Getting Past the Judges
Entrepreneurs — you’ve got a startup venture with a cool idea and a product. Now you need a little funding to get to the next level.
Maybe Angel funding? Perhaps you’ll apply to an accelerator that offers some investment money. Maybe enter a funding competition? It’s not a bad path — but there are hurdles.
The first hurdle is submitting an executive summary or filling out an online application. This is where you have to to describe each aspect of your venture in 100–200 words.
Explaining your your new venture — with all the vital nuances and caveats packed into a few precious paragraphs — is a piece of cake, right?
At first it seems easy — until it becomes a near-impossible task.
The Entrance Exam
Reducing your great idea and plans into a few hundred words is an excruciating exercise.
After a few agonizing hours, an entrepreneur might think they’ve nailed the executive summary — only to discover that it leaves the reader confused and with more questions than answers. Many frustrated entrepreneurs simply give up — criticizing the requirement as a pointless exercise, having little to do with building their business. But if you’re a startup entrepreneur, you just can’t avoid this exercise.
The executive summary is more than a snapshot of your startup — it’s your entry ticket to an accelerator program, a chance at angel funding, and your application to a funding competition.
Aside from concisely explaining the virtues of your idea and your company, the executive summary demonstrates a level of maturity. It shows that you’ve refined the critical aspects of your business with enough clarity that an outsider can understand the opportunity and see how you’ll be successful.
Most important, the executive summary is the document that gets you past the gatekeepers for funding. Before they will ever consider talking to you, meeting you, or allow you to pitch, they’ll want that executive summary.
These days, funding organizations are set-up to accept the executive summary information via an online application. Most of these applications are concise forms, deliberately designed with specific sections, and strict word-count limits. Your summary is then reviewed (along with hundreds of other applications) by seasoned professionals, who are often experienced entrepreneurs or investors.
For Arizona Entrepreneurs
In the Southwest — particularly in Arizona — startup funding is more plentiful than you might think.
Arizona entrepreneurs are close to some of the largest and most active Angel investor groups in the country: Desert Angels, Arizona Technology Investors and Canyon Angels. And then there are the funding competitions: The frenetic Invest Southwest/Venture Madness, and the near-legendary Arizona Innovation Challenge — the largest statewide funding competition in the country.
Competition is fierce. And for your startup to even be considered by these funding sources, you need to submit a short application — that executive summary.
You’re not exempt
“My startup is different”
Every entrepreneur thinks this.
“I need extra space to explain the background and all the really cool aspects of my business, technology and product. A few sentences just can’t do it justice.”
Sorry. You’re no exception. Even if you’re the next Facebook, Tesla, Salesforce or Apple — you’re not special. At least not right now.
As an entrepreneur, you may disagree: A few dozen words stuffed inside a 2-inch text box can never sufficiently explain your great idea and its prospects.
Yeah, it’s unreasonable and unfair. Protest all you want, but without a well written summary, your venture will quickly be tossed out and excluded from most funding organizations.
The exercise isn’t pointless, and it’s not about making entrepreneurs jump through hoops, or about conforming to some arbitrary standard for brevity.
It’s about vetting and weeding
Most entrepreneurs are too busy to think about what happens on the other side of the funding table. It’s easy to imagine that whoever is reading your summary is reading every word and understanding every concept you write.
The reality is: These funding entities get hundreds of summary business plans each month — not to mention thousands of informal inquiries via email. These organizations rely on “judges” — experienced investors, former executives and entrepreneurs — who must read through hundreds of these summaries just to determine which startups deserve further consideration. They only have a few minutes to read and understand your baby.
These judges are not looking to understand every aspect of your promising startup venture — they are looking for ventures, products and solutions that they can understand; ones that have promise and merit. They are also looking for pitches that they can weed out. The rest of the summaries, they vet so they can evaluate in greater depth later.
Weeding-out, or vetting-in for further consideration — judges have to decide quickly. If you can’t convince them in a few brief sentences, then you’ll never get the chance to tell the whole story later.
The goal is to impart enough information to get you to the next meeting or to the next level.
But you’re in luck. Executive summaries, applications — they all require identical information. And it’s no state secret.
