MotivatED

As a Chief Learning Officer, no, I would not invest in this venture. The pitch lacks credibility and does not demonstrate that the concept has been well-researched or assessed for feasibility and marketability. MotivatED purports to offer a low-cost solution to the expense of purchasing multiple, separate game-based learning (GBL) apps, but the pitch fails to identify the value of this saving. This makes the "pain-point" unclear. How painful is the expense of multiple GBL apps, and who is shouldering this expense? Teachers? School boards? Similarly, the pitch fails to quantify the value of increased student engagement and motivation. What does this purported advantage specifically offer to the target market? The lack of a clear value proposition is compounded by the CEO's assertion that there are no direct competitors. It is difficult to trust this assertion, given the apparent lack of attention invested in understanding and conveying the value of the proposed service. In addition, the CEO doesn't give any information to enhance her credibility or the credibility of her team. She doesn't demonstrate an understanding of either the market or the solution that she proposes. She provides no evidence to support that a student will become more engaged in their learning through their increased attachment to an avatar. There is no information provided on the value of GBL. Finally, there is no clear "ask" for potential investors. The ask is a rather vague invitation regarding service development, suggesting that MotivatED is nowhere near ready to go to market.

No, I would not invest in this venture. Below is a breakdown of the reasons the CEO did not convince me to buy into her idea. CEO & Team The CEO does not use her pitch to convince me of her credibility. She does not talk about her experience or why she should be considered an expert in this field. And though her elevator pitch is well rehearsed, she does not exude confidence or passion in her idea. She also does not identify whether or not she has a team behind her or the resources required to begin this venture. Venture Concept There is no indication of a value proposition. Why does she believe this will succeed and has she done research to identify that this is really something that students and/or teachers want or need? Marketability She does indicate that there is currently a lack of gaming opportunities for older students but I'm not sure how an avatar that follows them through their entire education career addresses this gap. If students are given an avatar, what games will they use that avatar in if those games don't exist? And in order for this idea to work, she would have to ensure buy-in from all teachers throughout the length of a students' career. She did not address how she would do this. I also am unsure if there are any innovative advantages as if somehow the idea did catch on, it would be very easy for other companies, includes those that have already created games, to recreate this idea. Venture Plan I don't believe that the CEO knows what success looks like as it was not communicated during the pitch. She does not have a clear destination and didn't provide a lot of details as to her plan to succeed.

No, I would not invest in this venture. As an EVA, I am interested in one thing - ROI. Far from being a heartless capitalist, I am interested in both financial and social return on investment. Unfortunately, I cannot see a way to leverage this idea into either a significant profit or social benefit. The main problem I have is with the CEO's pain point. Specifically, the lack of a curriculum centred game based learning platform for grades K-12 in Canada. As a seasoned EVA, I know that education is a provincial matter in Canada. Right out of the gate, MotivatEd would be required to build out 13 separate platforms for the markets they would like to access. Even when we take into consideration the alignment of some provincial curricula, it is still a daunting task and fraught with peril. I would be much more inclined to fund a similar venture in the United States, where education is under federal purview and alignment with Common Core content would be much more streamlined (not to mention that the customer base is an order of magnitude larger). Finally, my EVA colleagues and I like to talk about competitive advantage in term of "unfair advantage" - what does your company have, be it human resources, intellectual property, or technological innovation, that makes your company dominant over the competition? With MotivatEd, the main differentiation from the competition is the alignment with specific curricula. Since this is not an idea that can be protected under law, it can be easily copied. For these reasons, I could not invest in MotivatEd.

I would not invest in MotivatEd as an EVA because I believe the concept and software need to be developed further. I appreciate that the founder is addressing a desire for game-based learning in K-12 and especially like the idea of an avatar that grows with the learner but I found the pitch underdeveloped in terms of actual software that would be interesting to students over the course of their 13 years of public education. Students are pulled in many directions and are constantly able to re-invent themselves through social media platforms, it is my concern that the avatar might become mundane to them if the software is not constantly evolving and the $3 per year license fee does not allow much room for research and development (depending on how widely adopted the program is). I appreciated the growth plan and the bi-lingual consideration. The system needs to be tried and tested which could take a considerable amount of time. It also seem that the founder is offering a serious time commitment to training which is promising but this depends on the amount of investment that they were able to receive. I believe that the idea of the Avatar makes MotivatEd unique but they do have competitors in terms of other game based learning (although they do have different passwords, motives and curriculum areas) and much more research and development needs to be done before I would consider this a worthy investment.

No, as an EVA, I would not invest in this simply because I think it needs to be developed further before it is ready for investors. That said, I like the idea of an avatar that could follow a student through their academic career that could be upgraded based on skills acquired by the student. As a high school teacher I initially thought that this wouldn't be something that motivated older students. However, when I thought about it again I considered that a student who had this avatar from the beginning of their schooling may be far more attached to it. Games like the SIMS and Second Life have proved very popular and I think with the right implementation that this could work quite well. With that said, it must be tested first and an accurate test might take years before any useful data was available. I also don't think she has enough staff to make this a reality so she has drastically underestimated her overhead costs.

