"At this point, the first 5 minutes are almost up and there’s just time to run through an agenda slide, which covers all the usual ground (e.g., product, market size, team, etc).
"From here, many entrepreneurs roll right on to tell the story in greater detail. But your 5 minutes are up, and we suggest you pause and check in with your listeners. Most likely, they have seen businesses in the past which they think are similar. Maybe they have some biases based on prior experience in a similar market. It’s best to flush those out early so you can address them as you go through your presentation. So after laying out the agenda, we like to ask the investors whether there are any particular areas of concern or questions we should be sure to address.
If its good business the right investors will poke 'through' your presentation to find the right answers. No good investor will skip on a break-through business because of a shoddy presentation.
It might seem that from the authors prose that they belive that their presentation skills got them funding - which is why this is all wrong and sends exactly the wrong message out. Most first time entrepreneurs who raise funding can't stop gushing how they were able to convince investors - the root cause is very rarely that simple. Fund raising is not about 'convincing' anyone - it can almost never be done - more often than not its more about 'discovering' the right investors and your ppt has no role to play.
Sometimes people misrepresent themselves in a presentation. The explanation wasn't clear or they've described themselves as something that they're not. That can turn anyone away if the alternate interpretation is something that the investor has seen many times and have known not to work.
This, coupled with the fact that almost all ideas are either iteration, combination or derivation of other ideas makes it quite a frequent occurrence if not careful.
I don't think our presentation skills got us funded. But I do think our ability to persuade investors, recruits, partners etc to work with us -- even though we had no relevant experience -- was critical to our success. To do that, you have to communicate with your audience in a compelling way. Everyone has their own style and way of doing it. I'm just sharing what worked for me.
I am sure you guys are super smart and persuasion skills to match. The point that I am trying to make is that, maybe so are a lot from the other 99.9% of entrepreneurs who did not get funded by sequoia.
The lines of causation that we hold dear to us most of our professional lives somehow break down when we talk about startups. Maybe the simple reason that you got funded was that one of the partners thought that your market is going to be big (because of his specific personal background) and you were just another good team which just happened to focus on the exact same market - maybe also because of one of your founders background.
I understand sequoia motivation to start something like this. Even though they have a clear vested interest, I would like to believe that this was born out of an altruistic pursuit. The entrepreneurs though, are best served to take all this advise with bucketloads of salt.
Good presentation == good communication. If you can't communicate your idea simply and succinctly, you'll have a tough time raising rounds.
This is precisely why YC only allots 10 minutes per interview. It forces founders to hone their message and prep with quick fire answers to important questions regarding viability and scalability.
I think the most compelling point about the article is the emphasis on stacking your cards for the first 5 minutes.
I've seen many entrepreneurs approach pitching like a rolling boulder, where they think they gain momentum as more time goes on. More often than not, this isn't the case.
I agree. It's kind of like interviewing a candidate. Typically you know in the first five minutes if they're going to work out or not. Put your good stuff up front. I'm not convinced most investors are necessarily going to be able to "tease out" that your company is great.
Of course, take this with a grain of salt, as I haven't raised a round yet (we haven't yet started). Even when I do, a sampling size of one is hardly empirical evidence either way.
"At this point, the first 5 minutes are almost up and there’s just time to run through an agenda slide, which covers all the usual ground (e.g., product, market size, team, etc).
"From here, many entrepreneurs roll right on to tell the story in greater detail. But your 5 minutes are up, and we suggest you pause and check in with your listeners. Most likely, they have seen businesses in the past which they think are similar. Maybe they have some biases based on prior experience in a similar market. It’s best to flush those out early so you can address them as you go through your presentation. So after laying out the agenda, we like to ask the investors whether there are any particular areas of concern or questions we should be sure to address.