Here are the essentials:
- Company overview
- The problem / Market overview
- Your solution (product or service)
- The market (the opportunity)
- Customers, traction
- Marketing — distribution, sales, key partners
- Intellectual property, Unique Value
- Financials, funding plan, use of proceeds
- Team, management, advisors
Most applications or executive summaries have these sections in common. But, you only get 100 words per section. Sometimes more; sometimes less. Can you do it?
If you can’t impart your company’s value proposition in a few sentences, then you’re not ready.
The goal isn’t to get it perfect, it’s to get it just-right. Even more important is for each section to be simple, crisp and clear. If one section is unclear — then the entire summary might be rejected.
Let’s ask the Judges
The goal is to get noticed by the judges, so let’s ask them what they like and dislike about all the applications they read. These experienced professionals typically review dozens of summaries at a time, and hundreds each year.
Do you think what you wrote is what they understood?
I asked a few experienced and prominent funding professionals. These are startup experts, investors and leaders who read and vet dozens executive summaries each month: Candidates for hundreds of millions in funding awards, angel capital and venture capital.
Here is some thoughtful feedback and comments from experienced judges:
Joann MacMaster
CEO, Desert Angels
Desert Angels is one of the most active Angel investment groups in the country: #1 In the SW Region and the 7th most active angel investment group in the country.
Desert Angels gets over a 1,000 inquiries/applications per year. Ms. MacMaster stresses that the purpose of the application format is so that we can more easily vet and weed out ventures that don’t follow instructions or are outside of Desert Angels’ basic investment criteria. But according to Joann, only 30% pass an initial vetting — 700 are rejected just for ignoring the basic requirements.
Out of the remaining 300 applications, 100 are vetted and those companies invited in person to pitch. 6–8 startups per month make it to a screening panel and 1–2 per month are invited to pitch to the entire angel group.
She states that one of the biggest mistakes that gets startup applications tossed out is that they don’t do their homework: Submissions that are outside of their interests or just too early stage. Often the applications are missing basic or important information — as an oversight — and this gets them tossed out.
While she observes that most investment professionals will tell you that they look at the team section first, Desert Angels ‘judges’ typically look at the market opportunity first. Often they place a higher value on a well thought-out financial plan, and customer feedback.
But she states something profoundly important for startups:
Different sections become more important and more relevant during different stages of the vetting process.
Tom Curzon
Chairman, StartupAZ Foundation
Arizona Innovation Challenge Judge
At the top of his list of things that get noticed, is a concise description of the PMF (product-market-fit), along with some real evidence.
Mr. Curzon says that the team section (management and advisors) is the first place he looks — and places a lot of importance on this section.
But also he values the financial section — particularly evidence that the entrepreneur understands their fundraising requirements and strategies for raising capital.
Seasoned judges like Curzon often point out common mistakes when reading funding applications. They happen so often that they can be classified as pet-peeves that get applications tossed out quickly. For instance:
- when the entrepreneur spends much time trying to impress the reader on how much they know,
- or, when they attempt to fool the reader into believing that the product is further along than it really is,
- or, overall, when they try to make it look like they have accomplished more than they have. It ruins their credibility.
Diana Vowels
2021 Chair, Invest Southwest/Venture Madness (funding competition)
Arizona Innovation Challenge Judge
Diana Vowels prefers it when the summary is written slightly technical, but not over the top, and points out that many summaries tend to be too technical (in the beginning).
A former journalism major, Ms. Vowels values the right level of detail and a logical progression for the reader. In other words — the opening sections shouldn’t be too deep, and there should be a logical progression to the summary — a compelling story, written around the “pain point.”
The biggest mistake, she says, is not clearly imparting the marketing opportunity. If the product sounds only like a “nice to have” instead of a “must have”, then the opportunity will seem weak.
For her, the most important section is the one describing the management team. She wants to know right away if the leadership team has the chops to make it happen. But too many pedigrees, or listing too many credentials, is a negative. Also, she adds — entrepreneurs sometimes talk too much about their advisors. They tend to overplay the advisory team, and the more they stress it, the more shows a lack of substance.
Overplaying the people makes me question the product.
Eric Miller
EIR at Arizona Commerce Authority
Member of the Arizona Tech Investors Screening committee
Eric Miller is a familiar name in Arizona’s tech community, and someone who evaluates summaries and applications for many of Arizona’s funding organizations. He values a concise and logical summary — starting with wording that demonstrates a clear understanding of the market.