As an EVA, I would not be able to invest in Danielle's idea. There are a couple of main things that would prevent me from investing money in this enterprise.

Firstly, while Danielle did identify a good "pain point" - dealing with student motivation can be a serious challenge - her solution was a bit vague and underdeveloped in her presentation. Initially, she seemed to be suggesting a centralized place to keep student scores and achievements (it reminded me a little of the idea of badges), however later she expanded this to what sounded like a repository of curriculum-linked games/content. This is something that is a much larger undertaking, one that will require a significant time investment before there is any financial return.

I got the impression that the MotivatEd team was proposing to generate teaching materials for all grades from K-12 in all subjects - that seems to me like it would be an enormous undertaking. In her own Analyst Report, Danielle discusses 3 different providers of STEM simulations, each of which has been in the market for 8 years or more and yet none of them would make the claim to be able to support the full curriculum in any particular region.

• My advice to the MotivatEd team would be a little less ambitious (initially at least) and focus on a smaller part of the curriculum - possibly one that is relatively similar in all parts of Canada, and would thus not require much modification to appeal to the stakeholders in different areas. Alternatively, they could just focus on producing a platform that "gamifies" (is that a word?) content and grades that are provided by the teachers using the system - something akin to the "badges" that we're starting to see in various places, but more child-centric (which is what Danielle initially seemed to be proposing).

• My advice would be to increase the cost per student and start by targeting the largest school boards in Ontario. I would be curious to know where the $3 figure came from (is there some sort of research behind it?). There doesn't seem to be a specific need to keep the price at $3/year when $5/year or $10/year seem like equally small amounts to invest into a child's education. Also, while I personally admire Danielle's insistence on not allowing any in-app purchases in the MotivatEd system, from an investment perspective, she seems to be removing a potential revenue stream.

No, as an EVA, I would not invest in this venture.  I appreciate the attempt to address the growing demand for game-based learning, and there was some solid research presented in the pitch, but there are too many unanswered questions about the market, and a lack of detail on the specifics of the product for me to consider investing at this time. 

Pain Point: I am not sure that the pain point was clearly addressed, as I feel that teachers were identified as the target market, but this is contradicted by their claim that the student’s avatar can follow the student from K-12.  This would mean that EVERY teacher of that student, in EVERY school they attend would need to participate in the product.  That means that the target market would clearly have to be aimed at the school district.  This oversight instantly disqualifies the venture in my mind.  In addition, one of the main problems this product addresses is that teachers have to juggle a number of apps and passwords, and while this might be true, the product does not address how it will reduce the number of apps that teachers will use.  The pitch clearly states that there is no direct competition for this product, so which apps will they be replacing?  

Solution: The explanation of the product lacked sufficient detail. How will content be delivered to students?  The basics of gamification have been known for a long time, such as points, badges and leaderboards, but the work of leading researchers in the field, such as Deterding et. al. (2011) suggest that this alone is not enough.  The game elements must serve the content by motivating students to play.  This presentation did not address how that would be done.  I would need to see examples of the games and content that would be used in the product to be able to begin to answer this question.

In addition to this, making it curriculum-based creates a massive hurdle for implementation.  I applaud the intention, but there was no indication that teachers will be able to create their own content within the game, or if they can customize the content you provide.  In fact, it was stated as a selling point that there would be “minimal teacher implication,” although this was not clearly defined.  This means the team must create content that is acceptable by as many teachers as possible.  This is a daunting task; just consider the differences in opinion that might exist in a school/district over the selection of a textbook, for a single subject.  This product promises to supplement the entire curriculum that a student will face, from K-12, in EVERY subject.  That is, in my opinion, an impossible task. 

Differentiation & Competition: These sections will be addressed jointly.  As addressed by David Shore, in his video presentation for New Ventures BC titled “Perfecting Your Pitch” (https://vimeo.com/24813502), when a venture states that there is “no direct competition,” it sends up a red flag in the mind of an investor.  The presentation did a good job researching some of the market trends, referencing successive years of the Ambient Insights Report and noting that the expected rate of growth had increased from year to year.  This is a positive sign that the game-based learning market is viable, but if the market is expected to exceed $4 billion dollars by this year, how can there be no competitors?  Clearly, the market needs to be researched more carefully, as there must be (even at the time of this publication) some form of competition. 

Simply stating that your product is “curriculum-based” does not address the question of competition.  This was also addressed in David Shore’s video.  In it, he states that a new venture needs to address one critical question:  does my market have a choice?  This does not mean a choice between identical products, or even products that are comparable.  You need to consider a broader definition of “competition.”  The example he gives was for a new venture producing the first internal-combustion engine-driven automobiles.  True, there are no direct competitors, but… there are horses and carriages.  THEY would be competition to this new venture.  Possible competitors for this are already-existing products that might only be paper based, or board games.

