Hey, have you ever thought that trying to squeeze a pitch into 1, 2, 3, 4, or even 5 minutes is a dead-end idea? This arbitrary time limit can negatively impact decision-making quality so much that it loses all value. The idea that cramming more pitches into a shorter time improves quality or decisions is actually the opposite of what happens.
Don’t you think this industry standard, created due to the high demand for funding from startups, leads investors to missed opportunities and wrong decisions? And ultimately, it’s a missed opportunity for the entire ecosystem because some companies that could have succeeded don’t make it past this time limit.
It seems like this problem affects everyone in the ecosystem, but we all just ignore it, claiming this standard is ideal for everyone.
Let me break it down:
- Let’s be honest, you can’t really explain anything substantial in a few minutes, especially to someone hearing you for the first time.
- Let’s be honest, this time limit forces presenters to strip down their pitch to fragmented thoughts. Instead of focusing on the idea, market, problem, product, and technology, the goal becomes to hold attention and inspire the next action.
- Let’s be honest, this motivation often leads to misleading the listener—if we’re being polite about it.
- Let’s be honest, the artificial time limit for pitches arose from the investor-driven market and their very limited attention spans — capable of digesting 5-10 presentations at a time, maybe 10-20 with a coffee break. But is this a feature, or is it a bug? I tend to think it’s a bug. If you believe the logic that the breadth and depth of the startup funnel influence investment quality, then the funnel should be expanded, not narrowed, and the amount of information gathered per unit of time should be increased to make better decisions. But everything is working in the opposite direction.
Today, I ran an experiment. I delivered my worst pitch (according to pitch-making conventions) at an online pitch event — too much text on slides, didn’t keep to time, and so on. I was curious to hear the feedback. I hoped it would focus on what they managed to hear or read — about the market, product, and problem — but, unfortunately, I received the expected feedback about the number of words on the slide, timing, and other things unrelated to what I actually presented, rather than how I presented it.
I respect the desire to follow standards, understand investor templates, and appreciate time limits, but I suspect something has gone wrong here. I plan to sign up for a few more pitch sessions and test different formats, from super short (where likely no one will understand or will misunderstand) to longer than today, so our product can generate something that truly addresses the entrepreneur’s needs.
And for investors and those on the other side of the pitch, I suggest considering whether you’re doing everything right. Maybe the era of narrow funnels, limited attention spans, and pitches with a wow factor and some level of deception is over? Perhaps, thanks to technology, not only can startups launch products at previously unattainable low costs, but you can also approach scoring with the use of technology?
Here’s a thought: for our AI VC Analyst, it’s not difficult to analyze a pitch video sent in the chat, rather than just a presentation as is currently done, and return an investment decision. We’re ready to tune such a product for your accelerator/incubator/fund.
Best,
Dima, Founder of the PitchBob
