Posts tagged: Sample

Feel Therapeutics is working to make mental health care more science-forward. The company makes wearable devices, mobile apps and clinician dashboards to gather physiological, digital and clinical data. It recently raised a $3.5 million round and shared its pitch deck with me to take a closer look. Let’s get in there and see what the company got right in its fundraising efforts and where more attention is needed.

We’re looking for more unique pitch decks to tear down: here’s how you to get involved. Read all our 90+ Pitch Deck Teardowns here.

Slides in this deck

The company raised its $3.5 million round with a tight 11-slide deck. The company says the deck is as pitched, with the exception of some clients that were removed.

Cover slideProblem impact slideProblem slideTechnology slideSolution slideTraction slide (business metricsTraction slide (white papers and publications)Moat / Patents slideTeam slideAsk and Use of Funds slideClosing / Contact slide

Three things to love about Feel’s pitch deck

Feel Therapeutics has a pretty original deck, with some twists I rarely see. The company did a great job telling the overall story.

Why don’t we have measuring for mental health?

In the age of the quantified self, where your various devices track every aspect of your health, Feel Therapeutics makes an excellent point: Why don’t we track mental health?

I think this is a masterful way to start this conversation. “Hey, we track everything out the wazoo. Why not this?” is a great way to catch my attention.

A great overview

When startups are building a full platform or system to integrate many aspects of a company, things can often get a little messy. I was really impressed by how well Feel Therapeutics pulled together all the strands of the company on this one slide.

This brings up a really helpful general storytelling point: Starting with a 60,000-foot view and then getting more detailed is a smart move for fundraising pitches, especially when the business is complex. In this case, Feel Therapeutics begins with a broad overview, giving investors a general sense of the startup.

By starting with the big picture, it sets the stage and provides important context, making it easier for investors to follow along when you dive into the specifics. Jumping straight into the nitty-gritty can overwhelm or confuse investors, so this method helps keep them engaged and understanding. The key is to create “hooks” that you can hang more details on later — and it makes the storytelling more interactive. The investors can focus in on the things they don’t understand, and they can skip past the parts that intuitively make sense.

As you move through your pitch, gradually adding more specific details helps investors build on what they already know. This step-by-step approach ensures you’re not dumping too much info on them all at once. It also keeps their interest, as each new piece of information adds depth and color to your story. This gradual increase in detail makes your pitch more coherent because each part naturally follows the one before it, creating a smooth flow that guides investors through the complexity of your startup.

So does it work?

This slide does a great job of showcasing hard numbers, which are essential for demonstrating traction. Highlighting the fact that the company has 2,700 patients across nine countries is impressive and provides a substantial sample size to show the efficacy of the product. Overall, I think these figures indicate significant progress and can effectively capture investors’ attention by proving that their research has a broad and diverse reach.

I have some notes on this slide, though: It’s important to avoid medical jargon that might confuse or alienate some investors. I had to Google them, and that’s goofy: There’s plenty of space on the slide to just spell everything out. Terms like MDD (major depressive disorder), GAD (generalized anxiety disorder), and “therapeutic areas in CNS” might not be immediately clear to everyone. Simplifying or explaining these terms can make their slide more accessible and engaging for a wider audience.

The other point to note is that traction is even more compelling when shown over time. Including a timeline or progress graph could enhance the narrative, illustrating growth and momentum. Additionally, while patient numbers are a solid indicator of traction, revenue is the ultimate proof of business viability.

There’s no mention of financial performance on this slide, which raises questions about the business’s financial health. Including revenue figures or financial projections would provide a more complete picture of their traction and business potential. Yes, I realize that medical trials often aren’t a real business-forward process, but it’d have been good to know what the price sensitivity is in this space.

Three things that Feel Therapeutics could have improved

With an 11-slide deck, unsurprisingly, there’s quite a bit missing that investors would like to see. And, for that matter, there’s some stuff that’s there that could have been done better.

I fed the deck into my AI-based tool to see what the AI bots thought of the deck. You can see the full feedback here, but the most relevant piece is the summary:

The company missed out on the competition, which is probably the biggest miss here. There’s also no coherent go-to-market plan or operating plan. I get that the product is early in its cycle, but they should at least mention the business model and pricing they’re thinking of, alongside the target customer side of things. I’d have loved to see some unit economics, too: What happens when this product is manufactured at scale?

Interesting Ask and Use of Funds

The Feel Therapeutics team has included the terms of the investment on the “Ask and Use of Funds” slide, which is a bit unconventional. Typically, terms are left out because funding terms are negotiable and often depend on back-and-forth discussions with potential investors. But hey, it looks like they’ve already got a lead investor and are just trying to round out the funding round, so in this specific scenario, it does make some sense. Bear in mind, though, that this isn’t the norm, and for good reason: Negotiation is the name of the game in the investment world.

As for the “Use of Funds” section: It’s pretty loose and fuzzy, like a half-baked idea someone scribbled down on a napkin. Come on, Feel Therapeutics, you can do better than this! Investors want specifics, not vague promises. Get granular with how the money will be spent. It’s particularly confusing here, because I think the company took its milestones (Launch as a Drug+ and FDA approval) with milestones from other companies. I realize they’re probably trying to suggest this isn’t high risk, but there are also no times attached to the milestones.

In an ideal scenario, the “Use of Funds” should be summarized as SMART goals: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound. Specific means clear and unambiguous. Measurable means you can track progress and know when you’ve hit the target. Achievable means it’s realistic (not some pie-in-the-sky dream). Relevant means it aligns with your broader business objectives. Time-bound means there’s a deadline. For instance, instead of “FDA approval,” a SMART goal would be “FDA approval under 510K by December 2025.” See the difference? One sounds like a solid plan; the other sounds like wishful thinking.

Why are SMART goals helpful in this context? Because they make you look like you actually know what you’re doing. Investors can see you have a clear roadmap and are not just throwing money at random initiatives hoping something sticks. It builds confidence and shows that you have a well-thought-out plan to utilize the funds effectively. So, tighten up those goals and give investors something tangible to get excited about.

This mess of a team slide

The Feel Therapeutics team has put together what looks like an impressive (if ugly) team slide, but let’s dive into the details to see how it holds up. First off, help investors understand why this team is the right team to lead this company. You’ve got some big names and titles thrown around, but what exactly makes them the perfect fit to drive this startup to success?

The “Industry Experts” and “Psychiatry Experts” sections look impressive at first glance, but are these individuals advisers? Are they part of the core team? How involved are they in the day-to-day operations of Feel Therapeutics? If they’re just high-profile names with loose connections to the company, that’s not as compelling as having them actively involved in strategic decisions and execution. Clarifying their roles and contributions would give investors a better sense of how these experts are enhancing the company’s capabilities.

The team member publications and citations are thrown in there, but these metrics feel like vanity stats. Sure, they look good on paper, but do they translate to actual business success? Investors want to see how the expertise of the team will drive tangible results for the company, not just academic accolades. Instead of focusing on these numbers, it would be more impactful to highlight specific achievements and experiences that directly relate to the company’s goals and market challenges. Show how this team’s unique blend of skills and experiences make it uniquely positioned to tackle the problems Feel Therapeutics is aiming to solve.

What’s the fundraising journey?

The other thing we should talk about is the company’s fundraising journey to date. Yes, it’s raising a $3.5 million round now, but it seems like it has already raised a bunch of money:

It appears that the company has raised a lot of capital, over many rounds (I’m counting eight different rounds of funding), but the company hasn’t reached proper growth yet. That’s not uncommon in medical devices, of course, but I’d want to understand what went wrong here and what the company has done to course-correct so it’s not needing to raise yet another bridge round in a year.

What the PitchBook data tells me above all is that this company really needs to start seeing some results, and soon. I’d also want to do deep diligence on the company’s cap table; who owns what in the company, and are the founders still adequately engaged to see them through the next stage of the business?

The full pitch deck

If you want your own pitch deck teardown featured on TechCrunch, here’s more information. Also, check out all our Pitch Deck Teardowns all collected in one handy place for you!

Feel Therapeutics is working to make mental health care more science-forward. The company makes wearable devices, mobile apps and clinician dashboards to gather physiological, digital and clinical data. It recently raised a $3.5 million round and shared its pitch deck with me to take a closer look. Let’s get in there and see what the company got right in its fundraising efforts and where more attention is needed.

We’re looking for more unique pitch decks to tear down: here’s how you to get involved. Read all our 90+ Pitch Deck Teardowns here.

Slides in this deck

The company raised its $3.5 million round with a tight 11-slide deck. The company says the deck is as pitched, with the exception of some clients that were removed.

