Susan

Pitch Review: GroupWork 2.0 is a program that facilitates collaboration in learning. The pitch did not identify a problem in the current market place that it would fill. There are numerous application currently in place that address this issue. Is another really needed? The solution (GroupWorks 2.0) is described as providing synergy (spelling error in pitch) between existing programs. This appears to be a reworking of existing Google programs with different packaging. A side by side comparison of how GroupWorks is different would be useful. The market for the product is described in very general terms however the actual target market is not identified. Is it aiming for a province, Canada, North America? Is Google itself the target? Who are the actual customers? What market share is being sought? There is no marketing strategy outlined so we are in the dark about how customers will be acquired. As a result the possible revenue for this product can not be reliably estimated, though there is some information about possible ways the product will be marketed in terms of subscription, in-app purchases. A development plan for the app is not included so a timeline for completion is not apparent. The person or team (if there is one) behind the venture are not introduced so we have no idea who they are or what their qualifications are. We do not know if they have invested any of their own money in this venture. No exit strategy is given. The ask for $500,000 is significant but we are not given any information on a return for our investment. A plan of what the money will go towards is also lacking. From an investment point of view there are gaps in this pitch that need addressing (originality, customers, target market, team, marketing strategy). This seems like a very risky venture based on the information presented in the pitch.

Pitch Review: Sticky notes is an organizational tool for essay writing. The pain point is made clear with data to back up the problem of students inability to organize themselves to write good essays. The solution is Sticky Notes. Though not an original idea, Sticky notes has some features that the competition does not, namely essay organization. As noted in the pitch there are numerous apps that accomplish the same thing as Sticky Notes (Gingko, Tinydocs, Evernote, and Evernote sticky notes) so it is questionable whether this product could stand out against such substantial competition. A side by side comparison would have been useful to show where the product is superior. Right now it is hard to see what makes Sticky Notes better than the competition. The market for this product is school administrators in North America and eventually Europe and Australia. This is a huge market however a marketing strategy was not described so we are unsure how buyers will be secured. The timeline from development to world distribution seems ambitious and there is no plan to describe how this would be achieved. The team appears creditable however I think they are lacking a marketing person or project manager for this venture. There is no exit strategy described. The ask seems too low to accomplish what they want to, unless there is money being contributed by the team (this is not stated). There is no outline of how the funds would be spent. This venture seems to have merit but more detail is required on customer acquisition, marketing strategy and development plan before I would invest.

Pitch Review: eSCPiPi is student centred collaborative communication learning portal. The author describes the problem with the lack of collaborative options with current systems of a similar nature. Students are able to log on to these systems but not collaborate with other students. ESCIPI affords students this option and appears to be a feasible solution to the problem. The author is the idea behind the product and states that he is wanting to have someone else develop the idea as he does not have the expertise in this area, which seems to be warranted. The problems of navigating through governmental (they will be sanctioning it) red tape is not commented on but could prove to be a major obstacle in getting this venture up and running. The marketing plan identifies government and education decision-makers as potential buyers of the product but no actual numbers of buyers is given.The potential market appears to be Ontario only but is it aimed at K-12 or higher education? This is not a revenue generating venture however it would be useful to have this data in order to see if the initial money used for startup development is warranted. Further, who will fund the program's maintenance? The size of the ask is not clearly identified as it is based on the size of the customer, however this vagueness does not boost one's confidence in the venture. The development timeline is not described but it seems like there would need to be a customer prior to anything being built. This venture on the surface seems like a good idea but the data to get an investor to invest is lacking. I would not feel confident with so many questions regarding buyers, development, maintenance etc left unanswered. There was a lot of information to read in this pitch and I would have lost interest as a potential investor having to wade through it. A shorter presentation with just the minimum would have been useful.

