A venture about apps for education:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/RybPGbI_Jyk[/youtube]13 thoughts on “Real Simple Edu”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A venture about apps for education:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/RybPGbI_Jyk[/youtube]You must be logged in to post a comment.
NO, I would not invest in this venture. This is nothing unique, however it does seem tomeet a need for student’s need to learn online. We are not given a real sense of what it is all about, if anything I’m a little confused. And from what I do understand, this is nothing new. The presenter seems bored and indifferent on the product. Its impressive that they already have 150.000+ paying customers, but I would have to look deeper into their financials to see how much income that is actually producing.
I did not hear the value proposition of the company or the value proposition of any of the products
What is the value that the 3 customer segments are buying?
Is there repeat business from any of these customer segments?
Is “150,000 customers” a statistic of 150,000 purchasers or 150,000 end users?
What is the cost-income ratio?
The tone of the narration of the presentation was good, very clear and concise.
I didn’t get a sense of “the ask” for this pitch. Sounds like they have platform, software, content and customers.
Given the pitch, I’m guessing the ask was for marketing support to pump up the vibe and polish the presentation, but I didn’t actually hear what was needed.
Like @agfarooq and @jirons, I would like to have heard about the numbers. 150,000 customers = ???
No, I would not invest in this venture, either.
Although the channels that it provides for its apps are extensive reaching out to all the major carrier providers, I feel like this is a venture that no longer needs much help. For me, it seems like the company is essentially at a mature stage of the company life cycle where most of its company infrastructures are already set up. Thus, there will probably be few opportunities for a good investor return. A smart investor would find other opportunities where the company is at more of a start-up stage.
Assuming that the pitch is about getting more funds to expand or promote their apparently already successful product, I would need to see some sample of their product in action. One would think that if they have the expertise to make educational apps engaging, they would apply the same expertise to make their pitch. I certainly would not invest in this venture based on their pitch, and would not be tempted to take a second look: If you claim engaging, you have to be engaging.
No I would not invest with Real Simple Edu. I am intrigued to have more information about their current customer base, and how they plan to expand it. I am impressed with the fact that their apps are compatible with various forms of technology as well. Although they say that their company is currently profitable, I’d like to see what that profitability really is, and what they think they can increase that to.
Despite these positives, there are several things lacking in this elevator pitch. The first thing that stood out to me was the lack of enthusiasm over the product. If the entrepreneur cannot get excited about it, how can we expect anyone else to? I also missed the part where he explained what he wanted from us by joining with him. He did not mention if he was looking for more financing, or more of a management focus to increase marketing, or whatever his needs may be. I also think that perhaps this market is already too saturated, and he has failed to impress on me what sets his product apart from others, which makes it a big no for me.
I would not invest in this venture. There was no enthusiasm in the presentation and this detracts from the pitch. If the presenter is not enthusiastic about the product how could investors be interested?
No, I would not invest in this venture. The pitch is dispassionate and unenthusiastic.
1. CEO & Team: The presenter does not exude the capability to achieve success against all obstacles because there is no information addressing overcoming potential/possible challenges or obstacles. The presenter does not convey confidence to achieve success against all obstacles because he has only a general understanding of this venture. There is no convincing or persuasive substance. The presenter does not exhibit the experience to achieve success against all obstacles because the technology is patent-pending.
2. Venture Concept: This venture is not original because there are companies like Apple’s App Store already in the marketplace This venture is not feasible because the already existing companies like Apple and Microsoft have cornered the App market. The story sounds credible, but it is not compelling because there is nothing innovative.
3. Marketability: The market size for Apps is huge, but the market share for this venture is too small at only 150,000 paid customers. Despite the notion that this venture has three revenue streams, in the long term, this will not be enough revenue to grow a company capable of competing against the already existing companies. This venture does not have any innovative advantages because educational apps are not new and this venture has only patent-pending technology.
4. Venture Plan: Based on its funding sources, the path to success is slight. There are not enough revenue sources for ongoing research and development. The presenter makes it sound like this venture is already successful, but he does not give a dollar amount in terms of monies in and monies out. The presenter does not provide any information regarding long-term goals or growth projections. This venture is risky because there is not enough money, innovation, and market share. The CEO is not convincing in terms of investing in this venture. The plan does not address emerging markets like China, India, and certain countries in Latin America or include overall market research, both of which should be explored, in order to bring about possible greater success rather than simply injecting more money.
No, I would not invest in this venture.
The presentation is dull and uninspired, without a human face it is un-engaging. I didn’t like the boring voice and simple slides, therefore I didn’t like the pitch.
But a critical analysis
1. CEO and Team
The CEO is knowledgeable and seems capable. The speaker exhibits experience in the field, having Apps already in the market. I question the drive and passion to overcome obstacles that new venture bring with them. The tone of voice, may be an indication of a cool, wise thinker. On the other the tone of voice heard be indicate a slow, straight-forward, uncreative thinker. I don’t have much confidence in this CEO.
2. Venture Concept
This venture concept is not original. The market is flooded with Apps. Their venture is feasible, they have proven success in a small scale. It is a feasible venture.
3. Marketablility
The App market is quickly growing and the big names; Apple and Google are this small venturer’s competition. That is not to say that they small venturer can’t go against the big player’s, but if they do they need to have an edge, something different or better. They have failed to indicate what makes their Apps superior to the competition’s.
4. Venture Plan
Their three-pronged plan has some stability, but not enough to out-weigh the negative in this venture. There is little in the presentation to indicate future plans or growth potential.
Many questions are left unanswered in this pitch for it to be a Venture I would consider.
As an elementary teacher and EVA, I would like to know if the apps are for young students in Grades 1-3.
I am also curious to know if the 150,000 paying customers is one time or on a continuous basis. The 150,000 paying customers could be at that time only. Also, there is no mention of operating costs versus profits.
This pitch reminds me of several past pitches in the TV show, The Big Decision, where companies need money. Any pitch should sound passionate and enthusiastic if money if needed, whether it is a beginning company or a mature company. After all, these presenters are asking for other people’s hard-earned money.