Cover slideProblem impact slideProblem slideTechnology slideSolution slideTraction slide (business metricsTraction slide (white papers and publications)Moat / Patents slideTeam slideAsk and Use of Funds slideClosing / Contact slide

Three things to love about Feel’s pitch deck

Feel Therapeutics has a pretty original deck, with some twists I rarely see. The company did a great job telling the overall story.

Why don’t we have measuring for mental health?

In the age of the quantified self, where your various devices track every aspect of your health, Feel Therapeutics makes an excellent point: Why don’t we track mental health?

I think this is a masterful way to start this conversation. “Hey, we track everything out the wazoo. Why not this?” is a great way to catch my attention.

A great overview

When startups are building a full platform or system to integrate many aspects of a company, things can often get a little messy. I was really impressed by how well Feel Therapeutics pulled together all the strands of the company on this one slide.

This brings up a really helpful general storytelling point: Starting with a 60,000-foot view and then getting more detailed is a smart move for fundraising pitches, especially when the business is complex. In this case, Feel Therapeutics begins with a broad overview, giving investors a general sense of the startup.

By starting with the big picture, it sets the stage and provides important context, making it easier for investors to follow along when you dive into the specifics. Jumping straight into the nitty-gritty can overwhelm or confuse investors, so this method helps keep them engaged and understanding. The key is to create “hooks” that you can hang more details on later — and it makes the storytelling more interactive. The investors can focus in on the things they don’t understand, and they can skip past the parts that intuitively make sense.

As you move through your pitch, gradually adding more specific details helps investors build on what they already know. This step-by-step approach ensures you’re not dumping too much info on them all at once. It also keeps their interest, as each new piece of information adds depth and color to your story. This gradual increase in detail makes your pitch more coherent because each part naturally follows the one before it, creating a smooth flow that guides investors through the complexity of your startup.

So does it work?

This slide does a great job of showcasing hard numbers, which are essential for demonstrating traction. Highlighting the fact that the company has 2,700 patients across nine countries is impressive and provides a substantial sample size to show the efficacy of the product. Overall, I think these figures indicate significant progress and can effectively capture investors’ attention by proving that their research has a broad and diverse reach.

I have some notes on this slide, though: It’s important to avoid medical jargon that might confuse or alienate some investors. I had to Google them, and that’s goofy: There’s plenty of space on the slide to just spell everything out. Terms like MDD (major depressive disorder), GAD (generalized anxiety disorder), and “therapeutic areas in CNS” might not be immediately clear to everyone. Simplifying or explaining these terms can make their slide more accessible and engaging for a wider audience.

The other point to note is that traction is even more compelling when shown over time. Including a timeline or progress graph could enhance the narrative, illustrating growth and momentum. Additionally, while patient numbers are a solid indicator of traction, revenue is the ultimate proof of business viability.

There’s no mention of financial performance on this slide, which raises questions about the business’s financial health. Including revenue figures or financial projections would provide a more complete picture of their traction and business potential. Yes, I realize that medical trials often aren’t a real business-forward process, but it’d have been good to know what the price sensitivity is in this space.

Three things that Feel Therapeutics could have improved

With an 11-slide deck, unsurprisingly, there’s quite a bit missing that investors would like to see. And, for that matter, there’s some stuff that’s there that could have been done better.

I fed the deck into my AI-based tool to see what the AI bots thought of the deck. You can see the full feedback here, but the most relevant piece is the summary:

The company missed out on the competition, which is probably the biggest miss here. There’s also no coherent go-to-market plan or operating plan. I get that the product is early in its cycle, but they should at least mention the business model and pricing they’re thinking of, alongside the target customer side of things. I’d have loved to see some unit economics, too: What happens when this product is manufactured at scale?

Interesting Ask and Use of Funds

The Feel Therapeutics team has included the terms of the investment on the “Ask and Use of Funds” slide, which is a bit unconventional. Typically, terms are left out because funding terms are negotiable and often depend on back-and-forth discussions with potential investors. But hey, it looks like they’ve already got a lead investor and are just trying to round out the funding round, so in this specific scenario, it does make some sense. Bear in mind, though, that this isn’t the norm, and for good reason: Negotiation is the name of the game in the investment world.

As for the “Use of Funds” section: It’s pretty loose and fuzzy, like a half-baked idea someone scribbled down on a napkin. Come on, Feel Therapeutics, you can do better than this! Investors want specifics, not vague promises. Get granular with how the money will be spent. It’s particularly confusing here, because I think the company took its milestones (Launch as a Drug+ and FDA approval) with milestones from other companies. I realize they’re probably trying to suggest this isn’t high risk, but there are also no times attached to the milestones.

In an ideal scenario, the “Use of Funds” should be summarized as SMART goals: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound. Specific means clear and unambiguous. Measurable means you can track progress and know when you’ve hit the target. Achievable means it’s realistic (not some pie-in-the-sky dream). Relevant means it aligns with your broader business objectives. Time-bound means there’s a deadline. For instance, instead of “FDA approval,” a SMART goal would be “FDA approval under 510K by December 2025.” See the difference? One sounds like a solid plan; the other sounds like wishful thinking.

Why are SMART goals helpful in this context? Because they make you look like you actually know what you’re doing. Investors can see you have a clear roadmap and are not just throwing money at random initiatives hoping something sticks. It builds confidence and shows that you have a well-thought-out plan to utilize the funds effectively. So, tighten up those goals and give investors something tangible to get excited about.

This mess of a team slide

The Feel Therapeutics team has put together what looks like an impressive (if ugly) team slide, but let’s dive into the details to see how it holds up. First off, help investors understand why this team is the right team to lead this company. You’ve got some big names and titles thrown around, but what exactly makes them the perfect fit to drive this startup to success?

The “Industry Experts” and “Psychiatry Experts” sections look impressive at first glance, but are these individuals advisers? Are they part of the core team? How involved are they in the day-to-day operations of Feel Therapeutics? If they’re just high-profile names with loose connections to the company, that’s not as compelling as having them actively involved in strategic decisions and execution. Clarifying their roles and contributions would give investors a better sense of how these experts are enhancing the company’s capabilities.

The team member publications and citations are thrown in there, but these metrics feel like vanity stats. Sure, they look good on paper, but do they translate to actual business success? Investors want to see how the expertise of the team will drive tangible results for the company, not just academic accolades. Instead of focusing on these numbers, it would be more impactful to highlight specific achievements and experiences that directly relate to the company’s goals and market challenges. Show how this team’s unique blend of skills and experiences make it uniquely positioned to tackle the problems Feel Therapeutics is aiming to solve.

What’s the fundraising journey?

The other thing we should talk about is the company’s fundraising journey to date. Yes, it’s raising a $3.5 million round now, but it seems like it has already raised a bunch of money:

It appears that the company has raised a lot of capital, over many rounds (I’m counting eight different rounds of funding), but the company hasn’t reached proper growth yet. That’s not uncommon in medical devices, of course, but I’d want to understand what went wrong here and what the company has done to course-correct so it’s not needing to raise yet another bridge round in a year.

What the PitchBook data tells me above all is that this company really needs to start seeing some results, and soon. I’d also want to do deep diligence on the company’s cap table; who owns what in the company, and are the founders still adequately engaged to see them through the next stage of the business?

The full pitch deck

If you want your own pitch deck teardown featured on TechCrunch, here’s more information. Also, check out all our Pitch Deck Teardowns all collected in one handy place for you!

Feel Therapeutics is working to make mental health care more science-forward. The company makes wearable devices, mobile apps and clinician dashboards to gather physiological, digital and clinical data. It recently raised a $3.5 million round and shared its pitch deck with me to take a closer look. Let’s get in there and see what the company got right in its fundraising efforts and where more attention is needed.

We’re looking for more unique pitch decks to tear down: here’s how you to get involved. Read all our 90+ Pitch Deck Teardowns here.

Slides in this deck

The company raised its $3.5 million round with a tight 11-slide deck. The company says the deck is as pitched, with the exception of some clients that were removed.

Cover slideProblem impact slideProblem slideTechnology slideSolution slideTraction slide (business metricsTraction slide (white papers and publications)Moat / Patents slideTeam slideAsk and Use of Funds slideClosing / Contact slide

Three things to love about Feel’s pitch deck

Feel Therapeutics has a pretty original deck, with some twists I rarely see. The company did a great job telling the overall story.

Why don’t we have measuring for mental health?

In the age of the quantified self, where your various devices track every aspect of your health, Feel Therapeutics makes an excellent point: Why don’t we track mental health?

I think this is a masterful way to start this conversation. “Hey, we track everything out the wazoo. Why not this?” is a great way to catch my attention.

A great overview

When startups are building a full platform or system to integrate many aspects of a company, things can often get a little messy. I was really impressed by how well Feel Therapeutics pulled together all the strands of the company on this one slide.

