Venture Pitch: KSeeker

REVIEW: I thought your elevator pitch was engaging and made me want to know more about your product. It kept me engaged and you did a great job of the technology. You did a great job with the timing of the presentation and your voice was bold and clear. I like the concept of the adaptive learning and the use of analytics to keep learners engaged but this is only good as long as they log online. This would mean that the first class must be extremely engaging! Although I think this idea is new and exciting, I would still be concerned about the support for students who are not seeking knowledge and spending time online for the adaptive learning to occur.

FEEDBACK: Nice work ! I liked the idea of the venture. The elevator pitch raises curiosity and made me read the entire venture pitch to know the exact nature of the project. I think you have clearly deatiled most aspects of the venture pitch. I would have liked some more figures about the current market size and the names of people in your team. Just a quick question - Inspite of the profiling of customers part, what makes the courses your company offers great in themselves ? Good Job ! Best !

Review: Your venture proposal is well organized and covers all the areas important to a potential investor. You explain the pain points early and very clearly using statistics and demonstrate in detail what differentiates your product from its competition, which is a huge plus for attracting investment! I also really liked how you explained the roles in detail of your company members: content experts, course designers, marketing people, media specialists, knowledge engineers and data analysts. What I would suggest is perhaps including this info in the "who we are" section, or add an "our team" section because as an investor glancing through your proposal, it would help to be able to quickly spot the expertise and credentials of the team to guage the credibility of your company. One question I think that a potential investor might want to know, which is not addressed in your proposal, is if there is certification for your offerings. Other than that your venture proposal is well done!

FEEDBACK: Your elevator caught my attention and provided enough information to pique my interest and seek more from venture pitch. I think you have a novel and interesting venture here. I like the idea that users are matched up with the appropriate content based on their needs. Your business strategy based on paid subscriptions and sponsored tuition tied to advertising seems like a solid revenue model.

Feedback: I was initially intrigued by your Elevator pitch but was unclear on how you were going to achieve your goals. What makes this open online course platform different? I was hoping for a more dynamic Venture analysis as essays are not very engaging mediums to reach investors with. I appreciated that you used graphics to break up the text and highlight relevant points but the repetition of similar looking pie graphs was not the best choice. I once again found myself wondering what this venture offers that is unique and different. Does it address a pain point or gap in the market? Unfortunately I do not see this as a viable venture that would attract investors at this time.

@nidalk, Thanks for your comment. If this was a real pitch I would definitely have consulted a financial analyst to do projections. And they would have been more complex as a result. It’s a fictional company so don’t worry too much about me. That said, I used the formula you describe. For the standard offering, the ROI = (1500*17*150 – 50000*17)/(50000*17) = 3.5 = 350% The same computation was used to compute the figures for KSeeker (used an electronic spreadsheet). I think the problem is that what I call “revenue” is actually your “Net profit”. Thanks for getting so involved in my pitch. You can check the actual numbers and let me know if I got the formula correct. It’s not supposed to be a first phase startup. This venture is supposed to be already generating revenue and looking to augment its course offerings by developing pre-requisite open course offerings that specifically lead into paid full courses. This was explicitly stated in an earlier version of the venture pitch, but got edited out. The table was supposed to be a financial summary rather than a financial projection. I actually have a problem with presenters who use the present tense when talking about future outcomes – but that seems to be the norm. This practice causes confusion, but makes the pitch more persuasive. -Chris

Hi Chrwad The elevator pitch is clear. You sound energetic. The problem you are solving is clearly stated. I want to know more. In the venture pitch I like how in a smart way you are able to offer a customizable yet scalable approach for online courses. There is a clear breakdown to the business model. Yet ROI is not realistic. I think this is due to the fact that you measured ROI from Revenue yet ROI is measured on Net Profit on investment. You need to include the expenses before you measure ROI. Also you will face challenges in accreditations and you will need time to build the reputation so you cannot expect to generate the mentioned revenue from the first year. I think you need to consult with a financial expert on putting together the financial projections.

@peteo, Let me try to answer your questions: To my knowledge, KSeeker does not currently exist. My pitch is fictional, but based on a real world scenario. It is inspired by a recent move by udacity (read my submission to the Founder's Parade). Part of udacity's new business model is to partner with reputable content providers (usually universities) that offer certification. The purpose of KSeeker's (i.e. my) innovation is to provide for the knowledge seeking needs of those who do not qualify a priori for these new certified courses. We set out to have our cake and eat it as well by monetizing the knowledge seeking needs of those who do not qualify at the onset for courses leading to full mastery, even as we partner with reputable content providers to offer certified courses. By it's very nature, online courses leading to certification transcend the boundaries of "traditional university settings and institutional evironments". I believe that innovative universities who are going online with programme offerings realise that certification is only valuable if it serves to advance careers, and are making every effort to ensure that their certification does exactly that. -Chris

FEEDBACK: Hi Chris: Interesting video! The idea is interesting in that you will deliver content in various ways depending on the time constraints and learning needs of the individuals. Its great, but how well will this hold up in traditional university settings and institutional environments? Will they accept that you are offering an alternative path and if your courses are not relevant to certification bodies and other examination boards, will students actually enroll in your courses? Is this a venture that you have created already and how is it going or you? I like your idea, because I know we all have different learning styles and we all consume content differently, but do you plan to offer credits as a functional university/school? I understand this as an alternative learning solution for individuals taking courses in a variety of subject matter, but I am not sure if these are accredited courses? It would be good to be enlightened regarding these questions. Thanks.

@aviola, Good point. Developing countries ARE a good market for MOOCS. But I believe that MOOCS have to change in the direction that I am advocating before they can serve this market effectively. The massive market out there is made up of people with a variety of educational backgrounds and needs. Even in developed countries, but more so in lesser developed ones. Thanks for the feedback on my voice. Much appreciated! -Chris