A VC - Latest Comments in Paying To Pitch

Re: Paying To Pitch

Dave Pinsen — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:57:07 -0000

The Atlantic's David Indiviglio is on the case now: Paying to Pitch.

Re: Paying To Pitch

fredwilson — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:25:48 -0000

I get it. That's helpful. It turns out the reason you like it is the reason I avoid it

Re: Paying To Pitch

awaterman8 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:38:38 -0000

Just to clarify Fred -- I certainly see just how accessible you are and didn't mean to imply you're not. I'm a big fan of avc. The fact that you respond to my comment on a week-old blog post is actually pretty amazing.

My point is more general about getting VC financing. Getting noticed is simple, but getting funded is not so easy. The funding market is damn competitive and not perfectly efficient at the seed stage, especially in the last year.

I did raise money -- but I was helped enormously by TechCrunch 50. I got a dozen VC meetings with people I met at the conference who would not have known about us otherwise, plus another dozen investor pitches because of the signalling value of "TechCrunch 50" alone. (But I sure didn't stop there and rest on any TC50 laurels.)

Re: Paying To Pitch

vanelsas — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:31:23 -0000

I'm going to defend Fred here, not that he needs it ;-)

I've had the chance to sit down with him before, and this happened because he isn't sitting in some ivory tower. I've found Fred to be accessible and willing to take the time to hear me out. As an entrepreneur you will always need a good pitch to get attention from others (including investors). If you have a good story people will open up for you.

Re: Paying To Pitch

fredwilson — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:11:24 -0000

That's bullshit. You are on my radar right now.

This is the web. Use the medium to get noticed

Not old school events that are just clones of DEMO which also sucks

Re: Paying To Pitch

fredwilson — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:08:10 -0000

Yeah but you'll never get to some VCs that way. Its a huge turnoff to me, for example. I believe you should launch when you are ready and waiting for an event like TC50 is a bad idea

Re: Paying To Pitch

awaterman8 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:44:28 -0000

Fred, with respect for your own reasons to avoid TC50 as a VC, I have to stick up for @Jason here as a TechCrunch 50 company myself.

Reason: You can't underestimate how hard it is to get on the radar of a VC like you. With the clutter of startups trying to pitch to you, understandably you have to filter based on a founder's reputation, your own network, the company's location (NYC, SV, etc.), its prior market traction, and other factors other than just raw potential of the startup at time of its launch. TechCrunch 50 gives first-time CEOs a chance to cut through these factors that would usually work against them, to be recognized for their idea and execution so far. The result is that we get "onto the map" and noticed by VCs who might have never known about us because of factors out of our control.

I agree startups that *recently* launched are penalized here just because their launch didn't coincide with the TC50 application schedule -- meanwhile a few TC50 companies are quite well funded and post-revenue but get in through loopholes like "launching a new product."

But letting into TC50 too many startups who already with PR coverage, market traction, VC funding (or connections to VCs like you), would really change the whole point of it. It'd take away its value as "leveling the playing field" and entrepreneur-discovery which we startups desperately crave. It would be like letting pros into the olympics, American Idol, So You Think You Can Dance, etc.

Re: Paying To Pitch

awaterman8 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:08:48 -0000

Much love to Stocktwits Howard, but as a TechCrunch 50 presenter in 2008 (www.emerginvest.com), I have to disagree!

Waiting an extra month or two to launch our product in front of tens of thousands of interested people was well worth it. We could've launched on our own schedule and fought to get anyone to notice. Instead we had 10,000+ hits in a few days plus interest from VCs, the press, Angels, firms in our space, etc..

Plus each team had two hours of pitching coaching from Jason Calacanis and Michael Arrington personally before TC50. Invaluable for first-time CEOs like me and really improved the quality of our pitches during the real thing on stage.... and FREE to us mind you.

The "cost" of giving exclusivity to Arrington and Jason on our launch was well worthwhile, and it was our choice beforehand to "pay." Many other TC50 companies I know agree with me here.

Re: Paying To Pitch

awaterman8 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:08:12 -0000

Much love to Stocktwits Howard, but as a TechCrunch 50 presenter in 2008 (www.emerginvest.com), I have to disagree!

Waiting an extra month or two to launch our product in front of tens of thousands of interested people was well worth it. We could've launched on our own schedule and fought to get anyone to even notice. Instead we got 10,000+ hits in a few days plus interest from VCs, the press, Angels, firms in our space, etc. whom we would have struggled to reach on our own.

Plus each team had two hours of pitching coaching from Jason Calacanis and Michael Arrington personally before TC50. Invaluable for first-time CEOs like me and really improved the quality of our pitches during the real thing on stage.... and FREE to us mind you. Not to mention being invited for free back to TechCrunch 50 2009 in the alumni demo pit.

The "cost" of giving exclusivity to Arrington and Jason on our launch was well worthwhile, and it was our choice beforehand to "pay." Many other TC50 companies I know agree with me here.

(Sorry mistaken duplicate post here...was meant as reply to Howard's at the top...can't figure out how to delete this copy.)