This brings up a really helpful general storytelling point: Starting with a 60,000-foot view and then getting more detailed is a smart move for fundraising pitches, especially when the business is complex. In this case, Feel Therapeutics begins with a broad overview, giving investors a general sense of the startup.

By starting with the big picture, it sets the stage and provides important context, making it easier for investors to follow along when you dive into the specifics. Jumping straight into the nitty-gritty can overwhelm or confuse investors, so this method helps keep them engaged and understanding. The key is to create “hooks” that you can hang more details on later — and it makes the storytelling more interactive. The investors can focus in on the things they don’t understand, and they can skip past the parts that intuitively make sense.

As you move through your pitch, gradually adding more specific details helps investors build on what they already know. This step-by-step approach ensures you’re not dumping too much info on them all at once. It also keeps their interest, as each new piece of information adds depth and color to your story. This gradual increase in detail makes your pitch more coherent because each part naturally follows the one before it, creating a smooth flow that guides investors through the complexity of your startup.

So does it work?

This slide does a great job of showcasing hard numbers, which are essential for demonstrating traction. Highlighting the fact that the company has 2,700 patients across nine countries is impressive and provides a substantial sample size to show the efficacy of the product. Overall, I think these figures indicate significant progress and can effectively capture investors’ attention by proving that their research has a broad and diverse reach.

I have some notes on this slide, though: It’s important to avoid medical jargon that might confuse or alienate some investors. I had to Google them, and that’s goofy: There’s plenty of space on the slide to just spell everything out. Terms like MDD (major depressive disorder), GAD (generalized anxiety disorder), and “therapeutic areas in CNS” might not be immediately clear to everyone. Simplifying or explaining these terms can make their slide more accessible and engaging for a wider audience.

The other point to note is that traction is even more compelling when shown over time. Including a timeline or progress graph could enhance the narrative, illustrating growth and momentum. Additionally, while patient numbers are a solid indicator of traction, revenue is the ultimate proof of business viability.

There’s no mention of financial performance on this slide, which raises questions about the business’s financial health. Including revenue figures or financial projections would provide a more complete picture of their traction and business potential. Yes, I realize that medical trials often aren’t a real business-forward process, but it’d have been good to know what the price sensitivity is in this space.

Three things that Feel Therapeutics could have improved

With an 11-slide deck, unsurprisingly, there’s quite a bit missing that investors would like to see. And, for that matter, there’s some stuff that’s there that could have been done better.

I fed the deck into my AI-based tool to see what the AI bots thought of the deck. You can see the full feedback here, but the most relevant piece is the summary:

The company missed out on the competition, which is probably the biggest miss here. There’s also no coherent go-to-market plan or operating plan. I get that the product is early in its cycle, but they should at least mention the business model and pricing they’re thinking of, alongside the target customer side of things. I’d have loved to see some unit economics, too: What happens when this product is manufactured at scale?

Interesting Ask and Use of Funds

The Feel Therapeutics team has included the terms of the investment on the “Ask and Use of Funds” slide, which is a bit unconventional. Typically, terms are left out because funding terms are negotiable and often depend on back-and-forth discussions with potential investors. But hey, it looks like they’ve already got a lead investor and are just trying to round out the funding round, so in this specific scenario, it does make some sense. Bear in mind, though, that this isn’t the norm, and for good reason: Negotiation is the name of the game in the investment world.

As for the “Use of Funds” section: It’s pretty loose and fuzzy, like a half-baked idea someone scribbled down on a napkin. Come on, Feel Therapeutics, you can do better than this! Investors want specifics, not vague promises. Get granular with how the money will be spent. It’s particularly confusing here, because I think the company took its milestones (Launch as a Drug+ and FDA approval) with milestones from other companies. I realize they’re probably trying to suggest this isn’t high risk, but there are also no times attached to the milestones.

In an ideal scenario, the “Use of Funds” should be summarized as SMART goals: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound. Specific means clear and unambiguous. Measurable means you can track progress and know when you’ve hit the target. Achievable means it’s realistic (not some pie-in-the-sky dream). Relevant means it aligns with your broader business objectives. Time-bound means there’s a deadline. For instance, instead of “FDA approval,” a SMART goal would be “FDA approval under 510K by December 2025.” See the difference? One sounds like a solid plan; the other sounds like wishful thinking.

Why are SMART goals helpful in this context? Because they make you look like you actually know what you’re doing. Investors can see you have a clear roadmap and are not just throwing money at random initiatives hoping something sticks. It builds confidence and shows that you have a well-thought-out plan to utilize the funds effectively. So, tighten up those goals and give investors something tangible to get excited about.

This mess of a team slide

The Feel Therapeutics team has put together what looks like an impressive (if ugly) team slide, but let’s dive into the details to see how it holds up. First off, help investors understand why this team is the right team to lead this company. You’ve got some big names and titles thrown around, but what exactly makes them the perfect fit to drive this startup to success?

The “Industry Experts” and “Psychiatry Experts” sections look impressive at first glance, but are these individuals advisers? Are they part of the core team? How involved are they in the day-to-day operations of Feel Therapeutics? If they’re just high-profile names with loose connections to the company, that’s not as compelling as having them actively involved in strategic decisions and execution. Clarifying their roles and contributions would give investors a better sense of how these experts are enhancing the company’s capabilities.

The team member publications and citations are thrown in there, but these metrics feel like vanity stats. Sure, they look good on paper, but do they translate to actual business success? Investors want to see how the expertise of the team will drive tangible results for the company, not just academic accolades. Instead of focusing on these numbers, it would be more impactful to highlight specific achievements and experiences that directly relate to the company’s goals and market challenges. Show how this team’s unique blend of skills and experiences make it uniquely positioned to tackle the problems Feel Therapeutics is aiming to solve.

What’s the fundraising journey?

The other thing we should talk about is the company’s fundraising journey to date. Yes, it’s raising a $3.5 million round now, but it seems like it has already raised a bunch of money:

It appears that the company has raised a lot of capital, over many rounds (I’m counting eight different rounds of funding), but the company hasn’t reached proper growth yet. That’s not uncommon in medical devices, of course, but I’d want to understand what went wrong here and what the company has done to course-correct so it’s not needing to raise yet another bridge round in a year.

What the PitchBook data tells me above all is that this company really needs to start seeing some results, and soon. I’d also want to do deep diligence on the company’s cap table; who owns what in the company, and are the founders still adequately engaged to see them through the next stage of the business?

The full pitch deck

If you want your own pitch deck teardown featured on TechCrunch, here’s more information. Also, check out all our Pitch Deck Teardowns all collected in one handy place for you!

Happy New Year, and welcome to the 78th installment of Pitch Deck Teardown!

This week, we are taking a closer look at Pepper Bio‘s seed pitch deck that landed the company $6.5 million. With the slogan “The end of untreatable,” the company is taking on a hell of a challenge: Finding solutions for all those illnesses doctors can’t target well at the moment. Unlike CancerVax (which I ripped apart in a previous teardown for being completely unbelievable), Pepper Bio has a strong team and a lot of promise.

We’re looking for more unique pitch decks to tear down, so if you want to submit your own, here’s how you can do that.

Before we dive in, I have to admit that I don’t deeply understand this particular slice of biotech, and I had to do a fair amount of Googling to fully understand the deck. As such, there’s a chance I may get some things wrong here. That also speaks to an important point, though: Your deck needs to be well-targeted to its audience, and I’m probably not the audience in this case. If I had been working with Pepper as one of my pitch coaching clients, I’d have encouraged them to make the story come to life a lot more, with examples and anecdotes that are more relatable for a general population. Having said that, the simple truth is that I’m not the target audience for this deck: biotech investors are.

Give Anna’s story from November a read for some context, and then we’ll get to the pitch deck itself:

Slides in this deck

Cover slideProblem slide 1Personal story slideTeam slideProblem slide 2Solution slide 1Results slideSolution slide 2Solution slide 3 Application slide Target market slide Business model slide Go-to-market/beachhead slide Timeline slide Traction/revenue slide 1 Traction/revenue slide 2 Revenue projection slide Technology evolution slide Future vision slide Closing slide

Three things to love

The thing that confuses me the most about this pitch deck is that some of the slides are incredibly accessible, while others are . . . Well, we’ll get to that in just a moment.

A personal story

I love a good personal story. Tying yourself to the problem you are trying to solve helps a story come to life; it prevents a narrative from getting abstract or obtuse and enables you to speak from the heart. In this case, the CEO tells the story of their grandmother, and how the absence of treatments for Alzheimer’s was a sad outcome.

Obviously, I haven’t heard the voice-over to this slide, but I think there are many ways it could be improved (a photo of the grandmother in question, perhaps?). Still, this is a good first step.