Pitch Review: Stringwood Software Solutions is a database management system within Google apps. The pain point for this product is not described. Is this really a big problem or just a problem for the product designer? There is extensive information and a demonstration about the product itself and how it can streamline data management for teachers, which is useful but it is more information than is needed at this point. The differentiation between this product and others like it is made clear and Stringwood Software (SS) does have some small advantages over the other programs (a spreadsheet, uses Google platform, ownership). However, there are several similar cloud based SIS programs currently on the market (Alma, School-wide Management System) and it is not made evident how SS is superior enough to draw customers away from the other full service/feature programs. A marketing plan to attract customers is not presented. The target market is teachers in small schools but the actual number of potential customers is not given. Is it small schools in BC, Canada, North America? Based on this lack of information the revenue potential for this product is indeterminable. The readiness for market of the product is not clear either. Is the product ready to go or does it require further development? What is the timeline for completion? How much money will be needed to complete it? Which brings up another issue - there is no 'ask' included in this presentation. What is the point of the presentation if nothing is being asked of the viewers?What is the return on investment for potential investors? This is not addressed either. As a venture investment pitch, critical areas are deficient and this pitch would not encourage someone to invest in it. It comes across as something the author is working on off the side of his desk and not as a true marketable venture. It would be a very risky investment based on the information provided in this pitch.

Asseticity builds components for 3D applications. The problem is identified clearly and how there is a deficit with characters and props within this technology, particularly in the business sector. Background on how the technology works is outlined and important otherwise I wouldn't have any idea what the product was. The CEO? has a background in filmmaking and education however she does not have experience with this technology in particular. She overcomes this deficit by aligning herself with a strong group of companies who she states to be partners in the development of the product. The venture concept claims to be original by providing characters for business application and training; however, a quick search on the internet shows that there are some assets available already in this market. Through catering strictly to the business arena, a niche could be found in the market so that those looking for assets don't have to wade through numerous gaming assets to locate something. The particular buyers or the size of the target market is not described so it is unclear how much revenue could be generated as we don't know who will be buying the product, in what quantity, or for what amount. There is no marketing strategy outlined so we are not clear how buyers will be found. The assets are very expensive to produce but no return on the initial cost to produce is described. The venture plan discusses the total amount of money needed in phase one of funding and what they hope to achieve in three years and the pitch outlines how the money will be spent. There is no return on investment described so one doesn't know what they get for their money. There is no exit strategy described. This seems like a very risky investment and I would be reluctant to invest in a venture that lacks a definite market or marketing strategy, outlines no return on my investment, or lays out a clear production plan.

TALO is a program that teaches adult learners how to successfully teach online courses. The pain point for this venture is made clear with supporting data. The product addresses the problem and is based on current research; however, I would have liked to see how the results from this particular program compared to other similar programs in terms of level of competence achieved by participants. There is clearly a market for qualified online instructors identified in the pitch. The differentiation between TALO and other similar courses was a bit weak as "free of charge" seems to apply to only those who are faculty and the cost to run and develop the course must come from somewhere. The pitch did not explain how the people generating the sessions' content and facilitating sessions would be compensated (maybe part of their regular duties?).Further, there are many other courses that are "multi-week" offerings and facilitated as well so it doesn't appear that TALO would have a corner on the market. The plan outlined how TALO would enhance its content, provide facilitation and develop its central portal which all sounds doable. The funding requirements are small at $5000 annually, if I read this correctly, as this wasn't clearly laid out - especially with the $25,000 grant money put in under the ask. It appears that this is not an income generating proposal so would require annual funding from some source, not identified. The return on investment is not monetary and this is made clear in the pitch. An action timeline of the product's development is not detailed out as it states the aim is 2016? when the province moves to its e-campus portal. This does not seem a realistic time frame to get the product up and running. The team is presented and have many qualifications in the area of curriculum development and career-related programs though no one with a background in business or software development is on the team and these may be appears that need representation. Overall the idea has merit and could potentially be a good investment but I have questions regarding sustainability, development timeline, and whether they can stand out in a market that already has so many offerings.

