10 Things Investors and Corporates Don’t Usually Tell SMEs and Startups About Their Pitch Decks
This is as much a reference list for myself as it is a hopeful expression of desired traits in the pitch decks of others. Especially lately, I have been receiving quite a number of prospectuses, pitch decks and other types of proposals. Most commonly, however, the good ol’ fashioned deck is the starting-point-of-choice of the day (for better or worse) among professionals seeking to articulate commercial opportunities.
Example scenario: a pitch topic is presented, a link is clicked, and an email is opened.
“Dear Mike, do you know someone who might be interested in investing in this [insert spectacular opportunity here]?”
Throughout my travels in this quite commercial world, I’ve learned that deck senders actually don’t typically want feedback pertaining to the quality of their decks (even when feedback is sometimes requested). The perception of deck completion by senders, explicitly expressed or otherwise, could be a contributing factor to why decks were sent in the first place and also may explain to a greater degree this phenomena of discreetly unwelcome feedback.
I thought that I might put together a general overview of some of the elements of pitch decks that I earnestly believe can be quite crucial in producing the effects of that desired “next step” (whether this step be an invitation for an opening investment discussion with a prospective VC or moving the deck up the chain of command at a corporation).
Before I begin, I would like to add the very important disclaimer that I have been found quite guilty with regard to many of the condemned deck construction acts that follow. Personally, I strive to drastically improve my deck concoctions. Writing about these sorts of issues can sometimes be a way to better understand and harden convictions, while driving professional growth. We’ll see.
1. Deck Disclaimers
Typically, if I quick-scroll to the end of a deck, and there does not exist some form of small-print legalese, it can be a cause for concern. This is much like venturing to the bottom of a website to find that the year in the footer is not the current year according to your kitchen calendar. This lack of deck closure disclosure can sometimes serve as somewhat of a window into the procedural contours of the sender company. One thing that may be ill-interpreted from this lack of legalese in this particular location is the notion that the organization has not taken the time to consult with a legal advisor. Large corporations and investors usually want to engage with SMEs that are competent enough to know that almost all external correspondence require some form of disclaimer content, such as specifications around who has the right to view and redistribute documents, etc. Further, absence of the legalese usually is indicative that a deck preparer does not have much perceivably high-quality (direct or indirect) corporate experience (or, worse… isn’t applying it).
2. Professional Graphic Design
If a company is using a Keynote or PowerPoint default template, it can be, by the astute observer, quite easily recognizable. Usually, this can indicate that the company is unaware of the competitive design-oriented landscape that they might be in. One might wonder about the competency of the presenting company in their ability to size up their own market competitors if they have not adequately assessed their presentation recipients’ time-seeking competition. A default template is also indicative, generally, that the deck’s preparer(s) are not aware of what the deck review processes and its very-human, embedded biases actually look like. Further, it may be indicative of the level of differentiation that a company might offer with its own, actual products and services. When assumed, indeed a dubious starting point.
3. Low Resolution or Non-Uniform Images
By non-uniform images, I am referring to icons or image-style types that do not seemlessly sync with one another. It can be somewhat of a trivial task to identify this in a presentation whereby the creator has copy-pasted Google image results in an insert-image-here fashion. Envato is quite affordable, as are Upwork deck preparation professionals. Non-uniformity around imaging can be quite the interest-momentum halter. Additionally, a lack of high-resolution images can be commonly perceived as a lack of attention to detail. The attribute of detail-attention can obviously be a major draw or downer to drumming up investor or corporate partnership interest.
4. Typos
It could be considered by some as simply a professional courtesy to ensure that a deck has been thoroughly proofread before sent out for reception. More than one typo in a pitch deck usually indicates a lack of professionalism to some. I might even venture to propose it as an important area of concern for most when presentation typos are present. The rest of what I could include as arguments for this case in this portion of the post is probably self-evident. There are commonly enough other aspects to a pitch deck that could serve as worthier distractions. This is probably one of the most unnecessary deterrents to positive engagement that could be easily prevented.