ELI5

There’s a subreddit called Explain Like I’m 5 where people attempt to explain complex topics as if the reader were a five-year-old. Pepper Bio lost me a bunch of times in this deck, but then hits us with this incredible duo of slides:

This slide is a masterpiece. It explores the problem space the company is trying to address in incredibly simple words.

And then comes the mic drop:

I love this pair of slides for their simplicity and power. They nail the narrative and help set the scene beautifully for what is to come. In a world that’s often laden with deeply technical language, Pepper Bio sets itself apart for a moment.

The mother of all market sizes

This slide is, both in terms of the visuals and content, a masterpiece. It identifies three significant therapeutic areas with substantial market opportunities: oncology, neurodegenerative diseases, and inflammatory diseases. The financial figures provided are pretty impressive, indicating robust compound annual growth rates for each category.

The startup’s identification of oncology as a market with a value of $201 billion in 2021 and a CAGR (compound annual growth rate) of 9.7% is particularly notable. This suggests a deep understanding of a sector that is both in critical need of innovation and holds significant financial promise. The stark statistic that one out of six people worldwide dies from cancer underscores the profound impact that advancements in this area could have.

It then goes on to repeat similar numbers for neurodegenerative diseases and inflammatory diseases, each with huge market sizes and promising growth rates.

Overall, the slide does an excellent job of highlighting Pepper Bio’s potential reach and impact in areas that are not only financially vast, but also of critical importance to global health. A hell of a combo.

Now, of course, the company does need to show that it isn’t spreading itself too thin and that it makes sense to operate in all of those market segments. But that’s a nitpick: Overall, this is one of the better market size slides I’ve ever seen.

In the rest of this teardown, we’ll look at three things Pepper Bio could have improved or done differently, along with its full pitch deck!

Three things that could be improved

There are a lot of things to love here, but we have some serious flops, too:

That’s not how traction works

On three whole slides (slides 15 through 17), the company says it is generating revenue but then doesn’t explain how much. Each of these slides includes ranges and suggestions, which frustrates me and makes me suspicious. If you say you’re generating income, then it’s probably easy to show how much money has flowed into the bank account. It’s rather strange to leave that crucial bit out.

It would have been far better to show this as a chart or graph to give some idea how much revenue has been booked.

English, please

I’ve read this slide a half dozen times and I cannot wrap my head around what it is saying:

I don’t know what “HCC” is — it isn’t defined in the deck. It could be hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which, per the Mayo Clinic, is the most common type of primary liver cancer. But it could also be something else. There’s plenty of space on this slide to spell it out.

Also, I am curious about the sample size here. How many animals were tested? What type of animals?

I’m not sure what “vehicle control” means, either. What is a “vehicle” in this context? Is that a technical term? Could it just say “control group”?

Does “standard of care” refer to the regular treatments currently used for this type of tumor? If so, what is that treatment?

What does “Pepper Bio target” mean in this context? The cells the company is targeting?

I’m having to do a lot of guesswork here, and I’m left confused. The company talks about animals and “the clinic,” but I’m not sure if this means that it plans to continue to treat animals for this illness, or whether that means it is planning to start treating humans? Wouldn’t there be some sort of FDA approval process?

All in all, this slide is a huge piece of confusion sandwiched between needlessly technical language, in my opinion.

No ask or use of funds

The company raised $6.5 million, but the slides never explain what the company is planning to accomplish with the money. The deck is pretty hand-wavey about grand visions for the future, and I have no doubt that Pepper Bio, if it delivers on its promises, can continue to raise money and be successful.

But as an investor, you’re trying to gauge what the next step of the journey is going to be, and whether that will generate enough traction to get the company to a good place. That’s completely unclear here, which makes it very hard to determine whether $6.5 million is a reasonable amount to raise and whether the company is on the right track.

The full pitch deck

If you want your own pitch deck teardown featured on TC+, here’s more information. Also, check out all our Pitch Deck Teardowns and other pitching advice, all collected in one handy place for you!

The RAW Dating App aims to shake up the dating scheme by shedding the fake, TikTok-ified, heavily filtered photos and replacing them with a more genuine, unvarnished experience. The app targets young professionals and students, particularly women aged 21 to 27, who seek genuine interactions.

The company’s team claims it raised a $3 million friends and family round. I haven’t been able to independently verify that; most of the company’s media coverage appears to be written by the founder herself, in outlets like Forbes and Entrepreneur or as press releases that got syndicated across the web. Still, the deck was interesting enough that I wanted to take a closer look.

We’re looking for more unique pitch decks to tear down: Here’s how you to get involved. Read all our 90+ Pitch Deck Teardowns here.

Slides in this deck

Pitch decks are a lot like dating: You’ve got to strut your stuff to convince investors that you’re the perfect match, worthy of millions to grow and flourish. They need to know that despite any bumps in the road, you’re the dream team with whom they can navigate through anything.

The pitch deck should sell your team and your solution, not just the product. This is where RAW’s pitch deck swipes left pretty hard. Instead of showcasing the brilliant team poised to dominate a booming market and create loads of happy matches, the pitch deck seems like it’s trying to get investors to download the app, not invest money in the company.

Because of this misguided focus, the deck is a hot mess. The solution shows up before the problem, and the problem isn’t even clearly stated until slide 11 (there are only 18 slides total). The company tells me it submitted the deck exactly as pitched. Here’s what is covered:

Cover slideProductValue propositionFeatureFeature 2Feature 3Target marketValue proposition 2Value proposition 3SolutionProblemProblem 2Problem 3CompetitionAsk and use of fundsSlide 16TeamClosing slide

Three things to love about RAW’s pitch deck

I’ve already griped about the deck’s bizarre order: The problem and solution slides should be leading the charge, not trailing near the end. But, hey, credit where it’s due: When you finally do stumble upon them, there are some bright spots.

A clear solution slide

RAW’s solution slide is refreshingly clear, offering a concise statement that hints at the innovative features that set the app apart. The teasers embedded within the slide effectively define the solution, giving a snapshot of how RAW addresses the key pain points of online dating. It’s a nice change of pace, providing just enough information to pique interest without being too overwhelming.

It’s good that this slide doesn’t overlap with the product details. After wading through countless slides that read like a user manual, it’s a relief to see a focused solution statement. The relentless product pitch is paused here, allowing the solution to shine on its own merits.

However, I won’t get too carried away with the praise here. While the solution is well-articulated, it falls short. Claiming to solve “most” dating app problems feels like a cop-out. Investors want to see confidence and ambition; tell them RAW solves all dating app problems. This isn’t the place to hedge your bets or worry about overselling; it’s about convincing investors that your solution is comprehensive and unbeatable. Sell them the dream, not just a Band-Aid.

Yep, that’s a problem all right

While it’s absolutely ludicrous that we had to wade through 10 slides to finally hit a problem statement, I’ll begrudgingly admit it’s not a terrible problem slide. Sure, there’s always room to improve, but I’ll take hard-hitting numbers over wishy-washy “we are making the world a better place” junk any day of the week. The statistics do a decent job of highlighting a glaring issue in the dating app world, I’ll give RAW that. However, a sprinkle of credibility wouldn’t hurt. Citing sources for those stats could have transformed skepticism into trust.

Targeting the target

A target audience is supposed to be a crucial part of the pitch deck, and although this reads a little awkwardly, it does show that the team behind RAW has a decent grasp of their target demographics. However, “Women age 21-27” seems a little arbitrary and needlessly narrow — why not just “people in their 20s”? But it’s refreshing to have this level of clarity.

We get a sense of who RAW is aiming for and a vague idea of their socioeconomic status. However, saying “large U.S. cities” is like throwing a dart at a map. It’s better to be specific. Name the cities. Show you’ve done your homework and know exactly where your prime users live.

And those cutesy marketing terms like “rawmantics”? They might fly in a user-facing campaign, but here you need to persuade hardened investors. Ditch the fluff and demonstrate you know who you’re targeting with concrete, data-backed personas. Investors want to see you have a clear, strategic approach, not just a clever play on words.

Three things that RAW could have improved

I’ll be honest, there’s a lot missing from this deck that really should not have been overlooked. From the figures I can see on the included slides, there’s no way I can make a reasonable judgment as to whether RAW is venture-scale, aside from a gut instinct that dating apps are hot property. RAW hasn’t presented any market size data, there’s no go-to-market strategy, and there’s a glaring hole around the business model and pricing. How exactly does this founding team envision making money?

