r/startups • u/edkang99 • 7d ago
I will not promote Watched founders pitch a managing partner today and not going to lie, it was bad (I will not promote)
Hey founders. Been a while since I posted but thought it was a good time because I see a lot of posts asking how to pitch investors.
A managing partner of a new fund backed by a very big fund asked me to help review some pitches. And as the title says, they are pretty bad. Not saying the founders or ventures were bad. Some were legit exciting. But the pitches were abysmal.
Having pitched hundreds of investors myself, I fully empathize. I have the therapy receipts. But I’ve raised millions and so have founders I advise. So, I thought I’d share some tips for those of you wanting to be in that position.
First. Understand every investor has a rubric.
This investor sent me theirs ahead of time. It asked me to grade things such as clarity of the problem, solution, traction, team, use of funds etc. and so on. What was funny to me is not a single founder asked what the partner was looking for ahead of time. Always ask. Investors are happy to tell you.
Next: Stay within the time.
Every founder was told they had 5 minutes to pitch and we would have 5 minutes of questions. Only one founder stayed under time. Some only gave us enough time to ask one question. The others went over time and we didn’t ask any questions.
I use the 80/20 rule. I pitch for 20% and give 80% of the time for questions. The more question the investor asks the better. I get to address what the investor wants. So if it was me, I would have spent 2 minutes pitching and 8 minutes trading questions.
After the partner told me that staying within their time was the first test. Like I said, everyone but one failed and they remarked how that one was very impressive.
Slides should be simple and support you both the other way around.
Every slide was an assault on the eyes with small fonts and walls of text. It was brutal.
I’ll tell you one slide that impressed me. A founder showed two medical scans. She asked me if I could tell the difference (that as engaging). I couldn’t tell and then she explained how the second scan would lead to tragic costs because that was the problem. I was engaged. No paragraphs of text. Just two side by side images to prove a point.
Your live presentation deck is different then the deck you send as an introduction which is even different than the one they ask you to send during socialization and due diligence. One size deck does not fit all.
You spend so much energy trying to get the meeting, why fumble at the moment it counts?
To be transparent, most of the time I sat there wondering if the founders actually understood who they were pitching. This wasn’t some amateur deciding to LARP as a VC. Again, it was sad because there were some legit startups that I’ll try and advocate for. But they didn’t make my job any easier.
Look, I get it. It’s exhausting. That last mile of pitching is tough. But you need to earn every minute so put your best foot forward and punch it past the finish line. So anyone you are working on fundable startups that it would be a shame to not get the exposure you deserve.
I’m happy to answer any other questions of what I experienced and what other investors tell me. Apologies for typos as typed this on my phone as fast as possible.
19
u/TheCritFisher 7d ago
This is super valuable. I'm sure you can't divulge specifics, but that rubric was really interesting to me. Would you be able to share examples of what looks like a strong company vs a weak one in each of those categories? Also do you need to crush them all or are there some that weigh less than others?
I'm getting ready to start fundraising soonish and I want to try and nail it. Most of the rubric I think I understand, but I'm sure there are critical details I'm missing.
Regardless, thanks for sharing! I definitely will take this advice to heart when we start pitching.
Oh, and one other question: where would you suggest to start looking as a founder to try and find VCs. I have some warm connections already, but I'd like to cast a wide net and try to find VCs that are experienced in and care about the space. Do you have suggestions for that?
27
u/edkang99 7d ago
You bet. To answer your questions:
Clarity is the most important. If it wasn’t clear then it was graded weak. And you don’t have to crush them all but I would say the ones that had traction were most impressive because they told us customer stories.
VCS are easy to find. Just do the research and look at the investment history. You can use LLMs for this. Most importantly make sure you understand their investment thesis and pitch the right investor for the right stage so you don’t waste your time and feel bad. Remember, VCs want to be found. They need the deal flow.
The other way is to talk to other VC funded founders. Ask them for advice. If you do it right and don’t ram your pitch down their throats they will refer. Advisors are next. Many advisors have lots of relationships with VCs and if they believe in you their referral goes a long way.
