[davemel37]

I can't speak to this idea, but these videos are PAINFUL to watch. In an age where we are inundated with mediocre content I would much rather watch interviews of carefully curated applicants and VCs than some random guy trying to get money to put his dad's piano music on an app (this is really in one of the videos).

The idea on paper sounds like a clever way to piggy back for a relatively low risk level on a lot of startups...and as much as contrarian thinking is pontificated, you have to wonder if there is a reason things are done the way they are in the first place.

I am not saying you can't disrupt an industry, but you have to first understand why the industry does it the way they do in the first place. It's not like a bunch of dumb people got together and said lets do this thing as backwards as possible. I have never met an idea for disruption that didn't at some point come to realize that there are often forces beyond control at play and it is very rare to be able to actually disrupt an industry just because intellectually it seems backwards.

I think it's time to dial back the disruption rhetoric and focus on the value creation as defined by people willing to pay more than it costs to make, sign, seal, and delivered.

[jakejake]

I found the videos really interesting to watch because we see lots of polished pitches here on HN, but here we're seeing everything. These are mostly just going to a VC with a hand out - asking for money. But, that's what pitching a company is. I think a lot of people who haven't done it imagine a slick deck presentation in a boardroom. The reality is that you have to be able to sit down in a coffee shop and sell your idea to someone who has more money than you.

As far as the terms - I didn't look it over closely to see if it's a fair or predatory deal. Anybody know if it's a fair deal?

[davemel37]

His terms are at your own discretion, but he assumes a few % points. (i.e you decide what to offer.)

I guess I am not everyone, so some people can find value where I might not. So, take everything I say with a grain of salt.

You have a point, but I've seen many non-polished, no pitch deck pitches that as rough as they were you walked away with a sense that they are on to something. They have some epiphany or insight and are attempting to turn it into something real. These videos (i didn't watch all) come off as people that have no idea what they are doing or even thinking other than, "I am going to make an app and be a founder."

The problem this guy has is that most serious entrepreneuers won't partake in his process, and this leaves over the large portion of people who don't have access to capital for a very good reason. Not to say there aren't many serious people who struggle with connections and who this guys offering is a good fit for, but his content strategy of sharing all these videos, even if a few have nuggets of gold is going to annoy viewers much like a listicle does after you click through to page 2 or 3 of a slide.

It's time to kill off this mantra of content, content content. We don't need more content, we need content that can't be found anywhere else. (admittedly, this guys content cant be found elsewhere, so that is a plus unless the content continues to be boring and lacking insights.

If you can hire a content writer to run a few searches and write a well written article...THAT IS NOT CONTENT WORTHY OF ROYALTY.

The only content that is king is content that you have to work hard to produce that cannot be found by reading half a dozen articles you found with 2-3 google searches.

[jakejake]

I agree about the quality of those few pitches I watched. But if you notice the red vs green monetary amount next to each video - all of them except one were rejected. So you can skip and watch only the green ones, I'd assume, to see the decent pitches.

I rather thought the videos were examples of what not to do, along with constructive criticism explaining why.