Market size data is crucial. Investors need to know the potential for growth and how big the opportunity really is. Without this, it’s impossible to gauge whether RAW can capture a significant portion of the market. Provide detailed research, statistics and projections to back up your claims to show that there’s a substantial market ripe for disruption.The go-to-market strategy is missing. How do you plan to attract users? What’s your marketing plan? Are there partnerships in the pipeline? Investors need to see a clear path to user acquisition and growth. Lay out your strategies, target channels, and expected milestones. This is essential for demonstrating that you have a realistic and effective plan to scale.There’s no business model or pricing. How do you make money? Subscription fees? In-app purchases? Ads? This is a fundamental question that needs a clear answer. Outline your revenue streams, pricing strategy, and how you plan to convert users into paying customers. This clarity is vital for investors to understand the financial viability and long-term potential of RAW.

All that aside, there are some specific slides in the deck that could benefit from revision and improvement. Let’s give them a gentle ribbing and see how we could have turned this deck into something that truly dazzles.

That’s not competition …

All right, founders, let’s talk about your competitive slide, or rather, this bad excuse for one. It is so bad, in fact, that if I were considering to invest in this startup, I’d send them away and ask them to make a real competition slide.

In a hotly contested market like online dating, you need a solid competitive slide to show you’ve got a handle on who you’re up against, and what your competitive advantage and differentiation is. Here’s why a competitive slide is crucial: Investors want to see that you understand the battlefield. They need to know you’re not just aware of the competition but that you’ve done your homework and can outmaneuver them. Who’s the competition? Colored boxes numbered 1 to 3 don’t cut it. Anyone who has a pulse and has been single in the past decade can name anywhere between one and 15 competitors off the top of their heads.

You need to demonstrate rock-solid knowledge of the sphere where you operate. Show investors you grasp the landscape inside out and back to front and that nothing happening in this space escapes your notice. This slide, unfortunately, doesn’t give me that confidence.

How many competitors does RAW have? You need specifics. While your competitors might not offer what RAW does, do they provide any features RAW doesn’t? What’s the price comparison? Who do these different dating apps appeal to? And let’s not forget: Dating apps rely on people. It’s a numbers game. If you only have a handful of users, making meaningful matches is going to be tough. Investors need to see you’re not just another face in the crowd; you’re the one who stands out and knows exactly why you’re better. So, let’s see that competitive analysis beefed up with real data, insights, and a clear picture of where RAW fits in this crowded market.

Hello, mystery slide!

OK, let’s dive into the enigma that is slide 16. You’ll notice I’ve just referred to this one as “slide 16.” Is it a traction slide? Maybe. Perhaps it’s a projected growth slide? I don’t know. Could it be a combination of both, forming a now-and-next slide? Is it showing traction from the past or projections into the future? It’s all possible, but I just don’t know.

First off, the slide itself doesn’t have a title. While not all decks title their slides, they are useful. A title would give a hint about what we’re looking at here. Instead, we get a mystery box of information with no context. It’s like trying to read a map with no legend. Help me out here.

There are no labels on the graph’s axes other than months. Which years are these months from? Is it showing July 2023 to May 2024? Or maybe even July 2024 to May 2025? The company launched in 2023 (it says so on slide 2), so I’m guessing the former, but I can’t be certain. Are these monthly active user numbers showing actual growth? In which case, they should be charted properly on the graph. Or are they growth projections? And even if they are projections, they should be laid out with conviction. Give me clear, labeled axes and a timeline that makes sense.

If these are actual user numbers, they are presumably bringing some revenue with them. And seeing as revenue is the best form of traction, show me the money! How much revenue are we talking about here? Investors need to see the financial impact, not just ambiguous lines on a graph. Honestly, as far as graphs go, this one is verging on useless. Clarify your data, label your axes, and make sure this slide conveys a clear, impactful message.

We got 99 problems, and the pitch is one

Three problem slides in this deck is completely overkill — especially because the team is using three slides to hammer home the same point in slightly different ways. Just one concise slide will do: “Dating apps make it harder, not easier, to find true love.” Then run down the statistics that RAW has put on the first problem slide (and double-check that $638.8 million figure — it looks like someone got a bit too creative with their decimal points). And the second problem slide is just clutter.

Are these statements on the second problem slide real findings from RAW’s research? Or are they made up? If they’re fabricated, why bother including them? The first slide’s cold, hard statistics cover the same ground. Investors love statistics, especially if they’re based on solid research. There’s no need to go over old ground. Keep it fresh; keep it lively. Don’t waste valuable deck real estate.

Now, about those problems. Yes, ghosting is a problem, but you can’t make people stop ghosting. Human behavior isn’t something you can control with an app feature. And yes, scamming is a problem, but scams prey on vulnerable people looking for love. Real photos are just part of the solution. Have you seen the “Tinder Swindler”? It’s a jungle out there.

Finally, I’m taking issue with perhaps a slightly obscure part of the deck: The team says “real photos” and “no Photoshop,” but the majority of the photos in this deck look like they’ve been plucked from a high-end studio, with a bit of Photoshop magic. In fact, many of them are stock photos. After you’ve clicked through the deck, you’ll recognize Man with Pink Tank Top, Thoughtful Man with Guitar, Selfie of Couple in New York Park, and probably a few others, too.

I’m not saying you can’t use stock photos in pitch decks, but in this case, where the company is touting genuine interactions that start with genuine photos, it’s a little off-putting.

Overall, I’m stuck: I can’t get to the belief that this product is a real solution to the problems the company outlines, and I find myself with a wish: Show me how RAW tangibly addresses these issues with more than just hopes, dreams and good intentions — ideally with a solid business model underneath all of that.

The full pitch deck

If you want your own pitch deck teardown featured on TechCrunch, here’s more information. Also, check out all our Pitch Deck Teardowns all collected in one handy place for you!

Happy New Year, and welcome to the 78th installment of Pitch Deck Teardown!

This week, we are taking a closer look at Pepper Bio‘s seed pitch deck that landed the company $6.5 million. With the slogan “The end of untreatable,” the company is taking on a hell of a challenge: Finding solutions for all those illnesses doctors can’t target well at the moment. Unlike CancerVax (which I ripped apart in a previous teardown for being completely unbelievable), Pepper Bio has a strong team and a lot of promise.

We’re looking for more unique pitch decks to tear down, so if you want to submit your own, here’s how you can do that.

Before we dive in, I have to admit that I don’t deeply understand this particular slice of biotech, and I had to do a fair amount of Googling to fully understand the deck. As such, there’s a chance I may get some things wrong here. That also speaks to an important point, though: Your deck needs to be well-targeted to its audience, and I’m probably not the audience in this case. If I had been working with Pepper as one of my pitch coaching clients, I’d have encouraged them to make the story come to life a lot more, with examples and anecdotes that are more relatable for a general population. Having said that, the simple truth is that I’m not the target audience for this deck: biotech investors are.

Give Anna’s story from November a read for some context, and then we’ll get to the pitch deck itself:

Slides in this deck

Cover slideProblem slide 1Personal story slideTeam slideProblem slide 2Solution slide 1Results slideSolution slide 2Solution slide 3  Application slide  Target market slide  Business model slide  Go-to-market/beachhead slide  Timeline slide  Traction/revenue slide 1  Traction/revenue slide 2  Revenue projection slide  Technology evolution slide  Future vision slide  Closing slide

Three things to love

The thing that confuses me the most about this pitch deck is that some of the slides are incredibly accessible, while others are . . . Well, we’ll get to that in just a moment.

A personal story

I love a good personal story. Tying yourself to the problem you are trying to solve helps a story come to life; it prevents a narrative from getting abstract or obtuse and enables you to speak from the heart. In this case, the CEO tells the story of their grandmother, and how the absence of treatments for Alzheimer’s was a sad outcome.

Obviously, I haven’t heard the voice-over to this slide, but I think there are many ways it could be improved (a photo of the grandmother in question, perhaps?). Still, this is a good first step.

ELI5

There’s a subreddit called Explain Like I’m 5 where people attempt to explain complex topics as if the reader were a five-year-old. Pepper Bio lost me a bunch of times in this deck, but then hits us with this incredible duo of slides:

This slide is a masterpiece. It explores the problem space the company is trying to address in incredibly simple words.

And then comes the mic drop:

I love this pair of slides for their simplicity and power. They nail the narrative and help set the scene beautifully for what is to come. In a world that’s often laden with deeply technical language, Pepper Bio sets itself apart for a moment.

The mother of all market sizes

This slide is, both in terms of the visuals and content, a masterpiece. It identifies three significant therapeutic areas with substantial market opportunities: oncology, neurodegenerative diseases, and inflammatory diseases. The financial figures provided are pretty impressive, indicating robust compound annual growth rates for each category.

The startup’s identification of oncology as a market with a value of $201 billion in 2021 and a CAGR (compound annual growth rate) of 9.7% is particularly notable. This suggests a deep understanding of a sector that is both in critical need of innovation and holds significant financial promise. The stark statistic that one out of six people worldwide dies from cancer underscores the profound impact that advancements in this area could have.

