Judgin' Pitches, Hittin' Switches
The "startup season" in Atlanta is slowly picking up steam. Business plan competitions, demo showcases, presentation practices, drink-ups, and a ton of other entrepreneurial events are being held for investors and investees alike. The common denominator in this varied collection of biz-focused get-togethers is, of course, the pitch.
It's been about one week since the whirlwind StartupRiot 2012 (where I was representing Kanjus) came to a spectacular close, but only one of its many moving parts really stood out in a negative way: the judges. Punctuating the event's tweet stream were periodic complaints about the judges' approach to evaluating pitches and the businesses behind them. Most of the kvetching was justified.
After re-reading all of these tweets, I realized, "there are a ton of guides for pitching, but almost none for judging." I now humbly submit these points for consideration by all prospective biz plan, pitch, or presentation judges.
For the search engines out there, this is "How to Judge A Business Pitch Competition."
1. Have clear judging criteria in mind, even if you aren't given any
Backstage with founder and organizer Sanjay Parekh, the presenters in my cohort discussed StartupRiot's history, the rules for the competition, and Sanjay's views on determining what makes a "good" pitch. I was shocked when he said that there were no official judging guidelines published for fear of contestants "gaming the system" or judges having their creativity stifled...or something. There were no checklists, flowcharts, or anything similar given to judges or contestants. Kafka would be proud; there's nothing quite like getting ready to defend against an inquisition whose nature is largely unknown.
But more to the point, judges really should prepare for this kind of scenario even when presenters can't. As a judge, simply tweeting or blogging that you prefer the idea over the pitch (or vice versa), marketing plans instead of technology, or any other criterion can give the contestants some confidence that you aren't totally in the pocket of the organizers. It also keeps you honest on stage and throughout the deliberation process.
2. Please, please, please don't use logical fallacies
Perhaps the most laughable questions were those addressed to the audience for an effect, like "how many people out there would lie to their BodyBoss?" (in response to a personal fitness app that crunches self-reported workout data). Thankfully, this particular bandwagon appeal totally backfired: laughter replaced raised hands, presumably because everyone understood that it's entirely counterproductive to lie to a fitness app that doesn't tell others about your progress.
Failtroll was waaaay fail.
The worst part was how the judge kept pursuing this obvious non-starter to save face, and that the speaker was then forced to answer. I did get some relief from some vocal peanut gallerist's defense: "Why would you lie to the BodyBoss?" Now that's more like it.
3. Keep in mind that finding a hole is different than poking one
Presenters, prior to pitching at StartupRiot or elsewhere, often talk of judges and VCs mercilessly "poking holes" in an idea. I'd like to posit that, though there's often a fine line between finding a legitimate business issue and playing up a trivial one, finding and poking really are different things.
Example: one judge said of a pitch that the business was "one Google API away" from being eclipsed by the search giant's massive development machine. He was rightfully rebuked by TJ Muehleman of We&Co, who tweeted:
Repeatedly whipping out throwaway questions like this one (granted, such a question may be warranted sometimes) is like saying "your high school soccer team would be a darn sight better if they were coached by José Mourinho. How do you expect them to beat Arsenal otherwise?" I mean, really, who does that?
4. I know you're a big shot, but don't act like one
Indeed, my time in academia has molded me a into timid and fragile creature, so I think the scary startup culture is dominated by bravado and big egos. But I get that - being a big shot mezzanine-closin', exit-havin', bootstrappin' millionaire gives you certain bragging rights.
What it doesn't endow is the license to apply your experience to every single idea.
Example: "Well, I can tell you from my time in ABC that XYZ didn't work and still won't work" isn't good form for a judge - instead, try something like "we had a lot of trouble doing XYZ because it's not that scalable. What's your plan for overcoming this?" Humility and open-mindedness work wonders, and can even elicit richer responses from the contestants when applied properly. After all, these pitch events are about their startups, not yours.
Remember that, as competitors, presenters are charged with giving the best pitches they can and answering questions to the best of their ability. The job of the judge is to ask questions that clarify or challenge without derision.