He finds that many executive summaries use too many unnecessary words — and they end up being so detailed that they sound evasive.
For him, the most important section is “what your product does.” He wants it to clearly read as: “here’s the problem and here’s how we solve it.” He also adds that entrepreneurs often OVER-stress how bad the problem is.
- Miller also wants a section that clearly states: Who your customers are, that are willing to pay for your product. And how you are going to sell?
- Not identifying the PAYER (who will pay) is common, big mistake.
- Also, addressing “how are you going to scale” is a big plus for him.
Eric Miller also has a few pet-peeves about the team section:
- Entrepreneurs sometimes put in superfluous experience / information. or they list the team’s experience in cumulative years (!)
- He wants to see advisors — but doesn’t want to see what appears to be a padded list of advisors and team members.
- He observes that, for him, seeing that the team had previous exits, gets them noticed, and moves them on to the next stage of vetting.
Tom Fulcher
The Idea Gardener
Arizona Innovation Challenge Judge
Tom Fulcher is a long time judge in several funding competitions, and serves on the Invest Southwest/Venture Madness Executive Committee — but he spends most of his professional time coaching and helping entrepreneurs.
Overall he wants to remind entrepreneurs:
- Remember that you are telling a story about why your business will be successful.
- You are not selling a product or service — you are telling a story with a logical flow.
- Executive summaries, by definition, summarize the business plan. So if you don’t have a business plan — then how can you summarize it?
When it comes to vetting applications for funding competition, Mr. Fulcher says he takes note of the following sections:
- The Team: List the critical roles — but not everyone; just enough about the team, what their roles are, and why they are qualified.
- Advisors: Are a critical part of the story. It says that you have reached out for help and advice, and that you filled-out gaps your management team has not fully filled yet.
- Most important — be clear on the relationship between the problem, the product and the team.
Like the other experienced judges, Fulcher has a list of common mistakes entrepreneurs make, and offers the following observations:
- Don’t try to say all the buzzwords you think I need to hear — just tell me your story.
- Most stumble on market analysis: They mis-identify — or grossly overestimate the market size or market demand.
- Often they stumble on the financials- and he often sees a disconnect between the financials and the go-to-market story.
- And most spend too much time on the technology, or spend an inordinate amount of space on the detail of how the technology works.
Tom Blondi
Senior Advisor — Arizona Commerce Authority Innovation & Entrepreneurship
Arizona Innovation Challenge Judge
Tom Blondi is well-known as a veteran judge, and known as a friend and advocate for Arizona entrepreneurs. He frequently serves as a mentor and coach — helping entrepreneurs better prepare their companies for investors and for success. But he also spends quite a lot of time vetting startups that are vying for various funding opportunities.
Not surprisingly, Blondi first looks at the management section of the executive summary. For him, sometimes the team is all that matters. He notes that sometimes he recommends the startup for further evaluation based on just the quality of the team.
“But in the case of pure-funding competitions, you can only select a handful, so you are forced to weed out a certain percentage of the applications.” Blondi says he wants to see a distillation of pain, and the magnitude of the pain — because this translates into the market opportunity.
While he reads a lot of problem statements, and unique-selling-propositions, he doesn’t often see the whole story put together in a way that makes him say “I get it.”
Instead, most plans are written, section by section — and they don’t read like a cogent story around the investment opportunity. And this makes them hard to get excited about.
Despite being a friend and advocate for startups, Mr. Blondi. too, has his pet peeves about executive summaries:
- Not demonstrating that you can build a business that will be successful for investors and for customers.
- Rather — the entrepreneur seems to be building a business that will make themselves happy — as opposed to making customers (or investors) happy.
- Some of the worst written sections are the financials. Founders don’t seem to pay enough attention to the financials section, and it often seems to be “thrown together at the last minute” — and it affects his perception of the company.
Jim Goulka
Chairman and Managing Director for Arizona Tech Investors (ATI)
Board Member at Angel Capital Association
Jim Goulka is a multi-decade veteran of startups and investing. As chairman of Arizona Tech Investors, Goulka has invested in some of Arizona’s most successful startups.