It then goes on to repeat similar numbers for neurodegenerative diseases and inflammatory diseases, each with huge market sizes and promising growth rates.

Overall, the slide does an excellent job of highlighting Pepper Bio’s potential reach and impact in areas that are not only financially vast, but also of critical importance to global health. A hell of a combo.

Now, of course, the company does need to show that it isn’t spreading itself too thin and that it makes sense to operate in all of those market segments. But that’s a nitpick: Overall, this is one of the better market size slides I’ve ever seen.

In the rest of this teardown, we’ll look at three things Pepper Bio could have improved or done differently, along with its full pitch deck!

Three things that could be improved

There are a lot of things to love here, but we have some serious flops, too:

That’s not how traction works

On three whole slides (slides 15 through 17), the company says it is generating revenue but then doesn’t explain how much. Each of these slides includes ranges and suggestions, which frustrates me and makes me suspicious. If you say you’re generating income, then it’s probably easy to show how much money has flowed into the bank account. It’s rather strange to leave that crucial bit out.

It would have been far better to show this as a chart or graph to give some idea how much revenue has been booked.

English, please

I’ve read this slide a half dozen times and I cannot wrap my head around what it is saying:

I don’t know what “HCC” is — it isn’t defined in the deck. It could be hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which, per the Mayo Clinic, is the most common type of primary liver cancer. But it could also be something else. There’s plenty of space on this slide to spell it out.

Also, I am curious about the sample size here. How many animals were tested? What type of animals?

I’m not sure what “vehicle control” means, either. What is a “vehicle” in this context? Is that a technical term? Could it just say “control group”?

Does “standard of care” refer to the regular treatments currently used for this type of tumor? If so, what is that treatment?

What does “Pepper Bio target” mean in this context? The cells the company is targeting?

I’m having to do a lot of guesswork here, and I’m left confused. The company talks about animals and “the clinic,” but I’m not sure if this means that it plans to continue to treat animals for this illness, or whether that means it is planning to start treating humans? Wouldn’t there be some sort of FDA approval process?

All in all, this slide is a huge piece of confusion sandwiched between needlessly technical language, in my opinion.

No ask or use of funds

The company raised $6.5 million, but the slides never explain what the company is planning to accomplish with the money. The deck is pretty hand-wavey about grand visions for the future, and I have no doubt that Pepper Bio, if it delivers on its promises, can continue to raise money and be successful.

But as an investor, you’re trying to gauge what the next step of the journey is going to be, and whether that will generate enough traction to get the company to a good place. That’s completely unclear here, which makes it very hard to determine whether $6.5 million is a reasonable amount to raise and whether the company is on the right track.

The full pitch deck

If you want your own pitch deck teardown featured on TC+, here’s more information. Also, check out all our Pitch Deck Teardowns and other pitching advice, all collected in one handy place for you!

As a species, we have a problem. Bacteria are becoming more and more resistant to antibiotics. Makes sense: Antibiotics kill off all the bacteria they can, but the remaining ones that somehow survive continue to grow and spread. Guess which gene they all have in common? That’s right, the one that makes them resistant to antibiotics.

We’ve known this for years, but instead of accelerating, the work on new antibiotics is slowing down significantly. Why? Capitalism: It’s really expensive to develop new drugs, and once they’re developed, it’s hard to make a lot of money on them.

PhageLab wants to come to the rescue with a different approach: using a phage (short for “bacteriophage”). Phages are a type of virus that infects bacteria and kills them. Unlike traditional antibiotics, phages can be designed to target very specific bacteria, and that lets us use them to kill only the bacteria you don’t want (say, salmonella), while your gut bacteria stay more or less intact.

Of course, the process is not without downsides. One of the reasons broad-spectrum antibiotics work so well is that doctors often don’t know exactly which bacteria are wreaking havoc, and if you have a phage that attacks only a handful of bacteria, that could pose a challenge.

Still, I love phages in general, and the idea behind PhageLab is pretty rad. The team shared their pitch deck with me, so let’s see what the company showed investors to raise its $11 million Series A round.

We’re looking for more unique pitch decks to tear down, so if you want to submit your own, here’s how you can do that.

Slides in this deck

The page numbering on the deck is wonky (Page 1 is labeled 1, but page 3 is labeled 2) so keep in mind that when I refer to slide numbers in this teardown, I’m referring to the page number of the PDF, not what’s on the slides themselves. The final slide is page 26 of the PDF, but it is labeled 32, so it’s clear that some slides were deleted from the deck before PhageLab shared it with me. The company says the use of funds slide has been removed, but it’s not entirely clear what else was deleted.

Still, let’s review this deck as if this were the full story and see where that takes us.

Cover slideSummary slideProblem slideProblem overview slideProblem impact slide IProblem context slideProblem summary slideProblem impact slide IIProblem impact slide III  Market size slide “This is how we do it” interstitial slide  Value proposition slide  “What are phages” slide  Why now slide  Solution slide I  Solution slide II  Field trial results slide  “Meet our team” interstitial slide  Team size slide  Headquarters slide  Team slide  Summary slide  Closing slide  Contact slide  Appendix interstitial slide  Appendix: Videos slide

Three things to love

There’s some truly fantastic storytelling in this deck.

So what about big pharma?

Startups in this space always have to worry about the big pharma companies. They can definitely outspend you, so the question is how you’re going to outsmart them.

This slide goes a long way toward answering that: The business case for developing new antibiotics is plummeting, which opens the door for PhageLab.

That makes the urgency clear . . .

I do have a thing or two to say about how the company outlines its problem statement, but slide 9 made me catch my breath. If we are 25 years away from this doomsday scenario, it’s obvious that there’s a huge opportunity for startups that can make a real impact in this space. It’s powerful storytelling.

That’s a hell of a promise of success

Bacteria are pretty nebulous, so where do you even begin? It seems to me like PhageLab asked itself: What’s a bacteria that everyone knows exists, knows where it exists, and is often in the media? Salmonella fits the bill nicely. The company has done its research and reckons it can remove salmonella altogether — a huge and obvious benefit for food supply chains.

In the rest of this teardown, we’ll take a look at three things PhageLab could have improved or done differently, along with its full pitch deck!

Three things that could be improved

This deck is very, very long. Most successful slide decks these days have 16 slides, and PhageLab could probably have shortened this deck to tell the full story in 16 to 18 slides as well.

Okay, I get it. It’s a problem.

I’m stumbling over the sheer number of problem slides. Slides 3–9 all cover various aspects of the problem, and they do so in a somewhat hyperbolic “omg this is a disaster” way:

PhageLab could have shortened its deck significantly here by reducing this part to two slides: The problem slide itself (what’s the problem?) and the problem impact slide (what happens if we don’t solve this problem). We get it, it’s a huge problem and people are going to die. It’s good storytelling, yes, but there’s no real benefit from getting dramatic about it.

Them’s some pretty buildings

Whenever I work with startups as a pitch coach, I make them defend every slide. Is it really necessary? What part of the story does this reinforce? Will an investor choose to invest because the slide is here and might they choose not to if it wasn’t? Slide 20 doesn’t pass that sniff test. Yes, you have offices in three countries, but we don’t need pictures of them. This slide is a bit of a waste.

Erm . . .

Forget what I said about the slide with the buildings. This is a waste of a slide. “Science works and we can prove it” sounds like it has to be a mistranslation or a misunderstanding of some sort. Of course science works. That’s what science does.

I want to note that PhageLab also uses “science works and we can prove it” on its website as a slogan of sorts. Unfortunately, it just isn’t a very good slogan. It could be used by literally any startup.

Some judicious pruning of this pitch deck would have gone a long way. In fact, I created an eight-slide version of this deck (just by deleting superfluous slides) that has 90% of the impact of the original.

The full pitch deck

Haje’s drastically shortened deck

In addition to these eight slides, I’d add in the Ask, Use of Funds, and Team slides and call it a day.

If you want your own pitch deck teardown featured on TC+, here’s more information. Also, check out all our Pitch Deck Teardowns and other pitching advice, all collected in one handy place for you!

Terra One aims to reduce the quantity of clean energy created significantly and then lost from the German grid owing to a lack of storage capacity. Lacking storage capacity is an entirely pressing need and one desperate for solutions, so it’s great to see companies thinking up ways to fix it and going after the funding to make it happen.

Fresh from its April fundraiser, where it raised $7.5 million to scale its battery storage system, Germany-based Terra One has shared its pitch deck with TechCrunch for a teardown. Let’s get in there and see how it won over its investors!

We’re looking for more unique pitch decks to tear down: here’s how you to get involved. Read all our 90+ Pitch Deck Teardowns here.

