4 thoughts on “MindTraction”

  1. diane says:

    I would support David and Mind Traction in this venture. While the details of the actual product were sparse (as was the case for all the pitches I viewed) I felt David had credibility and authenticity on his side. He addressed the pain point of anxious students benefiting from having a ‘mentor in their pocket’ via an app on their cell phone. I am picturing an app that makes use of some connected learning ideas. While not specifically stated, I am assuming that Mind Traction would be marketed not to the students directly, but instead to the higher education institutes who would make it available to students for free. The CEO, David, is an Education Technology student and a former corporate lawyer. While I don’t really see how corporate law would prepare one for selling apps to universities, he does have a calm, business-like persona who would come across as competent in a sales meeting. The Ask is $100,000 for product development and he projects $1 million in sales by year 5. It does not appear that there have been sales to date. Differentiation, marketing plans, and competition were left out of this 59 second pitch, but he did invite the viewers to contact him for the slide deck, which might have provided more details. Diane

  2. David who? A full name is needed when representing a commercial venture to investors.

    The content of this pitch was heavily focused on the end user benefit (relief to anxious students). It made for a compelling argument, and was well delivered by David. He was passionate.
    The venture aims to develop a product that provides relief through provision of a portable mentor.
    However, the product is not purchased by students directly – the buyer market is institutions. Whether institutions consider anxious students problemic enough to purchase apps is a matter for clarification (market research). Until there is that clarification, the target product sales of $1 million by year 5 quoted remains unsubstantiated.
    There would likely be some development costs to be examined closely as mentoring students of different ages, backgrounds and academic abilities will require a product that is more than a ‘one size fits all’. So I would ask for a cost/profit ratio or something similar, based on research into the institutional market.
    There is an attempt to provide investors with a call to action at the end – but it missed out contact details. Overall, a passionate and well delivered pitch. Just needs a bit of focus on the institutions themselves.

  3. jldr says:

    I am not sure whether or not I would invest in this venture. Do people actually make investment decisions based on such a brief presentation?
    I don’t think I would invest in anything based on an elevator pitch – there is just not enough time to get enough relevant information to make that decision. In this particular example I cannot help be swayed by the smooth salesmanship. He is calm and confident and seems to possess relevant experience and expertise but I am not sure this product offers anything unique – most of these functions seem to be already available in other forms. What makes his product unique? Better? I am not sure.

    These are the negatives (-) and positives (+) of this pitch.

    1. CEO & Team:

    • CEO Credibility:
    (+) this person projects the capability, confidence, and experience for a successful venture
    – graduate student in Educational Technology
    – former corporate lawyer

    • Management Team:
    (-) no management team is mentioned

    2. Venture Concept:

    (-) originality of concept cannot be determined
    (+) product seems feasible
    (+) number of potential users has been determined
    – 20 million university students
    (?) the story is somewhat credible and compelling

    (+) Pain Point: anxious students
    (+) Solution: the MindTraction app to help organize/mentor students to increase academic
    success
    (-) Differentiation: there is no compelling reason why reason for students to use this new
    product as opposed to other apps with similar functions

    3. Marketability:

    (+) Opportunity Space: product is targeted to universities to be used by students
    (-) Competitive Edge: any innovative advantages of this product were not stated
    Marketing:
    (-) no mention of how buyers will be reached
    (+) App to be provide to users by the university (no mention of a potential charge for this service)
    (-) Competition: competitors are not mentioned

    4. Venture Plan:

    (+) Market Readiness: propose a 5 year timeline for return on investment
    (+) Exit Strategy: success defined as $1 million in sales in year 5

    • Investor Affinity: I am not thrilled with the plan but I would be willing to hear more about it

    (+) The Ask: asks for a specific amount of money for a specific purpose
    – $100,000 for product development
    (+) The Return: projects bulk sales to universities to reach $1 million within 5 years

Leave a Reply