In addition to this, the data for the market is thin.  Educational apps were mentioned, but are these used for personal entertainment, or apps that are used in the classroom?  This is a critical question to address, as the revenue model was based entirely on this one point of data.  And what are they learning from these apps?  It might be that students are using Duolingo.com to learn Mandarin.  Clearly that would not relate to the curriculum in a school. 

Marketing:  I felt the approach to marketing was reasonable, however it would need to be adapted to reach the target market of school districts, instead of just teachers.  Conventions and workshops would most likely be the most direct place to market the product, but some effort should be made to directly proposition the various school districts.   

Championship: the competency of the venture’s leaders and advisors seemed adequate.  The only area lacking is in content-creation.  As stated earlier, it is a daunting, if not impossible task to create content for every subject, from K-12 that has any chance of acceptance by teachers. 

The Ask: I have no objection to the amount asked, but it does seem on the thin side to create as much content, plus the software platform, plus the game mechanics and progress tracking features on such a limited budget.

The Return: This section was completely omitted.  There was no clear demonstration of profits and ROI.  All that was presented were low, mid and high projections of target market penetration.  This was used to calculate gross revenue, based on flimsy market projections.  A pie chart was presented, showing the breakdown of costs, but without presenting any actual data, such as dollar figures or percentage amounts.  All we were given was the pie chart.  Finally, a 7 year marketing cycle was employed to reach the entire Canadian market.  Given the rapidity of change in the tech and gaming industries, this seems entirely too risky a venture to invest in.   

References:

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9-15). ACM.

I would not invest in MotivatEd as an Educational Venture Analyst for the following reasons. The pain point may be valid, but the solution does not offer uniqueness or any detail to support it as the ideal solution for the source of concern/need demonstrated. Differentiation between other competitive products (such as the App Store or Google Play) was not conducted, and the competency of the venture leader seemed to be very thin in terms of supporting the weight of the arguments presented. Furthermore, there was no mention of ask or return, which ultimately would be a main source of debate for potential investors. The venture leader did seem well spoken and confident in their product, but the lack of detail lead to low confidence in the product being pitched, and thus I decide to not invest in MotivatEd for the above reasons.

No. I would not invest in this venture. I am not convinced that the need or interest in a centralized game based learning environment is in demand across grades let alone across Canada. The statistics and information in the venture and elevator do not provide actual interest or connect the numbers of students and growth in the game based learning to actual class room use. I want more information on the number of teachers who are using this application in the classroom and who desire a more connected comprehensive learning framework for game based learning. How was this need determined and who was polled and when? This is referenced but there is no indication of how many teachers were polled, what grades they teach, how often they employ game based learning in their classroom and the tendency for a school or district to coordinate or integrate this kind of learning across grades and schools. I am not a K-12 teacher but I was surprised that curriculum is comparable across provinces given the recent significant changes to the BC curriculum I would think there would be some significant curriculum differences from province to province. I am also not convinced that even if this issue does exist and there is a need and demand for a centralized game-based learning resource, that this platform and product is the solution. Aside from a few graphics and one avatar, it is not clear what games will exist, what the avatars will do or how students will be engaged or motivated to learn. The differentiation is also vague....why this product over another? Given the number of companies interested in this market and the growth potential, I think it unlikely that the competition will remain absent for long. The time to reach the full market potential is also quite long and may run into issues as technology and access to technology may change radically over next 3-7 years. It was a well organized pitch and provided information in a clear and logical order but I think there are a lot of questions unanswered, a lot of risk and assumptions regarding the marketplace, technology and competition that need to be discussed and investigated before this would be of interest.

No, I would not invest in this venture. Initially, MotivatED's pitch made some compelling arguments by identifying pain points for classroom teachers. As one myself, I identified with the problems of juggling apps, passwords and costs and the pitch certainly hooked me from the onset. Furthermore, Danielle made a strong case for the potential market growth of game-based learning and I can tell she did her research. I liked Danielle's confidence in the elevator pitch and her points resonated with me as I'm sure it did for other classroom teachers as well. As an investor however, the pitch did not compel me. The first point is the lack of differentiation or competitive edge within the product. The venture concept of a role-playing avatar as a means of maximizing student engagement is neither new nor is it fail-proof. There are so many apps and programs out there that do exactly this, which MotivatED ignored by declaring that it has no competitors. Essentially, what the product does is gamify and personalize a token award system, which isn't innovative - it is substituting a report card for a character. Furthermore, what evidence is there to show that MotiavatED will accomplish what it has set out to do? Why is it fun or engaging? What is the experience like for students and teachers? Without the facts and truly original value, I lost interest before even reaching the revenue points. By the end of the pitch, I wasn't able to determine what really makes MotivatED special. What MotivatED needs to do is to tweak its venture concept and find originality, provide evidence for the benefits of this type of gamification and recognize its competitors rather than ignore them.