As venture capitalist I would not invest…

As venture capitalist I would not invest in IncentivEd. IncentiveEd’s goal is to address two pain points a) the funding gap between the cost of running cultural attractions and stimulate admissions and b) the lack of alignment between curriculum and I what assume are the learning activities set-up by the cultural institution thereby improving the value proposition for teachers and students. The pain point and value proposition are only arrived at after a significantly amount of superficial, unfocused material that seemed to over emphasize how much work field trips are for teachers without going into more detail on the misaligned curriculum. As best as I can make out the solution suggested by IncentiveEd is twofold: 1) a crowdsourced projects page where a project is proposed and people can contribute to the project. If the project does not achieve the target funding amount within the allotted time frame, no money is pledged. While the idea is a nice one, it seems to overestimate the altruistic nature of the population. Who is actually going to fund this? As Craig suggested, attendance to these attractions is waning, so why would people who are not attending suddenly be interested in crowdfunding specific projects? The second aspect and perhaps where the true value lies is the curated finished projects that teachers can access online and also the associated app. The idea here is a good one in the sense that there does seem to be a need for alignment of curriculum (in those cases where the teacher is not creating the activity prior to the field trip) to the activities provide by a cultural attraction, but it is somewhat limited scope and difficult to conceive of how to monotize it. Another major issue with this pitch is revenue model. The two projects examples shown were $105 and $2000 (give or take). From crowdsourced funding, IncentiveEd will take a 5% cut. So, for these two projects they are looking at $105.25, not very much at all. The pitch failed to fill in the gaps in terms of average project amount or a goal of how many projects they would like fund in say a year so it is difficult to project revenue, but giving Craig the benefit of the doubt and they averaged $1000 per project and were able to pull in 100 projects in a fiscal year they are still only looking at $10,000 in revenue. The second revenue stream is derived from selling the app for $1.99. First, there does not seem to be any incentive to buy the app apart from convenience, Craig indicates the finished curated projects are open access online. Second – even if he were to capture 20% of the 3.65 million teaches in North America that still only generates $730,000 in revenue. While certainly a lot of money, how much of this would be profit? What sort of return on investment would I be getting for the $120,000 he is asking for to ‘get the project off the ground’. Craig himself is somewhat engaging, certainly a skilled teacher and interesting person, but as he himself admits, he lacks business expertise and makes no mention apart from a reference to gifted educators as to championship. On a positive note, the competitive analysis was comprehensive outlining a lack of competitors and drawing a comparison with Teachers for Teachers, but differentiating incentiveEd based on curation, crowdsourcing and other elements.