School of Communication Arts 2.0

Note to Mentors

Please help edit this wiki page with any content that feels right to you. Contribute your knowledge to this wiki by adding things that you feel students should learn in order to attain an understanding of this unit. Add examples, case studies or exercise ideas where appropriate. Don’t worry too much about formatting of this wiki page. Our curators will tidy this page every 24 hours.

Unit Purpose and Aims

The purpose of this unit is to;

In this unit the learner will develop a pitch for funding for a business idea or product and present it to a board of potential investors.

Learning Outcomes

Learners will;

1. Be able to create a pitch for presentation to an audience of professional investors

Learners can;

1.1 Create a suitable introduction for themselves and any other attendee.

1.2 Explain how they will introduce the  problem they are solving.

1.3 Synthesise an elevator pitch from their gathered content

1.4 Explain their aims (e.g. looking to exchange equity for £xxx funding to enable us to …increase market penetration etc.)

1.5 Produce  a presentation that’s of the correct level and focus for investors.

2. Be able to present to a body of investors

2.1  Practice delivery before an audience: the learner should be able to  present in front of a test audience articulating clearly the content described and developed during completion of learning outcome 1.

The Perfect Pitch – (watch Steve Jobs at the end of this presentation!)

Pitching Your Ideas

Does Your Team Have What it Takes?

2.2 Pitch to a real board of potential investors

2.3 Respond effectively to questions and feedback.

Learning Tools, Resources & Links

Things that will help the learner develop understanding of this unit;

Mentors – please add your ideas, examples, case studies, links to articles, videos, etc. here.

The Perfect Pitch

Pitching Your Ideas

Does your team have what it takes?

In most cases, the investors will be taking a long hard look not at an individual, but at a management team. Your business plan can be as persuasive as Henry Kissinger, but if your management team doesn’t look like it has the skills and experience to execute the plan, the investors have a problem. You have a problem. While you are interrogating your plan you should be asking yourself some tough questions about the human assets of your business. The upside is that this is usually something you can fix. The reason it is fixable is that when you are looking for gaps in your skills, the gaps are far more likely to be missing chunks than an overall weakness across the board. If it were across the board, you would have to get a whole new management team. ‘Chunks’ of skill can be patched in. You could buy in some consultancy, sub-contract to a specialist business, or hire people. Investors like teams with complementary skills, especially when the team is a small one. It’s better to have three average people with completely different, complementary skills, than two brilliant people who do exactly the same thing. I have found this to be the case myself, when securing backing to start a digital agency. The backers liked the fact that the two principals were a good fit in terms of skills; a management guy with strategic and sales skills to run the business, and a creative guy to ensure the quality of the end product.

I have also found myself going through this process on the other side of the fence, when investing in a business. On this occasion, the situation was a pitch to a group of potential angel investors. The business plan looked good, I bought their assumptions, the numbers stacked up, I liked the prognosis and it all felt believable. So far, so good. The ability to make things happen in the real world is what counts, however. My decision was made on the basis of two things. First, I took account of the opinions of my fellow business angels (all of them, unlike me, ‘serial investors’). Second, I took account of my own gut feel and intuition. The deciding factor was the quality of the management team, and their performance in the pitch. They certainly knew their stuff (they had been through the test/refine process so not only did the answers exist, they had them at their fingertips). They were very confident when fielding questions from the floor, and the answers they gave were measured and credible. They were not trying to second guess us by giving us the ‘right answer’, which is good because there is only ever one right answer – the honest answer. They were also able to explain in some detail how the management team proposed to work as a team, how the roles and responsibilities were divided up, and the relevant experience of each of the team members in relation to their role. There were some weaknesses in certain areas, but the particularly encouraging aspect of this was that these weaknesses weren’t discovered as a result of close questioning, they were volunteered. Furthermore there was a plan in place to address the knowledge gaps. All of this was explained in a clear, calm and structured way. There was a good level of passion in evidence, balanced with evident professionalism. In the discussions afterwards we all agreed that not only was this a bunch of people with a good plan, but more importantly a bunch of people we felt were capable of putting the plan into action. The entrepreneurs got their money, and they continued to get money through subsequent funding rounds. The faith of the investors was repaid handsomely when the business was sold to a large trade buyer a few years later.

(Extract from ‘Brilliant Pitch” by Shaun Varga)