Overall — he wants the executive summary/application to be simple and straight forward. He looks for the definable, big problem — and wants to clearly see, in a few crisp sentences, how the startup has the solution to this big problem.
While ATI wants to continue to find the most promising startup investment opportunities. they get so many incoming requests, pitches and applications that vetting and “weeding-out” is a necessity.
Jim says what gets startups noticed is:
- Validation — of any kind — particularly from customers (i.e. “we have already sold to XX customers”)
- or, specific proof and plans for validation, e.g.“we know who our potential customers are, and here’s what we are doing to reach them”
- or, “we know how to sell to our target customer group — and here’s how they buy”
For initial applications, Jim pays a little less attention to the details of the financials, except to say that the point of the financials is to give some sense of how the business can scale — if given the right financial resources.
He also adds IP (Intellectual Property) is important for certain fields (e.g. life sciences). In those cases. they better have lots of IP — solid, real and precise. Otherwise, if it’s a market play (not IP-related), then clearly then say so.
As with all the other experts, Jim has some pet peeves that cause him to disregard some applications:
- When the summary reads like a LinkedIn bio with a cheesy headline — e.g. “I have a world class solution to ….” or “I can boil the ocean in 10 mins flat …”
- Similarly, when descriptions have an air of grandiosity and self congratulation, like an elaborate real estate listing — with adjectives like “exclusive”, “world class” and other flowery terms.
- Generalization is another turn-off, particularly when the overview starts with “the creation of the universe …”
- Sometimes entrepreneurs spend too much time giving a general sense of what the problem is — but don’t really present the solution.
- And other times, the executive summary spends too much time describing the technology — belaboring it with too much tech-speak and lots of acronyms.
On the other hand, he states that “we care about the advisor section a lot; the quality of the advisors matters.”
And Jim Goulka adds one last piece of wisdom:
Entrepreneurs often complain that ‘the judges didn’t get it’ But it’s not the judge’s fault. It’s yours.
Tim Kelley
Chairman, Canyon Angels
Assistant Professor and Chair of Entrepreneurship at Grand Canyon University — Colangelo College of Business
Tim stresses that the best summaries are notable for their brevity and conciseness — which is important since most summaries are read very quickly. They need to be quick and clear in explaining what problem they are solving.
Personally, he gives more weight to the go-to-market strategy: how clearly they identify and describe their path to selling to customers in the marketplace.
Interestingly, Mr. Kelley says he usually ignores most of the financials (since they are probably for early stage projects) — preferring just to look at the top line and the bottom line numbers — to see if there is a logical connection.
Pet Peeves:
- Bad formatting — looking at a block of words. It makes the summary too hard to read, and forces him to work in order to find and extract any “hidden gems.”
- When the entrepreneur over-MBA’s the financials — i.e. when they overdo the level of details of the financial information.
- Ideas that have zero validation.
- Overuse (or inappropriate use) of jargon.
Mr. Kelley notes: When the writing is bad, then then entire summary is bad. Blatant writing errors in the beginning are disqualifiers. It might be unfair, but judges don’t have the time, patience or motivation to read through sloppy applications.
Nailing it
The terse executive summary format is the extended “calling card” for any startup venture seeking funding. If you are going to be considered for funding — particularly from accelerators, angel groups, and funding competitions — you need to nail the summary.
The process of creating the executive summary is not just about writing — it’s about refining and clarifying the most vital aspects of your new venture.
Flub it, and you get weeded out. Nail it, and it’s your entry ticket to funding.
CJ Cornell is a serial entrepreneur, investor, advisor, mentor, author, speaker, and educator. As an entrepreneur, CJ Cornell was a founder of more than a dozen successful startup ventures that collectively attracted over $250 million in private funding; created nearly a thousand new jobs; and launched dozens of innovative consumer, media, and communications products — that have exceeded $3 billion in revenues.
He is the author of the bestselling “The Age of Metapreneurship — A Journey into the Future of Entrepreneurship.”
And the upcoming “The Startup Brain Trust — A Guidebook for Startups, Entrepreneurs, and the Mentors that Help them Become Great.”
Follow him @cjcornell or visit: www.cjcornell.com
Image Credit:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/herzogbr/4268277581
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Brian Herzog, Nail on the Head