MotivatEd is a learning tool to motivate students with learning via an avatar. Upon first viewing of the pitch I was a bit uncertain exactly what the product did but after viewing the pitch a second time I undertsood it better. The author may want to modify this part of the pitch so that it is very clear exactly what the product offers. The problem or pain point was identified clearly. The CEO and team were introduced and their qualifications and previous successes were identified. The team is well rounded and appear to have the experience needed to achieve success. The venture's concept was unique in the market of educational apps with no real competition identified. The target market is identified and it is demonstrated that there is a place for this product. Various revenue possibilities were generated and were based on several possible buying scenarios. The pitch presents a seven year growth plan that is reasonable and realistic. The marketing strategies were listed and targeted teachers and administrators who will be the buyers of this product. The pitch made clear what funding they were seeking and how the money would be used. I didn't see what the return in investment would be for the investors however. The only other thing that appeared to be missing was an exit strategy. This pitch was well presented. I would consider looking more closely at this investment if I was an investor.

CareerPave is an app that helps university students plan their careers based on their degree program. The pain point is made clear however the size of the problem is not supported with any hard data. The solution is outlined and an example provided on how the app could work. I demonstration of the app's functionality would have been beneficial though I understand that one is not available yet, but just something visual would have helped. CareerPave targets university students so is different from free services offered by the government which only target high school students, which appears to be an advantage in this market. However, the competition mentioned in the pitch appears robust and it is unclear whether the advantage of the "student marketability" feature is strong enough to compete with these very successful companies. We meet the CEO and know something about her background but she appears to be the sole member for this pitch. I don't have confidence that this venture can be managed by one person at this stage; she does say that she will hire team members later however. Her market appears to be the universities and colleges in Ontario however what sort of numbers we are talking about is not made clear. Her marketing strategy is aimed at getting universities on board by purchasing the app but it is unclear how this will be accomplished. A development timeline is not provided so when to expect a return is up in the air. No exit strategy is given. With the applications currently available in this market I don't have the confidence that this idea would be able to compete.

STEMverse is a virtual reality application for education. I was unclear from the elevator pitch what STEMverse was as the description provided was minimal. I would not have wanted to hear the bigger venture pitch based on the elevator pitch. I am still unclear exactly what is trying to be pitched here. What will it look like? What exactly will students be doing? I know a prototype is unavailable however I found it just too abstract to wrap my mind around. The Venture pitch was visually unappealing so did not really hold my interest. The CEO and his team are not described so I am not sure what their qualifications are are what prior experiences/successes they have had in this market. The venture concept is original but based on the story told in the pitch I am not certain it is feasible . The market is described in very general universal terms however the specific target market is not identified. Are they trying to reach all students in the world? Canada? BC? The market share and revenue generated by the product are not described. They appear to have a competitive edge however for someone who knows little about this market, I am uncertain whether it is really that competitive. I wasn't convinced by the description and there was a lot of technical jargon that was confusing. A timeline of the project was not made clear so I do not know when I would expect to get a return on my investment. No exit strategy was given. This seems like a very risky investment based on the information in the pitch.

READgauge is an application that targets reading comprehension. The presentation devoted a considerable amount of time explaining the problem and the product. For an investor who knows little about the subject, the content was too much and I was losing interest early on. We are introduced to the CEO but the rest of the team and the team's qualifications remain a mystery. The CEO is enthusiastic and passionate about the product. The venture concept is somewhat original though there appear to be quite a few reading comprehension apps available already. The one advantage of READgauge appears to be that it is designed to be used with a whole class of students at the same time, though whether it can compete with programs like Socrates is questionable. Market size is mentioned in terms of how much is currently being spent on education apps of this nature, but the pitch does not specifically address the target market, though it is clear they are addressing students but which students is not made evident. Further, no mention of the revenue generated by this particular venture is presented so it is uncertain what share of the market they could capture in a market already full of such applications. An estimated expected yearly revenue would have been useful. In terms of the venture plan, I am not sure how far an investment of $50,000 will get the company as the average cost of an app development is $200,000. It is unclear whether the team has invested any of its own money in the venture. An exit strategy is not presented. Visually the presentation was not engaging. The concept of READgauge seems like a good idea however based on the information presented it seems like a risky venture.