Four Startups Entered the Ring. Which Emerged Victorious?

Photo by Samuel Penn on Unsplash

Recently TechCrunch sent me a free invite to an online pitch competition, and even though it was scheduled at 4 in the morning my time, I’m such a big pitch nerd that I woke up for it anyway.

I wasn’t disappointed.

Even though only four startups pitched in the hour-long event— each for less than 60 seconds — they went with pretty different styles and story lines that made for a good test for what worked well.

Let me briefly recap each of them, then I’ll let you guess which team ultimately walked away with first place.

Team 1:

They began by saying that they were “the 23andme of math and reading.” By analyzing genetic and ancestry data, they produce reports that help parents understand the math and reading abilities of their children. They then went into how their service worked.

After the pitch, the judges mostly asked them about the science behind their service, and whether their science could also shed light on how to improve kids’ math and reading abilities.

Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash

Team 2:

They began by noting that ordering food online today was “content-rich”, but that getting food in-restaurant was not. They’re developing software to bring that content-rich experience to restaurants, and also to help restaurants manage their operations and the many channels they must juggle today.

After the pitch, the judges noted that the field was dominated by a few big players, and asked them how they planned to differentiate and defend themselves.

Photo by Dan Gold on Unsplash

Team 3

They began by noting that the autonomous driving future was arriving, but there was a big problem — there’s still no sensor that could work in all weather conditions. They believe that radar can be this all-weather sensor, and are developing tech that used radar to produce visuals. They added that they’ve raised US$6 million, and were already working with several auto suppliers.

After the pitch, one VC judge asked why they weren’t combining radar and cameras (answer: they were), while others asked about moats and differentiation, such as patents.

Photo by Cristofer Jeschke on Unsplash

Team 4

This team went with a problem orientation: today’s B2C e-commerce experience is great, with end-to-end visibility. Yet the B2B buying experience remains a mess. So they’re building a platform to address this, and are beginning with the automotive sector, by working with companies like Daimler.

After the pitch, the judges seemed intrigued by the tech, and asked about exactly how the platform worked. Like with the other pitches, they also inquired about competitive differentiation.

Photo by Marcin Jozwiak on Unsplash

After all that, the judging went in two stages:

1. The judges (composed of investors) each picked one favorite. Only two of the four teams ended up being picked.
2. The audience of eminent experts (meaning I had no idea who they were) voted on the top team.

So, who do you think won?

Drum Roll…

Well, I’ll first reveal who I voted for: Team 3.

The judges, meanwhile, picked Team 3 and Team 4.

And the audience gave the first place to…

Team 3.

Why I think Team 3 won

Obviously I can’t speak for others who voted, so I’ll just share my take on it.

We always train our clients to do the following in their pitches and presentations:

• Connect: Begin with something that seizes people’s attention
• Offer: Give a clear and differentiated product/service/approach (*key being differentiated!)
• Reinforce: Give strong proof that you can deliver on the promise
• Execute: Deliver your presentation in a way appropriate to the medium (in this case, an elevator pitch)

Team 3 delivered the most complete pitch of the four. In under a minute, they managed to hit ALL of the points:

• Connect: They started strong by noting that an autonomous future still lacked an all-weather sensor. The importance of this is instantly understood.
• Offer: They offered a clear and differentiated direction — others may bet on other technologies, but we believe in radars.
• Reinforce: They went with the two obvious but effective proof: money raised and traction. This was conspicuously absent in some of the other pitches.
• Execute: They got all this in within 60 seconds.

Talk Future, not Feature

Team 3 did another thing that’s worth mentioning: they focused their pitch on the future of the industry, rather than the features of their product.

Investing is about making bets — it’s understanding where the industry is going, and making a reasonably informed bet on a unique solution that will win out.

Team 3’s pitch mirrored that way of thinking in structure — starting with the autonomous future and what’s blocking it, then making a bold bet that radar will be the main sensor of that enormous market.

For more on this, check out possibly the best talk on how to pitch by Ridge Ventures’ Brendan Baker.

P.S. They had a kick-ass answer to a question

When one judge asked them what prevented others from copying them, they gave one of the best answers I’ve heard in a pitch competition (I’m paraphrasing):

We have the patents, but actually, this technology is pretty difficult to copy. There are only five companies in the world that can mass produce radars, and our team comes from the radar imaging division of one of them. So we can do this, and it’s pretty hard to copy.

They seized a perfect opportunity to add to Reinforce while also touting their team, on a question that didn’t even ask about their team.

It’s no surprise they won, and IMO it wasn’t particularly close.