Slides in this deck

Terra One’s 13-slide deck is short, but it could, in theory, include everything a pitch deck needs. The company includes a buffet menu of insights, designed to tell its story and sweep investors off their feet. Some slides failed to live up to their billing, leaving me scratching my head and asking, “Really? That’s it?”

After Terra One opened with a bang on its problem, solution and product slides, I was ready to give it a standing ovation, confetti and ticker tape parades on standby. But then came the disappointing slides, dashing my hopes like a dropped ice cream cone on a global-warming-fueled summer’s day.

So grab your popcorn and prepare for a rollercoaster of emotions as I walk you through this presentation. You’ll see why I went from enthusiastic cheerleader to cautious critic in the span of 13 slides.

The company says it submitted the whole deck, bar “a couple of pages of financial modeling, which remains under NDA,” so some of my feedback may have been covered by those slides. As always, take that with a pinch of salt!

Here’s a table of contents for the company’s deck:

Cover slideProblem 1Problem 2Problem 3SolutionRequirementProductBusiness modelHow it works 1How it works 2How it works 3TeamClosing slide

Three things to love about Terra One’s pitch deck

Terra One’s deck had some glaring misses and slides that desperately needed work; we’ll get to that later. But some hit the nail on the head, so let’s start there:

Yeah, that seems like a problem …

Alright, let’s talk about slide 3 of Terra One’s pitch deck. This problem statement is like a punch in the face, but, you know, in a good way. It hits hard, fast, and leaves you wondering what just happened. What I love is that the company doesn’t pull its punches; the slide throws some impressive numbers right at you, making it crystal clear that this problem is not just a minor inconvenience. It’s a five-alarm fire.

Now, I usually roll my eyes at the thought of multiple problem slides: If you need more than one slide to explain “we’ve got a problem,” it’s usually a symptom of narrative confusion. But in this case, Terra One does something magical here. The two slides following this one aren’t fluff; they actually add some serious weight to the initial problem statement. These slides don’t just tell you that the house is on fire; they show you the arsonist, the gas can, and why it’s not going to rain anytime soon.

The additional slides do something even more crucial: explain why this problem isn’t going to solve itself. This isn’t just a problem, it’s a beast that’s getting hungrier. This is the part where you realize there’s some serious growth potential here. Solving this issue isn’t just a noble endeavor; it’s a ticket to the big leagues.

I wish the company had made do with just the one slide, but somehow, Terra One’s problem slides are an elegant presentation of the problem. It’s sharp, it’s clear, and it’s backed by solid numbers. Well done.

A solid, strategic take on the solution

Terra One’s solution slide is a refreshing take on how to do it right. It’s strategic, which is a nice change from the usual deep product dives that make everyone’s eyes glaze over. Startups, take note: Investors don’t care about your product as much as you think they do. They want to see the big picture, and this slide nails that.

OK, so I love the slide, but I do have some thoughts for how to make the whole story flow better.

First off, the “proven technology” bit is great, but it really belongs on a moat/dependability slide. If you’ve got patents or any other IP, flaunt them there. It’s like saying, “Look at us, we’ve got a fortress and a moat full of crocodiles. Good luck to the competition!”

Then there’s the “profitable without subsidies?” line. If you’re hinting at revenue, that’s a huge deal and deserves its own traction slide. Remember: Investors love traction.

And what about those “lower costs”? That’s a solid value proposition right there, but it feels like it’s hiding in the shadows. Give it the spotlight it deserves on a dedicated value proposition slide. Tell us more about how you achieve those lower costs and why it matters to your customers.

On the one hand, I can see how the Terra One’s Solution slide could be a good outline to talk about how the company approaches this, but it it also serves as a reminder of what’s missing.

Nailing the product

Alright, let’s talk about the product slide. First off, hats off to Terra One for not falling into the usual trap of drowning us in technical mumbo jumbo. This slide actually explains what Terra One does without making me want to gouge my eyes out.

But here’s where it gets interesting — or rather, where it doesn’t. This slide includes what Terra One does and then leaves us hanging. It’s like getting all hyped up for a blockbuster movie, only for it to end right when it’s getting good. We need more! Who’s using this thing? How is it making money? And where’s the grand plan to take over the world? I want to know who’s out there using your product. Throw in some target customers or user personas. Show me the people who are so in love with your product they’d tattoo it on their foreheads.

Investors may wonder: Where do we go from here? What’s the master plan for developing this product? Where’s the roadmap? Give us a sneak peek into the future. Tell us about the upcoming features, improvements, and the big, bold plans that are going to make this product the next big thing.

The product slide does a good job of explaining what the product is, but it’s steak without the sizzle. To really wow an audience, we need a little bit more meat on this particular bone.

Three things that Terra One could have improved

Alright, Terra One, let’s get real: This pitch deck has more holes than Swiss cheese (ironic, really, for a German startup), and it’s time to plug them up. I’ve already harped on the need for more slides based on your Solution slide, but let’s recap and expand:

Moat slide: How is Terra One going to stop other companies from coming in and eating its lunch? Think of this slide as your castle’s defenses. Investors want to know you’ve got a moat filled with crocodiles, not just a picket fence.Traction slide: Investors want to see that you’ve turned your bright idea into a functional company. Do you have customers who are actually paying, or is it just your mom downloading the app? Show us the numbers, the users, the buzz!Value proposition slide: What’s in it for Terra One’s users? We need more than just vague promises. Lay out the precise benefits. Make it clear why people should flock to your product like it’s the last concert before the apocalypse.

But wait, there’s more! Here’s a laundry list of other crucial information that’s not in this deck (and should be):

Competition: Who’s already out there trying to do what you’re doing, and how are you going to crush them? Investors want to see you’ve scoped out the battlefield and know where the landmines are.Target customers: Who exactly is going to be using this product? Paint a picture. Is it tech-savvy teens, disgruntled office workers, or retired alpaca farmers? We need to know!Marketing strategy: Once you’ve painted a picture of who the audience is, how are you going to reach these customers? You can’t just sit around and hope they stumble upon your product. Show us the grand marketing plan.Revenue model: How does Terra One plan to make money? Investors are allergic to uncertainty. Lay it out clearly — subscriptions, ads, selling artisanal soap on the side — whatever it is, make it explicit.Funding ask and use of funds: How much cash are you looking to raise, and what are you going to do with it? This isn’t just about getting a new foosball table for the office. Break down the budget like you’re trying to convince a stingy parent to double your allowance.

Now, about the slides that did make it into the deck; they need some love, too. They’re like a good band playing without a soundcheck: promising, but not quite hitting the mark. Each slide needs to be polished, expanded, and presented in a way that screams “invest in us or regret it forever.”

So, Terra One, let’s see you take this feedback and turn that Swiss cheese into a solid block of Allgäuer Bergkäse. Here are some pointers:

So you say business model, but …

Alright, Terra One, it’s time for a chat about Slide 8, the business model slide. Right now, it’s missing more pieces than a toddler’s jigsaw puzzle. Here’s what needs to be fixed:

Business operations: The slide does not clearly define how Terra One operates as a business. Investors need a crystal-clear explanation of how the company interacts with customers and makes money. Currently, it feels like solving a mystery. It should lay out simply: How does Terra One find customers, and what is the sales process?

Pricing information: The slide lacks pricing information. Is Terra One charging customers premium prices, or is it the budget-friendly option? Investors need to understand the pricing strategy to gauge market positioning. Without this, it’s like trying to guess the price of a meal at a restaurant without a menu. Spoiler alert: No one likes that.

Unit economics: The slide is screaming for some unit economics. How do costs change as the company hits scale? Investors want to see how costs evolve as the company expands and handles more energy. Will it become more efficient and profitable, or are there hidden costs lurking? Terra One should break down the costs per unit and explain how those costs decrease (or increase) with scale. This will show whether the company is sitting on a gold mine or a money pit.

Adding this information will transform the business model slide from a head-scratcher to a showstopper — and helps contextualize what you’re trying to do, to boot.

It’s the people! Well, pictures of the people, at least.

Woof. Well, let’s rip off the band-aid: Terra One’s team slide is a disaster. It’s like a textbook example of what not to do. Here’s the breakdown:

Names, titles and photos without context: Congratulations, they’ve got names, titles and photos. But without context, this tells us nothing. It’s like giving someone the ingredients list without the recipe. Who are these people, and why should anyone care?

The logos at the bottom of the page are a nice touch, but they raise more questions than they answer. Who worked at these companies? When did they work there, and what did they do? Just tossing in some logos without context is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. Investors need specifics. Explain which team members were at these companies, what their roles were, and what relevant experience they gained. There’s a huge difference in how relevant the OpenAI experience is, for example, depending on which business unit the people were associated with.

Lack of skills and experience details: There are no clear examples of what skills each team member brings to the business. Investors want to see why this team is the A-team, not just a random collection of faces. Highlight the unique skills and experiences that make each member indispensable to Terra One and how this team becomes a sure-fire bet.

