111–120 of 127 posts
Interesting to see the competitive analysis with Fivetran in the article but then see almost identical copies of infographics used between their site and Fivetran's. Airbyte: https://airbyte.io/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Airbyte-Seed-D... Fivetran: https://images.cms.fivetran.com/mgtdf72hs0mx/6qYtmEEotXqScar...
* after getting funded by YC. This deck without the YC stamp would probably not be sufficient for serious investors for a variety of reasons: Missing market size, addressable market, and market growth, doesn't answer the question of "why now"? (whereas why this and why you is answered). It isn't a bad deck but let's be honest here.
No, that's not how VCs work. The pitch deck first and foremost tells a story with the objective to get a VC interested - or not. This is a necessary but not a sufficient step in the process. Think of it as a marketing prospectus or a 'door opener' type of thing. If a VC is indeed interested they will conduct intensive due diligence and leave no stone unturned.
Having investors ask us about those was a strong signal that those VCs didn't know enough about our market, so they wouldn't be great partners for you.
However, in a standard pitch, I would agree those slides need to be there, especially if you're creating a new category. On our side, we're disrupting a well-known one, so not the same.
We used this before the pivot, when it was just a data unblocker tool. The product was flawless and high quality, although too expensive for our needs in the end. Good luck Airbyte!
For those of us not in the the SV area... when I do stuff like this I have some slides (not nearly as pretty), but really they are a small part of the presentation. I would also have supplied a prospectus with a business plan etc. Is that the case with YC too, or is it really slide_deck>$$$$?
Step one: join YC. Step two raise seed. Seriously, this deck would likely not have flown without the YC backing and implicit stamp of approval, once you are in YC you'd have to do pretty bad not to raise seed funding.
I wonder if there is any YC company that failed to even raise Seed Round.
* after getting funded by YC. This deck without the YC stamp would probably not be sufficient for serious investors for a variety of reasons: Missing market size, addressable market, and market growth, doesn't answer the question of "why now"? (whereas why this and why you is answered). It isn't a bad deck but let's be honest here.
No, that's not how VCs work. The pitch deck first and foremost tells a story with the objective to get a VC interested - or not. This is a necessary but not a sufficient step in the process. Think of it as a marketing prospectus or a 'door opener' type of thing. If a VC is indeed interested they will conduct intensive due diligence and leave no stone unturned.
YC and other accelerators help to get in the door though. My first deck was worse than this but we ended up with USV at seed (thanks to the accelerator, in my opinion), which opened the doors through B/C and out.
Great post. After just going through a 6 month, pain-filled fund raise for an open source database (big on integration), this is probably the most upsetting thing I have ever read in my life. Far away from Silicon Valley with no flashy credentials, 13 days is an impossible dream. That said, massive kudos to the team for such clear storytelling & delivery.
> Far away from Silicon Valley This could end up helping much more than hurting long-term. Engineering salaries in the Bay Area are insane. Salaries for engineers in the US overall are very high. If you’re in Europe, you can likely afford 2-3x more engineers than your competitors for the same amount of $ raised.
Step one: join YC. Step two raise seed. Seriously, this deck would likely not have flown without the YC backing and implicit stamp of approval, once you are in YC you'd have to do pretty bad not to raise seed funding.
I wonder if there is any YC company that failed to even raise Seed Round.