[lpolovets]

> it's not always easy for people reading a short summary on a blog to see that potential

Very true. Today was the 7th demo day I went to with my fund partners. For each batch, we try to reverse engineer the startup list as much as possible, and we usually figure out 2/3 or 3/4 of the list before demo day. Every single time so far, when I review the list of startups before demo day and check out their websites, I think "meh, seems like this batch is a little weaker." Then I go to demo day, see the full picture on each company, and consistently feel like the current batch is the strongest one yet. It's hard to really understand a company's progress and its potential from its website, or even worse, a one- or two-line elevator pitch.

[angersock]

Maybe they're just getting better at pitching you?

[lpolovets]

It's possible, but I think it's more that elevator pitches are often the tip of an iceberg. For example, if Uber had been part of YC, its one-line pitch might have been "limo service at the push of a button." That's not super exciting. But then I'd go to demo day, and full pitch would be: "we're starting with limos, and here's a graph of traction and retention for the last two months, and based on these trends we think we can move to using regular cars and undercutting taxis within 6 months." That's much more exciting IMO.

[gmarx]

This assumes it was their plan from the beginning. Is that the case or did they later pivot based on new information. If the latter is the case then any company would arguably have billion dollar potential

[askafriend]

Side-note: I realize you were using Uber as an example to make a point but actually "Limo Service at the push of a button" sounds pretty awesome on it's own.

[loader]

I think that's the problem with elevator pitches, they tell you what the company is currently but not where they're headed.