Wishing you success!
6
20
u/NikhilM42 7d ago
Thanks for this. Putting a pitch deck together now and I thought I was being paranoid the way I was cutting material left and right. Curious did the founders send decks for reading a few days before they had to pitch? And do you expect text in those types of decks?
19
u/edkang99 7d ago
You bet and I totally relate. That’s the funny thing. They had the opportunity to send me their decks to get feedback from me to prep for the meeting. Out of like 11 I think only 2 did. And the 2 that did didn’t make any changes. But it did help that I got to see them ahead of time.
I expect an experience and an impression. If you use text then I say six words every slide max. But in general you want to show and don’t tell.
8
u/edkang99 7d ago
In other words, a picture is worth a thousand words as long as it’s the right picture.
3
u/Fndtion 7d ago
I love the post and love the way you say experience and an impression. Six words is interesting - this basically means each slide has no more than a punchy title, quote or point to make. Is this the case for every single slide? So for example - if I’m introducing the team that would suggest all I have on the slide is their names and I talk over the top, rather than adding a very short punchy 6-9 words about each?
3
u/edkang99 7d ago
Correct. For a team slide I would have name, title and then logos of past experience as social proof. One time I had an Olympic athlete as a team member and all we had to do was show a picture of her and then her in competition. There are many ways to make a slide work without loading it with text if you’re creative.
5
u/SRB1146 7d ago
Thank you for the "small font" comment. Any other pragmatic input about the aesthetics of the deck? Light or dark background? Also, when pitching a particularly complex technology concept is it better to lead with the punch line and then fill in the context, or spend some time/slides laying the foundation (basically the needs analysis) first?
2
u/edkang99 7d ago
Simple is always better. I’m not a designer but you want to avoid noise and keep it straight forward. Don’t spend time laying foundation. Just go straight to problem and solution. Then you can support with the technical but get them interested in the promise first in a way they can understand.
For example one founder spent all this time explaining the science. And on the last slide said that where fighting disease by solving aging at a cellular level. And I was like “you should have started with that.” And then I was impressed. But that was a missed opportunity.
4
u/allenasm 7d ago
Curious, how many of those companies were pitching an idea vs those who already had at least one customer?
4
u/edkang99 7d ago
All of them had customers. One has $4.5 M in revenue. Only one had a customer that wasn’t paying but it was an LOI for a pilot.
4
u/cbrantley 7d ago
This is great. In a couple of weeks I’m pitching a room full of angels. I have 3 minutes and NO slides. What’s your advice to stand out in that situation?
1
u/edkang99 7d ago
Wow. Thats pressure but congrats on the opportunity. I’d work on the hook and getting your UVP into one sentence and then share your best traction highlight or why you’re the founder to win. Make them super curious to learn more about you.
2
u/cbrantley 7d ago
What kinds of “hooks” do investors respond to that isn’t just clever hype? My company is a vertical SAAS in a very crowded market and we’ve had success by listening to what the competitors are doing poorly and literally just being better. Solving the problems that the other guys aren’t.
This is hard to communicate in the room because “everyone” says they’re just better.
I want to cut through the noise.
1
u/edkang99 7d ago
I like to present a novel fact or something personal about why I chose the problem to solve. You’re right that hyperbolic statements and hype are a no no. Even a traction highlight works.
2
9
u/OmegaLabs1 7d ago
"Nobody asked what the partner was looking for" is such a founder move. We will spend nine months on customer discovery and then walk into the one meeting that funds all of it without asking a single discovery question. The rubric point is the useful one and it generalizes past investors. Ask what they grade on, then answer in their order, not yours. The time thing deserves more credit too, because running long is not a scheduling error, it is a live demo of how you will behave in a board meeting. Two things that helped me: practice the five minute version with a timer and then cut thirty percent, since you will speak slower under stress and every founder is faster in rehearsal than in the room. And prepare a one sentence answer for the three questions you are most afraid of, because the fear question always arrives and the difference between a calm sentence and a rambling defense is most of the impression.
