I have approached this pitch in my EVA p…

I have approached this pitch in my EVA persona and with my natural skepticism. So the shortcomings of EARTH’s pitch first! Followed by why I would want to learn more and possibly invest in the area – if I were an EVA)

Parts of the pitch that gave me pause:

-The video on its own is product oriented. Though the Indiegogo page does supplement with more detailed information on EARTH, the physical artifact, the AI and AR tech.
-The pitch video is long, if comparing to a traditional elevator pitch.
-Investment need or even the word ‘invest’ is not mentioned.
-The market need isn’t established in the pitch even at a very high level. Is there a market need? Or is this a pretty cool, feels-like-the-future gadget? The video leads me to believe its the latter. But the language on the page suggests their target market is personal use and schools. So more definition is required.
-I connect with that what Dr. Skok and to the co-founder Joanne Di are describing and modelling, but it simultaneously feels clinical and almost dispassionate.
-The product incentivizations on the left side of the page paint his as a purchase opportunity, as opposed to investment where you would share in company growth. In this sense it feels a bit like an infomercial.

Why I chose to dig deeper, and why I might consider investing with more due diligence:

-The top line is powerful: “EARTH is the first-ever augmented reality-enabled globe that lets you see our planet’s changes across history. Just open the app and point your phone’s camera at the model for a deeply immersive learning experience.” I immediately want to know more.
-The video shows capabilities that sparked my interest — blending a physical, tactile artifact with AI and AR in a way that is easy to understand for a would be investor. But for me, being a technophile, I do want to know more about the AR and AI workings.
-This appears to be a first to market case. That is exciting and makes me want to understand what the innovation potential could be with more competition.
-The video and Indiegogo page combined do a good job of highlighting the strongest selling points of EARTH and showing some intriguing capabilities. There is a supplemental video by way of Dr. Skok, and some information about how EARTH is made.
-As a personal learning tool for families or group learning tool for schools with funds for experimentation, it looks to be really interesting.
-There is power in the social proof for me — it appears to be the most well-funded, currently open, venture in the education category on Indiegogo. When I looked further, I found out that most of the funds noted came from their previous, Kickstarter campaign. So I would want to do some digging here.
-While money or investment are not mentioned, the barrier to entry for investment doesn’t see out of reach. Of the 22 backers listed, all are under $420. Most are in the $200’s.
-AstroReality, the company behind EARTH has another venture called LUNAR. They claim the same tech is used in EARTH. I would want to look at the success of LUNAR before making an investment in EARTH.
-There are some named endorsements by way of an ‘As seen in’ section for LUNAR.
-There is a small team section at the bottom of the Indiegogo page. However, I would want to learn more about the professional backgrounds of each member on the team.

In summary, I became intrigued. The promise of EARTH is pretty compelling. I want to know more about the AI and AR capabilities, how much learning it does from human interactions. I also want to know more about the team, company and potential competing devices. In this sense, I say the pitch itself passes my EVA and inherent skepticism and appeals to my human optimism. So, while not a traditional elevator pitch it effective in getting me wanting to know more about innovation in this area, in general.