Re: Paying To Pitch

fredwilson — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:54:44 -0000

Love this comment on many levels

Re: Paying To Pitch

Scott Edward Walker — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:27:32 -0000

As a corporate attorney representing entrepreneurs, I generally agree in principle with Jason’s position that it is “inappropriate and predatory” for angel groups to charge entrepreneurs fees to pitch them; however, I think it is important to distinguish among the different angel groups and their respective practices. Indeed, if (i) the fees are reasonable/de minimis and are adequately disclosed and (ii) the angel group is providing a legitimate service to entrepreneurs, there may be compelling reasons to support such a fee-based service. That’s why I have strongly recommended in my recent blog post (see http://bit.ly/hAYeu) that Jason Calacanis and John Dilts (the founder and President of Maverick Angels, LLC and an attorney) meet face-to-face and have a live debate (in the great American tradition), which can be shown on the web to all interested parties via Ustream. Many thanks.

Re: Paying To Pitch

fredwilson — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:02:21 -0000

Nice tip. Thanks!!

Re: Paying To Pitch

Mark MacLeod — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:08:56 -0000

There is a rate the coach (or anyone else site). Linkedin. People with many, credible, referencable connections and recommendations are the ones you should go with.

Re: Paying To Pitch

Jason Bean — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:07:54 -0000

I have no personal experience with venture capital and getting a startup off the ground, but I think making startups "invest" in the pitch shouldn't be a requirement. Be selective on what you're willing to invest in and who to listen to and just go from there.

Re: Paying To Pitch

Jim — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:15:42 -0000

TechCrunch charges an appearance fee for the Demo Pit. Since you have to be approved and invited to the Demo Pit, why isn't that free? The charge in 2008 was $2,000 to appear in Pit.

Re: Paying To Pitch

Greg Hochsprung — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:59:02 -0000

I was going to ask about this - what do you think of angel groups charging entrepreneurs for their variable costs (food, etc.) associated with attending the event?

Re: Paying To Pitch

Greg Hochsprung — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:54:45 -0000

I've done some work with an angel group that uses Angelsoft for applications from entrepreneurs. I think it is a great tool process the dealflow in that kind of a group. Entrepreneurs do not have to pay anything unless they want to. After submitting applications to a certain number of angel groups (I believe 5), additional submissions become "Bulk" submissions - just to let the angel group know that this entrepreneur may be blasting submissions to every group. But all the entrepreneurs we've dealt with have found it pretty easy to use and definitely free.

Re: Paying To Pitch

Mark Essel — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:52:47 -0000

Ah thanks for that outside perspective Aniq. I'm surprised a startup is forming around connecting investors with founders. Would have expected investors to host this type
of "trade show" or conference.

Cost and value are such personally relevant measures it's a wonder we can agree on the price of anything. $10 to me is different than $10 to Fred, which is different than $10 to Bill Gates, yet regardless it still buys a movie ticket (almost).

Re: Paying To Pitch

Mark Essel — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:47:23 -0000

That all makes sense, but it leads me to believe solid startups are better served by building a great core business, and doing it transparently so that investors can find them. There are plenty of avenues to connect with potential investors, why pay to be in a lower signal to noise auditorium full if other presenters and funders who may not even listen to your pitch (burst processing of listening to pitches has to cost venture partners valuable attention span).

Charging a reasonable fee to cover costs of any event is more than fair though. I'm sorta torn on this issue. Do we need the conferences to get good pitches? If we do then it's part of the solution (it may push presenters psychologically to produce something more appealing to investors).

Re: Paying To Pitch

Mark Essel — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:39:50 -0000

It appears to be over punishment for fast typing. I pay dearly in grammar to phone comment, but it's a price that needs to be paid.

Re: Paying To Pitch

Mark Essel — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:35:05 -0000

All our bases are belong to Howard?
(it's the old video menes that get stuck in my craw).

There is most certainly a shift in the way we judge businesses. No longer is it good enough to give terms and have a mutual agreement. Now we're condemning Jason for taking advantage of startups (even though appears to be defending them)

I'm on the open market side even though I lean heavily toward favoring startup founders if there is some leeway though.

I paid 2 bucks to Mahalo to have Jason respond why startups were paying an sizable entry fee to TC 50. Isn't that the same thing as paying to pitch?

Re: Paying To Pitch

Mark Essel — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:25:16 -0000

This is an area that has been market reviewed but becomes stronger by info spread (known scammers can't survive long under public light).

The finer aspects of cost and value need to be reviewed, especially when it pertains to a startups potential survival.

We're still a culture dominated by the motto, let the buyer beware. But at least we are quick to share info about folks that lie.

Depending on the situation, I might even pay for the opportunity to pitch. Certainly if I knew with confidence that the concept needed more than a minute or two to describe and "sell" to a reputable agency. I should be penalized with some cost if my pitch is a total waste of time. I think picking up a lunch tab is fair punishment :)

Re: Paying To Pitch

Mark Essel — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:18:06 -0000

Tear those scam artists schemes apart by publicly sharing their identities. I stand by transparency as a means to eliminating the obfuscation of trickery.

Great work by Jason, hope founders share knowledge of any and all shady groups like this. My brother went through a similar music distributor scam. Many aspiring artists fall prey to false promises, and knowledge of their practices has helped minimize casualties.

Re: Paying To Pitch

fredwilson — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:57:28 -0000

Well $50 might not be a lot to complain about. There is some admin cost to do these

Re: Paying To Pitch

ShanaC — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:35:43 -0000

Why can't I edit this one, but I can edit my other one on the page? So strange...