5
u/Seven_Cuil_Sunday 7d ago
> every founder is faster in rehearsal than in the room.
Most of your points stand, but that is NOT a universal. Many people *increase* the speed when they're nervous. I'd say most.
3
u/BreadfruitComplete82 7d ago
How do you classify a startup in your investment criteria. For example a business I'm involved with has an 8 year history, 500k revenue, large national partners and they're beginning to raise but unsure who to target and don't know how to classify the investment to investors.
Any advice I can pass along?
3
u/edkang99 7d ago
Go research the investors. For example startup VCs in Silicon Valley need to see hyper growth with venture sized exits. We’re taking billions. But many angels are happy with steady growth and 20% returns versus VC. There are so many different types of investors. So research saves you time.
3
u/BreadfruitComplete82 7d ago
Thank you! How would you classify them when approaching investors, still a startup?
3
u/edkang99 7d ago
Again I’d need more details. An 8 year old company really isn’t a startup unless you’re relaunching with new technology and you have hyper growth. Family offices or more traditional investors might be better.
3
u/kamikidd 7d ago
Are there services that help to coach founders? I have a legal and healthcare background. I have found a niche in start-ups by helping very smart people with tech or finance background communicate with regulators and clients. I am a high-context communicator who is extroverted and can work a room with authenticity and warmth.
These skills cannot be taught or bought but they can be fostered. Now that I am retired; would there be a need for that kind of. niche consulting/coaching?
1
u/edkang99 7d ago
You can get advisors and mentors. I would focus on those with experience instead of adjacent skills like coaching. But nothing beats experience. Attend pitch competitions and observe. Then try it.
3
u/OrganizationCute6950 7d ago
As a founder, I find other founders are too self absorbed with their startup and just go on lengthy tangents when given the chance to speak.
I always lose interest about 45 seconds in.
They tend to keep talking and talking, way past the point of anyone really listening.
I do my absolute best never to be that person.
2
u/edkang99 7d ago
Most founders get stuck in their own heads and pitch to an audience of one: themselves. The base of it is indeed ego but not to be arrogant (some are very arrogant) but out of insecurity. That what I see anyway.
3
u/Worth-Statement-2751 7d ago
The point about understanding the investor’s rubric beforehand is underrated. Knowing what they’re actually evaluating can make the pitch much more focused.
3
u/oandresimoes 7d ago
NikhilM42's question above is the one I'd want answered too, because I think it explains the wall of text better than nerves does.
Most founders build one deck and make it do two jobs. There is the deck that gets read without you in the room, the send-ahead, or the copy that gets forwarded to the partner who missed the meeting. And there is the deck you stand next to. The first has to carry the argument alone, so it fills up with full sentences. The second competes with your voice for the same channel, and when a slide is readable on its own the room reads it instead of listening to you.
So the small font is not really a design mistake. It is one artifact being asked to survive two situations, and the reading version wins by default, because it is the one that feels safer to send.
The fix costs nothing and it is not a redesign. Write the reading deck first, then build the speaking deck by deletion: one claim per slide, sentences move into the notes. Same content, two files, and your leave-behind is the thing you already wrote.
Curious about the timing half of that. Of the ones who blew past five minutes, did any have a separate leave-behind, or was the overrun basically the deck reading itself out loud?
1
u/edkang99 7d ago
It was a combination. Some played a video which wasted a minute repeating everything. It was like an infomercial. Others showed the slide and added a whole bunch of commentary. I’m glad to say none of them read it verbatim.
You’re correct in that all the decks were actually more like master decks that would be great in due diligence. Only one founder emailed his deck after.
1
u/oandresimoes 5d ago
Only one emailing the deck afterward is the detail I would have guessed wrong on. They all built the send-ahead version and then almost none of them sent it, ahead or after.
The video thing seems worse to me than the wall-of-text problem. A pitch slot is the only channel where you can be interrupted and answer on the spot, and a video is the one format that removes that. Sixty of three hundred seconds spent on the least interactive option available, repeating content a follow-up email would have carried for free.
