Pitch training has always been the market pushing founders to compensate for investor laziness.
Ultimately, it's the investor's job to recognise potential in the founder and their idea, not the founder's job to sell it to them. The founder is the customer.
And it turns out that pitch training and competitions emphasize a number of factors that aren't predictive of company success.
Generally, the process is a silly distraction from working on the things that matter.
(credit to
@dharrisindc for the chart)
One of the worst predictors of founder success we've tracked is how well someone pitches. The correlation between pitch quality and outcome was actually negative.
Zuckerberg was so awkward in early investor meetings that VCs left wondering if he could manage anyone. Larry Page refused interviews and earnings calls for years. Jan Koum sold WhatsApp to Facebook for $19B as a Ukrainian immigrant whose English investors had initially struggled to follow.
What polished people are good at is the meeting itself; the 1hr ritual of telling a story to strangers. It's a real skill, but it's separate from building a company. People who spent years optimising to be persuasive in a room have, on average, optimised away from the building skills that compound over the seven years of execution that follow. The pitch room is the one environment where smooth talkers have the structural advantage, but people mistake that single environment for general capability.
Pay more attention to things like how they behave in the five minutes after the pitch when they think it's over. Or how they treat the most junior person in the room. None of those show up on a slide.
The articulate founder will impress your partners. The awkward one will return your fund.