Is an info-rich investor deck preferable to a “Presentation Zen” investor deck?
As Matt Haworth noted, the two different types of presentations are for two completely different purposes. In my presentation training sessions I refer to it as “one to show, and one to go”.
When you are doing an in-person presentation (of virtually any kind, not just a pitch), you definitely want to follow Garr Reynold’s advice in Presentation Zen, and keep text to an absolute minimum (that means “virtually NO text at all”.) Your slides should be full screen photos, screen shots, tiny video clips, etc. The whole idea is to add what I call “emotional resonance” to your personal presentation.
Think about how “info-rich” were the slides used by the greatest communicators in history: Demosthenes, Cicero, Lincoln, Douglas, Bryan, Churchill, Hitler, Reagan, Clinton, Obama. Oh, wait. NONE of them used PowerPoint? Not even Obama, who has more speaker support technology at his fingertips than anyone in history? Hmmm…
Jerry Weissman’s book Presenting to Win is a great guide to *telling* your story, and (along with Presentation Zen and my TED video, http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en…) should be mandatory preparation for any entrepreneur starting to create a pitch.
The place for ‘info-rich’ slides, however, is in your leave-behind deck. In this case, you aren’t going to be going along with the presentation, so the slides have to tell the entire story, with all the requisite detail and rich info. The reader will not be concentrating on you, the speaker (something you most assuredly want him or her to be doing when you’re there in person!) and will therefore be able to devote full attention to the written material.
*original post can be found on Quora @ http://www.quora.com/David-S-Rose/answers *
Written by David S. Rose
You might also be interested in
What this investor is seeking is called “permanent, full-ratchet, anti-dilution protection”, and that is neither (a) in line with the market, nor (b) practical. Even if you were willing to give it to him, it is highly, highly unlikely to stand up beyond the next financing round, because there’s no way your next investor is going to take a dilution
First, it’s important to understand that the four platforms you list fall into two very distinct groups.
Kickstarter and IndieGoGo are project-based crowdfunding platforms through which anyone can contribute money, either as a donation or with the promise that they will receive a tangible ‘reward’ of some kind if the project is successful.
Gust and AngelList are equity-based platforms, used by Accredited Investors to facilitate the investment of money for an ownership interest in a company.
There are many wonderful ideas, and they are not necessarily easy to come up with. So congratulations on having thought of one!
“Having value” and “Being fundable” are two completely different things. What the more experienced responders here are saying is completely accurate: while a good idea is usually a necessary ingredient for the formation of a good company, it is not sufficient by itself
The question is based on a misunderstanding of how venture capital investment works.
First of all, VC funds do not invest in ideas. What VCs invest in are operating companies that are ready (or almost ready) to scale. There are many wonderful ideas, all of which are not fundable. Only companies get funded.
Next, VCs don’t have an unlimited amount of money that is
There are a [very] few companies, mostly on the West Coast, that have done convertible rounds with differing caps, but it’s unusual, hard to do, and not something that will endear you to the less-fortunate investors.