danielle couture

Review of EsCiPi Innovative way of relating the name of your product to S.C.P. however, as a side note, phonetic spellings can have a downside, people might not be able to remember the correct spelling when googling (EsCiPi, EssSeaPi,EssCeePee). Now for the review. Although this product seems very interesting, I would have liked to see more numbers supporting why this product is worthwhile investing in or even taking the idea under wing, even seeing numbers stating that a similar system increases student retention by x% would have added extra support to your pitch. The pain point is clearly identified and although I can see the interest as an educator, yet the pitches have not convinced me that the market needs such a service. The idea is clearly outlined and as an idea pitch there is no team mentioned, revenue model, marketing strategy or growth strategy. The idea is interesting and is very well backed by articles, yet to fully sell it I believe that numbers, potential market needs to be presented. The presenter is definitely very passionate about his idea and I wish him all the best.

Key2Key Review: The paint point is clearly identified. Although there does not seem to be any direct competitors that offer all three components of the writing process, they are very large and strong competitors. Therefore as an investor, I would be very leery about going against google or Microsoft for they could create their own rival product when desired. Also I do not know the cost to the consumer, the manner Key2Key wishes to reach the consumer and the amount asked from investors. The product is very clearly presented and detailed, yet a stronger emphasis on the investor audience, might make this venture more appealing. The target market is clearly mentioned. The presenter comes across as confident in the elevator pitch. Unfortunately this pitch leaves me with too many questions to invest.

Edsecute Review: I definitely enjoyed the slogan. However I did not see the need of separating the venture pitch into 4 different videos. I believe the overall impression would have been stronger if all the information was presented in a single video. The pain point also seems very large and I am not sure that the company can address all of the issues detailed in the elevator pitch. The target market is clearly identified, yet I do not know how the company will reach this market. I also am unsure if there are any direct competitors to Edsecute. The team although not clearly identified seems to have the potential know-how to see this company through. Numbers are provided detailing the importance of the market, yet I did not see the direct relationship between them and the proposed solution. The presentation is professional and the presenter came across as knowledgeable and confident. My main concern, as an investor, is that I have no idea how much the company charges nor what is the projected clientele basis. These are numbers that I would need to see before investing in Edsecute.

Nano Interactive Review Nano seems like a very interesting product. The pain point is clearly identified and definitely of major concern. Although it is said that the product market is based on facts, none are actually presented. How large is the target market? The product is very clearly presented. There is a timeline, a clear asking investment and a division of how the funding will be used. The cost of a class set is mentioned yet I would like to know the target audience. Will be product be sold to school boards or to individual parents or both? Is it only to be used in younger years or is this also 16 year-olds would employ? The pitches provide a realistic growth strategy and details where the product will be sold. As an investor, I would also like to know whether the nano circuits are being produced in partnership, bought or produced by another division of the company. Although a team is not presented, the founder seems engaging, professional, knowledgeable and confident. I can see how many individuals would purchase such a product and as an investor I would definitely look in your venture in further details to invest. Well done!

I appologize I just reread the section that does mention expanding outside of Ryerson. Again my appologies.

Review of TALO TALO seems like a very interesting product. Although the venture pitch clearly does indicate the pain point that lead to the creation of TALO I do not see the pain point that would lead to a revamping asides simple expansion. By the sounds of the comments TALO is doing just fine. As such the market seems relatively confined (to Ryerson) and no evidence of expanding this to other post-secondary institutions is offered. The product is very well detailed and the team definitely can see the expansion through. The presenter comes across as very knowledgeable and professional. As I unfamiliar with TALO it was very difficult to identify the modifications proposed (until the Plan section) from the already in place venture. It is wonderful to know where the other funds are coming from, yet as an independent investor I do not see a place for me to fit in. As there are no monetary returns, I can see this as a potential investment for tax purposes. This venture is already well started and well-funded, asides from increasing their own features I have not been convinced of any foreseeable growth in this venture.

By the way love the use of infographics :)

Review of GroupWork 2.0 The pain point is clearly identified and the target market of grade 8 and up is clearly identified. Although many numbers are presented for the e-learning market, I am not sure how the specific market of out-of-class learning community is doing and how GroupWork 2.0 is answering to that particular market. The product is well described and the model of the product gave extra clarity. The asking investment of 500 000 was very clear; it could also have been helpful to know if that amount is going directly into production, marketing or salaries. I am still unclear in regards to the cost of the product for the user; the revenue model could have helped to support the claim of 10% leads to 15 million dollars in revenue. As an investor I also would like to know how GroupWork 2.0 hopes to gain 10% of the e-learning market. I am still unsure of the value of the product over the currently free educational suite offered by Google. Although the team is not introduced, the presenter comes across as professional and knowledgeable. As an investor, I would be very leery in a product that hopes to make money off of Google, as Google could come up with its own version quite easily.

Review of STEMverse I thoroughly enjoyed the mission statement “We can start building a better future”, especially when placed with virtual reality. The product is clearly presented, yet the pain point of increasing success rates of students come much later in the presentation. These pitches have left me, as an investor, with many unanswered questions; Would the target market of this product be only high school level students or elementary level students as well? What is the cost of using such a product? Furthermore, as an investor, I do not know what is being asked of me. These pitches were great sales pitches convincing me to keep an eye out for this potential product, yet I do not know where investors would fit in at this moment. The two main competitors were identified and the strengths of STEMverse were discussed. Although the team was not introduced, I fully believe in the creator of STEMverse, he come across as confident, passionate and personable. It was a very professional looking presentation; however as the market for this product is entirely dependent on schools purchasing VR technology, as an investor, I find it too risky at this moment.

Review of SociABILITY First I would just like to say that you have created a very catchy name for your business venture. I simply cannot get enough of it. So now back to the review of SociABILITY. Great Idea. The pain point and target market is clearly identified and I can see that universities and post-secondary institutions would want to purchase the product and ensure an inclusive environment. You describe the product very well and support its merits with many articles. However, there is no mention of how much the app will cost; there is no revenue model. I can make out that this market will be growing with the increase in applicants, yet the pitch does not clearly make the link. Unfortunately, as an investor, I do not know what is being asked of me. These pitches were excellent sales pitches in convincing post-secondary institutions to purchase the app, yet where do investors fit in? There is a clear description on how the users will access the app yet I do not know how they or the institutions will purchase the app. The idea of the SWOT Analysis was well intended, yet I personally feel that the weaknesses are a little too strong to convince me to invest. Although the team was not introduced, I fully believe in the creator of the app, they come across as knowledgeable, passionate and personable. It was a very professional looking presentation, however as I did not feel these pitches were geared towards me, as an investor,