I’ve tweeted before about this but felt, as is often the case, that it could be percieved as a bit flippant with regards to how I feel about the startups I encounter. While those who know me will agree that I rarely take myself too seriously, I am serious about new ideas and how they could change things but I don’t need you to tell me that. Let me back up a second…

Flys Buzz

“Startups don’t buzz, flys do; and it’s usually around horseshit” Far too often I have an idea pitched to me that is little more than a haphazard collection of buzzwords and acronyms. If your idea needs something like that to make it attractive, you need a new idea. Making it “social” or using gamification will only work if your idea doesn’t suck to begin with. Start there and then work your way into the other bits, not the other way around. That’s the idea I want pitched to me. And don’t tell me “I think” this or that, I can’t measure “I think”. Show me some sort of actual data - even if it’s a SWAG it at least shows me you’ve thought things thru enough to put numbers around. Ok, enough of a side rant.

Labels

Now to the main point of my tweet. The reason why I will stop listening when you use the term “disruptive” in your pitch is that disruptive can only be applied in hindsight, thru the lens of success. Twitter didn’t set out to be disruptive, Amazon wasn’t bankrolled because they were disruptive, they set out to solve a problem. That’s what you need to focus on: solving someone’s pain. If you can show me how you deliver value in that direction (and how you intend to reach out to people with that pain), then I’m interested. So now, go sit down and rethink your elevator pitch without using a single buzzword - then give me a call cause I’d love to hear it…