Comments on: Thoughts after Mini-Seedcamp

By: James Routley

James Routley — Fri, 08 May 2009 08:43:50 +0000

There is great advice in this thread. Reading the number of three-page executive summaries and seeing the number of pitches we do, we are always talking about how early stage companies completely fail to tell us what it is they do. I would therefore add one further piece of advice. For the avoidance of doubt, always include a description of the key use case as an example early on. It can really help crystalise all of that mumbo jumbo.

By: Red Apple Goes to Seedcamp « Red Apple Apartments

Red Apple Goes to Seedcamp « Red Apple Apartments — Thu, 07 May 2009 13:05:42 +0000

[...] but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have a lot to learn. We have the “happy problem” (according to one of the entrepreneur “mentors” at the event, Jussi Laakkonen) [...]

By: VC Perspectives » Blog Archive » Back from Mini Seedcamp

VC Perspectives » Blog Archive » Back from Mini Seedcamp — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:23:54 +0000

[...] I found the mentor sessions especially interesting, because it really gave both entrepreneurs and mentors a possibility to dig a bit deeper and get into discussions about how to develop the business. However, it also made it quite clear that many startups in their initial 5-minute pitches hadn’t really managed to explain what they do (Jussi Lakonen also covers this in his blog post). [...]

By: Kristoffer Lawson

Kristoffer Lawson — Wed, 06 May 2009 14:00:36 +0000

The problem is many startups think their simple idea is “too simple” and thus not interesting enough. Believe me, as someone who has been there, there is never something too simple. Sure you might have all kinds of interesting possibilities, but make absolutely sure people are told the very simplest of simple concepts. Some will then like the idea, others won’t. That’s OK, as long as they understand it.

And, to be honest, this is something we are still learning and still refining.

By: jussilaakkonen

jussilaakkonen — Wed, 06 May 2009 12:52:13 +0000

I’m hesistant to point fingers at any one startup as these were often early stage companies there to learn.

In general you’d see a relatively simple and often effective idea turned into a multiheaded hydra of an idea that was the latest curve-bending, paradigm-jumping concept that could do anything. In one of the worst examples (names & concepts with held intentionally) you could read thru their 5 paragraph description of the startup and not understand what they were doing. I mean it was obtuse to the level that you couldn’t tell if they were doing content management software, content delivery network, streaming, advertising or what. However, even in this case once you got to sit down and let them tell you in plain English what they were doing, you could get it fast.

The problem is in pitching and how to represent their ideas. Not in the ideas themselves.

By: Odin

Odin — Wed, 06 May 2009 08:49:13 +0000

“Way too many dressed up their perfectly good business idea into a Dilbert mission generator-esque mumbojumbo that you’d need 10 gigawatt lasers to pierce thru…”

Any example? Somehow every startup should listen to Guy Kawasaki about drafting a mission for a startup (which he referred to as “mantra”)

http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/01/mantras_versus_.html

By: jussilaakkonen

jussilaakkonen — Wed, 06 May 2009 05:32:30 +0000

ArcticStartup has more coverage of the event at http://bit.ly/10JH9U