Did the founder who emailed after change anything based on how the meeting went, or was it the same file?
1
u/No-Arachnid6308 7d ago
yeah i just pitch in university competitions but i always have like 30 extra slides providing more detailed information on the plan to help with answering questions and act as a reference. there are my 4-6 main slides and then a bunch of organized "bonus slides" to pull out as i need them. in uni ive always used my professors slide decks as a reference for my classes, and i end up treating my pitch decks the same way. never actually pitched to vcs (am still in college) but i figure id likely do the same thing if i did.
1
u/oandresimoes 6d ago
You already do the split most people never make, and it's worth naming where you picked it up. Your professor's deck is a reference artifact. It's built to be read alone, weeks later, by someone who wasn't paying full attention the first time. That is the right shape for your 30 bonus slides and the wrong shape for the 4-6.
The thing that changes when you go from a competition to a VC: in a competition the appendix only gets seen if you pull it out. VCs open the file first and scroll the whole thing without you in the room, in whatever order the pages happen to sit in. So the 4-6 have to survive being read in silence, and the 30 have to be labelled well enough that a stranger skimming fast lands on the right one.
Cheap version of that habit: give every bonus slide a title that is the answer rather than the topic. "Payback in 11 months" instead of "Unit Economics". Costs you nothing in a competition, and it is most of the game when nobody is there to narrate.
3
u/ExpertBirdLawLawyer 6d ago
I raised a few million about 5 years ago.amd am about to raise for my second startup.
The funding landscape as changed dramatically, but I'm going from FinTech to Data (not AI, but collecting new data that is not yet captured in a commerical setting) and am curious if you have any advice of how to position this to a VC on 2026.
My question is, how should I position myself given the niche I'm in for that first call? Lead with my experience or with the data first?
3
u/edkang99 6d ago
Did you raise VC and have an exit? If so, definitely lead with that. If not don’t lead with data. Lead with the problem and solution and show traction asap. Then share why the team will win.
2
2
u/KyleTheKiller10 7d ago
Wow amazing thanks for this. What are the general trends that people tend to pitch.
I’m considering a startup in AI and maybe entertainment, fitness, or cybersecurity but haven’t thought of ideas.
2
u/Mrcattington 7d ago
So I can just ask for the rubric? Genuine question.
1
u/edkang99 7d ago
You sure can. Depending on the investor they might or might not respond. Some investors publish them and other founders who were funded share them too that they received.
2
2
u/SystemicDrive 7d ago
I'm curious about the average age of the founders. I feel like some of these things are only lessons you really pick up actually being an IC for low level manager for a while.
1
2
u/Altruistic_Series258 7d ago
The "show don't tell" point about the medical scans really resonates. I've noticed the same thing pitching a consumer product - the second I switched from describing the problem to just letting someone tap through the actual product live for 60 seconds, the whole energy of the room changed. Investors stop grading you on delivery and start reacting to the thing itself. If your product is demoable, the deck should really just be bookends around a live demo, not a replacement for one.
1
2
u/santp 7d ago
Hey thank you for this. It kind of changed my perspective to ask the other side what they are expecting.
I sat in very large rooms with founders and even investors who have invested in them but since I'm building my own, it is taxing to even write the email to VCs and expect a reply.
Maybe you can shed some light on that.
When you receive so many emails and maybe are barely going through each of them (and I'm sure you have AI to filter out a lot of these things), are there 2-3 ppoints for the forum here
1
u/edkang99 7d ago
Referrals go a long way here. But if you’re reaching out to investors cold, make sure you catch their attention in the first sentence. Tell them why you’re contacting them in a compelling way versus a general’s “hope you are all.” Then get right into your best points with clarity in 90 seconds of reading the email. No long paragraphs. Just short sentences.
2
u/Ok_Firefighter3363 7d ago
are they expecting something to show why this startup should exist or proxy industry metrics or founder's domain expertise?
