In late September, for example, I think I could have done

[zihadhasan019]

A far better job crafting and delivering the pitch than when I gave my first one in July (only 60 days before). Below, you'll find a modified version of the original pitch deck (we later crafted many customized versions with slides particular VCs wanted to see). It doesn't include things like a P&L statement or specific customer retention/churn/lifetime value metrics, but hopefully it will still be valuable and interesting.


Since I didn't include revenue/profit numbers in this deck (and it's hard to get a sense for how a potential investor might perceive this without it), I've included some non-specific growth charts be russia email list low, illlustrating the top-line numbers in a profit-and-loss statement: SEOmoz's Revenue Breakdown 2007-2009 I've also left out some portions of our very large appendix. The appendix, in fact, was one of the most interesting parts of the deck. When we started the process, it was 5-6 slides with additional information about market size, importance, some detailed stats on membership, lifetime customer value calculations, etc.




A month into the process, it was nearly 30 slides, attacking every question, problem or issue that had been raised in meetings where we didn't have an immediate solid answer or data point. I really believe that the VC process is all backwards in this fashion. The pitching company should: Have an introductory call to see if there's interest Attend a sit down meeting with a partner or two, some associates and a dilgent notetaker to get all the questions, concerns and issues on the table Go back home, make a great deck that addresses the things the VCs care about Come back and give the formal pitch Instead, many pitch meetings at the beginning made us feel like amateurs and it was only at the end of the process that we felt more comfortable tackling any question thrown our way (mostly because we'd heard nearly all of them before).