in investing in the company.
• Pain Point: Language learning can be difficult on one’s own, which is where Myngle helps out, even if you are wanting to learn a language that there are no courses for in your own area, you can use Myngle to learn.
• Solution: The organization allows learners to connect with real native speaking teachers from around the world in an effort to learn the language.
• Differentiation: Many people would be interested in using a language learning system that connected them with real people to help them learn a language, a personal tutor is the best way to gain knowledge of a language.
• There is no mention of how an investor would be able to make money on their investment in the company,
1. CEO & Team:
• CEO Credibility: The CEO is passionate, but provides little information about how the company was started and what her role will be onward, and why this venture is important to her.
2. Venture Concept:
• Venture Concept: The concept is good, but the presentation of the CEO lacks information and further information of what the company doe and how it plans to accomplish its goals.
3. Marketability:
• Opportunity Space: Language learning has a very large number of possible customers, however, with the presentation of the CEO this information is lacking about the company.
• Competitive Edge: The service is an excellent one, but this was not conveyed in the initial elevator pitch. The product provides individual tutors and lessons to learners with real people and native speakers, however, this information was not mentioned in the pitch.
4. Venture Plan:
• Market Readiness: Again, the product is good but the pitch is not. There is no mention as to how this product will be met in the marketplace or how it has already been doing in the market.
• Exit Strategy: There really is no mention of the future goals of the company and any idea of how the company will look in 2, 5, or even 10 years.
• Investor Affinity: For me, this would be a possible investment but the pitch would not get the organization through the door to discuss further. This is a good example of how a product could be excellent, but the pitch fails get the proper attention from investors.