Re:Well, We Failed – Wattage is shutting down
by jeremybell on Tuesday May 05, 2015 @06:05PM
(#9495293)
There are a few of things that I omitted from this version that were usually included or shared in person. Use of proceeds and traction was always shared. We also provided a breakdown of how the pricing worked (as it depended on what you were building).
I usually spoke in more detail about who the team was when I met with someone.
Re:Well, We Failed – Wattage is shutting down
by tptacek on Tuesday May 05, 2015 @06:07PM
(#9495309)
Thanks for replying! A question: did you ever wonder whether producing such intricately designed collateral actually harmed you from a signaling perspective, by tipping investors that you were focusing a lot on stuff that didn't matter? I ask because I started telling myself that a few years ago (not really so much re: investors, which I thankfully don't have, but other business associates) and I found it very liberating to not have to worry so much about design anymore.
Re:Well, We Failed – Wattage is shutting down
by inthewoods on Tuesday May 05, 2015 @10:03PM
(#9496195)
To me the issue with the deck is that it doesn't simplify the idea - it expands it over and over again until you get overwhelmed by the details of the business. That feeling of complexity, in my opinion, would leave investors feeling that the whole solution was so complex that there were too many ways to fail. Manufacturing? Marketplace? Hardware? It's too much for me - I can't imagine how an investor takes it all in and feels that the team could successfully execute on all the parts.
The best decks I've seen, in addition to everything you've brought up, also simplify the idea down.
* Go-to-market, or even a price point (did I miss it?) or COGS estimates, or a plan for distribution
* Traction, up-front sales commitments, or a sketch of target customers
* Competitors and substitutes --- not having competitors is not usually a good thing.
* An "ask" and a use-of-proceeds summary; what is this deck actually raising?
* Why this particular team (also: the connections between the logos on the bottom and the people listed aren't clear)
If you look at the Mixpanel, Airbnb, and Buffer decks: they're not pretty. They're dry and factual and cut to the chase. Those decks probably work (to the extent decks matter) because they do a good job of surfacing exactly the facts investors care about when evaluating a deal.
I used to sweat decks the same way this designer did, and I'd get compliments on them. Now I feel like I spend more time talking my friends down from sending decks like these to prospects.