5. Lack of At Least One Citation or Credit
It is extremely rare that a pitch deck includes only content generated by the authors of a given deck. For this reason, there can be two assumptions that are typically drawn from a lack of footnotes (of citations or credits). One assumption could be that the submission company is unaware of the sheer requirement to credit or reference. The other assumption is that the authors of the presentation chose not to include these elements, either due to time limitations or as an insult to the intelligence of its recipients. It may be best-practice to avoid this sort of insult.
6. No Charts or Tables
A pitch deck that doesn’t include some visualized data is, in many instances, asking the receivers to imagine for themselves a trend, result, or other type of statistical artifact. While a more difficult component to produce (when one does not already exist to be merely included), its importance simply cannot be unstated in the quick-scroll checkmark environment of the high-demand observer. Additionally, absence of these tables and/or charts generally indicates a lack of awareness thar some deck reviewers may expect deck submission companies to possess.
7. Lack of the “Problem” Slide
Usually, a solution has a clear, well-defined problem. When a problem slide is not present somewhere from the start, one could infer that either the company isn’t solving an actual problem or that they do not have the experience to understand the importance of including a “problem” slide early on in their deck. It can be fairly typical for the preparer of a deck to be more familiar with the solution than the problem it is solving. However, it can be a red flag for some investment/corporate readers in charge of partnerships, and especially, investment decisions. This red flag or confusion should be one of the simplest issues to remedy.
8. Lack of End-Reader Empathy
This aspect is quite hard to effectively measure, as it is extremely qualitative by nature. Though, it is generally apparent to the end-reader when there is a lack of empathy or consideration geared directly towards the readership. The telltale signs of this inadequacy is generally indifference or annoyance. The simplest solution, of course, for submission companies in order to overcome this issue is to ensure that a deck’s recipient’s point-of-view is thoroughly considered before publication and submission. It can, unfortunately, be quite common to simply approach a deck from the perspective of the creator. This is natural. Like any form of communication, if the receiver doesn’t sync with how they are being addressed, especially when there is a solicitation, a case of deft ears can occur. When this is the case, the anticipated consideration and attention is not generally the result.
9. Contact
I don’t believe that speaking to the virtues of company-specific-domain-based emails is necessary for this audience. However, especially with newer companies, I have come cross a few @gmail.coms in decks, unfortunately. Notwithstanding this contact section section gaff, I have also found the absence of this section (or absence in other relevant sections) in a few of the decks I have observed. While not always necessary or required as an actual section, of course, the lack of the relevant contact information as it pertains to a follow-up on deck viewings can come across, at least to some, as bewildering (to say the least).
10. Lack of an Extremely Tactful “Ask”
As a recipient of a pitch deck, much can be left to the imagination with regards to the result a deck submission company is seeking. When the ask is vague or nonexistent, there can often exist room for misinterpretation. This misinterpretation tends to lead to either misalignment, hesitancy and (often and ultimately) a breakdown in positive momentum. Additionally, when the ask is explicit, the delivery can occasionally lack the level of recipient-desired tact (linguistically, propositionally or situationally) to inspire an enthusiastic and positive response from the request’s receiver. As a much younger, naiver professional, I once requested a pay-raise on a perfectly reasonable set of premises. My former boss later explained that I was originally rejected based on situational grounds. Don’t ask for a raise while other employees are present. There may be a nugget in this parable for deck constructors.
10.1 Sweeteners
An introduction slide with a clear and catchy value proposition and solution-image(s) are standard hallmarks of a scrollable deck. Of course, so too is the uniformity that comes with a presentation that is based off of a standard example deck stemming from the most similar Fortune 500 in a given category. Correct capitalization is, of course, crucial, while consistent punctuation and verbal tensing are mere requirements. The list can go on; however, many of this brief section’s recommendations are standard-issue. These sweetener notes have been included in brisk fashion should one work from this list with dire necessity.
Conclusion
There are a few other areas that I personally feel are important for generating the proverbial next steps based primarily on the receiver’s review of a deck. I do, however, consider the aforementioned points as the most common areas that I find can prevent either the forwarding of a deck to a relevant party or the consideration for the escalation of internal activity in a way that meets intended deck submitter objectives.
Thank you for reading. I hope this list was useful.