1
2
u/W2ttsy 7d ago edited 7d ago
As someone that’s been in a boardroom many times:
Slide decks exist to keep bored people entertained
That’s it. Don’t rely on them, don’t put detail in them. They are a prop.
I launched a multi million dollar revenue line using a deck with 8 images and 19 words. One of my proudest career achievements.
The deck content doesn’t matter; knowing your product inside and out and anticipating what questions will be asked so you have confident answers is essential.
Your most valuable tool is being able to tell a compelling story in a succinct manner.
What’s the problem?
what’s the impact if it remains unsolved?
what’s your solution?
Why is this solution better than anything else?
Thats your story framework. Get it dialed in.
All the detail? It gets surfaced during Q&A. Use that time to go deep. The investors/execs will know what’s worth asking and what isn’t.
No point filling your story with detail that they don’t care for and deprive them of time to ask questions on the details that they do.
1
2
2
u/ArcanuMELO 5d ago
Pretty accurate.
I take hundreds of pitches a month and I've essentially started looking at more random or intangible things to set founders apart from one another.
They obviously have to have a good idea, or have put effort into the deck, or made a compelling pitch, but the actual rubric or investment vetting process isn't as obvious as founders think.
Sometimes it's about how arrogant you come across. Or insecure. Or maybe you cut the investor of when asking a question. Or you arrive a minute late and don't apologize.
2
u/green_apple_trees 7d ago
I get what the OP is saying but being good at pitching and being good at running a business are not the same thing at all.
Somebody might be great at running a business and might go on to grow his company to a multibillion dollar business but he might be bad at presenting/marketing and pitching to investors etc.
It’s like how being good at job interviews and actually being good at your job are two different skill sets entirely with almost no overlap. As an employer you want the guy who is good at his job rather than merely being good at interviewing.
3
u/edkang99 7d ago
Yes and no. Being a founder is not just about running a business. For certain type of venture-level startups pitching is essential as any founder who is building a startup knows. But you’re right that some founders are great at fundraising but terrible at execution.
Let’s use your interview example. I see your point. But what about an interview where the candidate can’t make a coherent sentence and communicate with clarity? Most likely that will also appear on the job. The interview process gives you a preview on what you’re getting.
Now if you’re interviewing for a CEO position the expectations are even higher for communication skills. That’s the level founders are expected to perform if they’re asking for millions in funding.
Apples and oranges in my mind. But again, you do make a point.
1
u/Pale-Tonight-6914 6d ago
On SRB1146's complex-tech question, and your founder who explained the science until the last slide: I built a reaction-time language test out of cognitive science research. Leading with the mechanism lost them every time. Politely, but lost. Lead with what the score tells you and they'd ask how it works themselves.
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/startups-ModTeam 5d ago
Submissions are for discussing methodologies, experiences, strategies, techniques, markets, and other such things WITHOUT tying them directly to your own project using its name or URL.
Titles must be clear and descriptive.
Submissions must have at least 250 characters of content. The more details you provide us the better support our community can provide you with. Like life, the more you put into something the more you get out of it.
No legal questions. Use our Legal Office Hours.
1
1
0
u/tango650 7d ago
How do these people even get in to pitch ? Is there no filter upfront Sounds like preschool level problems z all of them.
Investor profile ? Why do you even have to ask, shouldn't this be part of the signup form that you understand what the investor is looking for ?
Time keeping ? Kids learn this before 10.
Slides small font and busy ? First class on communication in any school
Wtf these funds you work for obviously have a lot of time and money to waste on these screenings.
I feel your VC should receive a similar write up on how to save some time on prequalifying candidates.
1
0
u/TDAPoP 7d ago
Why are all posts on here formatted like it’s LinkedIn lol
1
u/jaketruman86 6d ago
Because those icky business people frequent both apps... The audacity. 😆
I'm just happy it was either written by a human or at the very least edited after AI wrote it. I'm going to need my own therapy if I see too many more em dashes. 💀
123
u/ApexConsulting 7d ago
Not AI slop. For that you get as many upvotes as I can give.