Honestly, I’d bin the whole slide and start over. Here’s what investors will be looking for:

Let’s leave ’em wanting more!

Every slide in the deck should improve Terra One’s chances of raising funding. It shouldn’t be neutral; heaven forbid should it be detrimental to your fundraising efforts. A photo alone is a wasted opportunity. Every slide needs to work hard, pushing the narrative and reinforcing why investors should get excited about Terra One. This slide fails to do that.

So, how can you get more out of your last impression? Well, the company could have put its contact details on there. And no, it’s not just a generic email address. It should be a named email address so investors know exactly who to reach out to. This is crucial for follow-up conversations.

A good closing slide needs a memorable closing statement; maybe a reminder of the company’s purpose, or paint a vision of the world you’re trying to build.

The full pitch deck

<iframe src="https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/uptXrMD4s6Oqu6?hostedIn=slideshare&page=upload" width="476" height="400" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

If you want your own pitch deck teardown featured on TechCrunch, here’s more information. Also, check out all our Pitch Deck Teardowns all collected in one handy place for you!

Xpanceo is betting big on turning us all into cyborgs with smart contact lenses, securing a cool $40 million to make our sci-fi dreams a reality. Co-founders Roman Axelrod and Valentyn S. Volkov are on a mission to ditch traditional gadgets and make everyone’s eyes the new screens. Who needs smartphones when you can blink to browse? As they push the boundaries of what’s possible with optoelectronics and new materials, one can’t help but wonder if we’re heading toward a future where losing your contacts could mean missing your next Zoom meeting.

We’re looking for more unique pitch decks to tear down, so if you want to submit your own, here’s how you can do that. 

Slides in this deck

Xpanceo has shared its complete presentation deck, consisting of 19 slides, with TechCrunch. Although the slide list suggests that the team has covered everything, a closer look at the deck’s contents reveals that some areas might not be as comprehensive as they seem.

Cover slideChallengeSolutionProductValue propositionB2C: Use casesB2B: IndustriesTractionContact lens users Market size Revenue forecast Competition What is Xpanceo? interstitial  Overview Technologies Pioneering R&D in optical analysis Team Roadmap Closing slide

Three things to love about Xpanceo’s pitch deck

There’s a lot of really good storytelling happening here.

A slice of history

The presentation effectively begins with a clear problem statement, setting the stage for a focused discussion on the challenges and opportunities in the realm of augmented reality (AR) and wearable technology. This explanation is crucial, as it immediately frames the issues that Xpanceo is addressing with its innovative smart contact lens project. By articulating the problems upfront, the deck ensures that the audience understands the context and significance of the technology being developed, which is essential for garnering support and enthusiasm for the project. I love that.

The inclusion of a timeline detailing the evolution of computing technology within the presentation is particularly clever. This historical perspective not only educates the audience about the progression and milestones in computing but also situates Xpanceo’s work within a larger narrative of technological advancement — and many of those advancements made a lot of investors very wealthy indeed.

What’s the problem with AR?

Addressing the shortcomings of AR as it stands, the presentation acknowledges that the tech has not yet achieved widespread adoption primarily due to poor product offerings that have failed to resonate with consumers. This is true, and it shows that Xpanceo is aware of the hurdles faced by previous AR technologies and is committed to overcoming these challenges.

There’s a big difference between a “solution” and a “product” slide. Xpanceo’s take here is refreshingly clear on the differences.

The solution slide is strategic in nature, emphasizing a broader, more adaptable approach rather than focusing solely on the product. This strategic mindset is crucial, as it shifts the emphasis from the specifics of the product to the underlying philosophy of problem-solving.

I love that the solution is articulated in a clear and accessible way, deliberately avoiding excessive detail. This clarity is essential for communicating effectively with stakeholders, including investors, potential customers and team members. By keeping the solution straightforward and easy to understand, the team ensures that everyone involved has a solid grasp of the core concept and objectives. This level of transparency fosters trust and alignment among all parties, which is important for collaborative efforts and the overall success of the project.

From there, you can drop into the details: the product.

So here’s what the company’s actually up to

Again, Xpanceo does a great job:

The product slide does an excellent job of presenting the product in a clear and engaging manner, avoiding the common pitfall of descending into overly technical language that can alienate or confuse the audience. This approach is particularly powerful given the complex nature of the technology involved.

Smart contact lenses that integrate advanced computing capabilities directly into the user’s visual field feels like magic. Still, by maintaining straightforward and accessible language, the slide ensures that the innovation can be understood and appreciated by a broad audience, which is crucial for generating interest and support among potential investors.

I particularly love how this clarity helps set the stage for deeper discussions, all without getting lost in the complex technological language that no doubt happens in the lab. It strikes the right balance between simplicity and informativeness.

Three things that Xpanceo could have improved

This deck is really good. But is it perfect?

Nope. Let’s dive in.

What are you raising?

The biggest problem with the Xpanceo deck isn’t what is in there, but rather what isn’t.

One critical element missing from the deck is the “ask” slide, which is essential when seeking venture capital funding. It’s surprising how often founders overlook this component in their pitch decks. When raising money, it’s not the time to be reticent or indirect. Clearly stating what is being asked for — be it staffing, resources or partnerships — demonstrates to potential investors a well-thought-out plan and a serious commitment to the startup’s future. This helps investors quickly understand the needs and assess whether they align with their investment criteria.

Including a specific ask in the presentation also conveys that there is a realistic understanding of what the startup requires to succeed. It shows that careful consideration has been given to how much funding is needed, what it will be used for, and how it will help the company achieve its goals. This level of detail and transparency adds credibility to the pitch and instills confidence in potential investors about the management and planning capabilities. It positions the entrepreneurs as serious individuals who are not merely experimenting but are committed to building a sustainable business.

B2B or B2C: You can’t have both

Slides 6 and 7 make a case for both a B2B and a B2C model. That’s not a great call.

B2B and B2C business models are fundamentally different beasts. Very few companies are able to do well with one strategy, never mind both.

B2C sales are distinguished by direct interactions with individual consumers, focusing on emotional engagement, brand identity, and creating personalized customer experiences. This model thrives on short sales cycles and immediate purchase decisions, making it crucial for companies to invest in understanding consumer behaviors and crafting marketing strategies that resonate on a personal level. Even if companies occasionally purchase under a B2C model, they should be treated as consumers in the sales process to maintain simplicity and efficiency in marketing efforts.

Conversely, B2B sales involve more complex transactions with other businesses, characterized by longer sales cycles, higher transaction values, and a focus on practical benefits and cost-effectiveness. This model requires strong, credible relationships and often involves customized solutions to meet specific business needs. While it’s less common, consumers may sometimes engage with products designed for business use, highlighting the flexibility required in sales strategies. Ultimately, focusing on a B2B or B2C sales organization should align with the startup’s core capabilities and strategic goals, shaping the narrative in their startup pitch to attract potential investors.

Trying to do both won’t work, so pick one, and explain why that’s the right choice.

The market sizing fallacy

When assessing the potential market size for Xpanceo’s contact lenses, it’s crucial to differentiate the nature of the product from traditional contact lenses. Or, put differently: Is the market for Xpanceo’s product people who are already wearing contacts? The company seems to think that everyone who wears contacts wants smart contacts. But that’s probably not accurate.

Xpanceo’s offerings are not merely an alternative to spectacles for optical correction but rather function as a wearable device. This distinction is significant because the target market for Xpanceo may not align directly with the existing base of contact lens users. Instead of evaluating the total number of contact lens wearers, a more relevant metric might be the usage of related technology such as smartphones or smartwatches, which reflects a tech-savvy consumer base more likely to adopt new wearable technologies. This approach can help in identifying not just a broad audience, but also one that is more likely to embrace innovative products.

Xpanceo’s go-to-market strategy plays a pivotal role in determining its primary consumer segment. If the product is designed for mass market consumption, the strategy should focus on identifying and engaging an early adopter group. This group typically consists of tech enthusiasts who are keen on exploring and adopting cutting-edge technologies. These early adopters could provide the initial traction needed to penetrate the market, acting as influencers and validators for the broader consumer base. Their feedback is also invaluable when it comes to refining the product and enhancing its appeal to subsequent buyers.

I think the company is trying to show that its market is huge, but I doubt that contact lens wearers are a proxy. I wear contacts, but only when I’m doing contact sports (martial arts or scuba diving). But even if I had never worn contacts a day of my life, I’d be eager to try the Xpanceo solution.

I think the company is trying to compare oranges to Apple computers.

The full pitch deck

If you want your own pitch deck teardown featured on TechCrunch, here’s more information. Also, check out all our Pitch Deck Teardowns all collected in one handy place for you!