Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Innovation
Collaboration
Impact
DRAFT
June 2010
MassChallenge judging process, round 2
In-person pitches
• ~300 teams invited to pitch (~70%)
• Panels consist of 3-5 general experts (not industry specific)
• Investors
• Principals or Partners at VC firms
• Angel investors
• Lawyers
• Partners at Law firms
• Entrepreneurs / executives
• Experienced business experts
• Each team gets 20 min
• 10 min to present
• 10 min for Q&A
• (10 min for judging and transition)
• Rating system same as for round 1
• 7 sections, all equally weighted except impact 2x weight
• Judges have no prior knowledge about your team – blank slate
MassChallenge, Harthorne, Nigam & Constantine 1
Many of you have asked for advice …
here you go …
MAIN DISCLAIMER
I am not a judge.
I do not influence judging.
My advice could be COMPLETELY incorrect.
You control your own destiny.
Make decisions wisely.
SECONDARY DISCLAIMER …
My wife had a baby last Thursday so I’ve been a
little busy lately ...
Some thoughts
• There is no one correct way to pitch, e.g.
• Try to cover all sections
• Focus only on areas of strength
• Focus only on areas of weakness
• We are seeking high-impact startups
• Sell your vision ! describe outcomes
• Sell your viability ! describe inertia
• Prepare for Q&A
• Demonstrate in-depth knowledge of your technology,
market, competitors and customers – prep for Q&A
• Why should an objective outsider believe you are
launching a viable, high-impact startup?
Endorsements (10%)
Elevator Pitch Rating (10%)
Written Feedback:
Your feedback must be at least 160 characters.
Please list the top 3 feedback points for this team. For example:
• What are the three biggest risks for this team
• What are the critical milestones that you would like to see the entrant
achieve in the next three months?
6.976
The Founder’s Journey
K. Zolot
25 minutes concise
presentation
45 min. full presentation
90 min. the whole story w Q&A
S. I. Hayakawa,
Language in Thought and
Action
Agenda
• Team
• Market
• Technology
• Capitalization plan
Overview
Proven team lead by former X of Y, scientific advisory board with
head of X from Y!
Routers
Storage
Modems
Hosting
EGENERA
Broadband
Broadcast
Optical Networks" Caching
Streaming"
competitor 2!
competitor 3!
IBM!
competitor 4!
Broken"
technology!
Point product! Comprehensive"
solution!
Egenera ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Sun ≈ " " " " " " "
IBM ! " " " ! " " "
Windows " " " " " " " "
Other Linux " " " " " " ! !
Client
consolidation;
major new
First real app vendors
applications emerge 2005
appear; ISV
integration 2004
Fragmented
corporate IM 2003
client offerings
Consumer IM 2002 .NET deployment;
client app servers
2001
Early adopter IT
acceptance; build-
Consumer out infrastructure
IM
infiltration
GA1.0!
Beta
Beta 0.9!
Launch of V2 $2m Revenue,
Alpha 0.8! Development! Year 2007!
0.7!
Beta Feedback,
Alpha Product in the Field, Product Development! Cash Flow
Mgmt Team Expands! Breakeven,Q4’10!
3 $100,000
purchase orders!
Series A, $4m Series B, $12m
for Prod. Launch for Growth and
& First Revenue! Profitability!
Headcount: 5 7 10 15 22 30 45 70!
9. Market Overview
Market Estimated Potential Applications Key Players
Market Size ($M)
Military $960–1,200 • Night vision • Raytheon
• Missile detection • Westcam
• EFW
• Lockheed Martin
• Northrop Grumman
• L3
• DRS
• BAE
• FLIR
Security $150–300 • Security surveillance • Sensors unlimited
• Terrorism • FLIR
applications • Redshift Systems
• Others
Manufacturing $40–50 • Inspection • Sensors Unlimited
and Agriculture • Quality control • FLIR
• Redshift Systems
• Others
Source: Vladamir
6.976 “The Founder’s Journey” Bulovic’s
! 2010 “Slim
Copyright – K.Format Spectrometer” i-Team!
Zolot, MIT 36
10. Margin analysis
Competition
Retail: $100
Us 15% margin
Retail: $85
40% margin