investment

REVIEW: Very good presentation Dustin. Both your elevator pitch as well as your venture pitch had me extremely engaged. You present yourself very professionally and confidently in both and I think this would be one of those cases where I would choose to invest in the investor more than the investment idea. A few of the things I really appreciated about your presentation: (1) an excellent presentation about who you are and your expertise and knowledge of your market. (2) an understanding of what investors are looking for when evaluating whether or not to invest in a business. Looking at differentiation, market advantage, competitive space shows that you understand investment.  (3) strong numbers to back up your decision to enter to market and valuation.  Although due diligence is required to ensure that the figures add up, it seems as though this is very well thought out.  I would invest in this enterprise knowing that you were on the team.  Overall, really well done! I learned a lot from your presentation and really enjoyed it as well.

Feedback:  You really found put your thumb on a necessary problem, Derek! In Victoria, the unemployment rate in Victoria, BC was the lowest in Canada, as of December 2017, at 3.3% and the National average was only at 5.9%. My husband, who works in the trades industry, has a heck of a time finding people who are reliable and efficient. Every time his employee leaves, or must be let go, it can take over a year to find another suitable person. I like how your elevator pitch kept funneling us back to your website; should this become an actual venture, paying extra to remove the “weebly” would be a thought. I just checked GoDaddy and good news, “worktolearn.ca” is available! I am not a very fast reader, so I didn’t have enough time to read your slides on your elevator pitch. Putting your Twitter-brain into action would shorten up some of the phrases somewhat. You have clearly identified the problem: demand is vastly outweighing the supply of workers. The infographics and graphs are incredibly telling! The Work to Learn solution seems really great from an employer’s viewpoint. The incentives for students would need to be substantial, I would think, since there is such a high demand already. I think your Money section needs some more assurances for investors: what would the safeguards be that lawyers would draw up? Also, companies who invest in apprentices throughout their schooling, would need safeguards established. A system where students paid up-front but were reimbursed by their employer after a successful apprenticeship and minimum 1 year of employment. Future projections, a solid team and current competitors may wish to be elaborated for your pitch, as well. Your strengths here are the problem and the solution; with a little work, a stronger plan towards your solution would nail this venture! (pun intended)

No, as an educational venture capitalist, I would not invest in this venture. To build on Angela's excellent review, I see the USP or edge in this venture as proving a way to circumvent traditional publisher vetting practices and to move to a model of peer-evaluated/promoted writing. This appears to be geared at customers as offering a value service/subscription & contract. This proposition certainly has an appealing disruptive quality, however it's missing the ask, the return, marking practices, plans and projections. It aims to provide a marketplace but doesn't communicate tactics. The competition is outdated yes, but a Goliath who may oppose this movement at every turn. It seems like a bit of a risky investment (even if it holds much merit). She makes no indication of the larger marketplace as a selling arena. Are they the only sellers of the resultant books? Lack of sales/profitability and future marketplace directions is the biggest holdup for me as an EVA evaluating this pitch. The numbers would have to be as disruptive/convincing as the idea, to convince me to invest.

Hi Peter, I appreciate your exuberance and joy in this product, as seems like an interesting concept. I'll certainly investigate it more, however I can't make any honest evaluation of this from the pitch evaluation criteria set out in the weekly activity located here https://virtual.educ.ubc.ca/wp/etec522/stage2/pitch-deconstruction/. It might be wonderful, but I am unable to deduce it's venture merit. For that reason I'd have to say NO, I would not invest (particularly as a venture capitalist with a design background) until this information is made readily available because I know that aesthetically pleasing and 'designed' looking products can lack substance in the same way that non-beautiful, non-aesthetically pleasing products can. My willingness to invest would be set upon the critical gap/irreplaceable service (unique selling proposition), future plans, the take, the ask, the market, and so forth. I've read that venture investments can be a little like stealing someone's lunch money, you have to know you have something over the competition, and can keep it that way. I'd certainly be willing to change my opinion if this information was available though : )

I’d post a YES on this pitch although I’d certainly want figures/projections before investing. The ‘pain point’ is accessibility of electronics on a non-mastery/professional level. Solution is putting the “power of electronics in the hands of everyone” which speaks to DIY/educational and creative markets (electronics prototyping is significant at post-secondary creative/design level through projects similar to this and Arduino). The USP and differentiation was ease of use, open-source (yes perhaps a risky investment however a growing movement), a growing library, community participation/collaboration (shared plans), comparable (and perhaps compatible) with other emerging DIY/lifelong learning, game/play-based learning markets. More elaboration on marketing would have been helpful, there also was no ‘ask’ or return discussed. She was upfront about projected drops in education and appeared quite articulate, strong, and confident. It was certainly compelling, showing $15M raised along with key investors, product in 500 schools and selling online. More elaboration on selling/future sales growth would have made this stronger though.