Lovely design.
The "500 Startups" Logo sticks out like a very sore thumb.
81–90 of 95 posts
Lovely design.
The "500 Startups" Logo sticks out like a very sore thumb.
The numbers for acquisition look way off. $.17 per click X 33% conversion... I just ran an experiment with google ads for dating keywords. There were a few gaffs with hugely expensive keywords but overall, $2.45 CPC. We spent $200 and ended up with 1 conversion. Totally amateur, I know. From other research I've seen, I think conversions tend to be way lower than the double digits. Like people first click on your ad a…
Otherwise, the presentation looks amazing and it's interesting to see a company be so open about their deck.
Am I the only one who doesn't get this UI? If I have to scroll anyway, what's the point of those next buttons? What is the purpose of page numbers at the top when there's already a scrollbar showing where I am? I think it does nothing but adds clutter and distracts from the message they are trying to convey. A simple web page with the same infographics would tell me the same story, take less time to design, print wel…
That said, as actual navigation I didn't find the buttons very usable. It would have been nice if there was a visual clue somewhere that the left and right keyboard arrows work.
Am I the only one who doesn't get this UI? If I have to scroll anyway, what's the point of those next buttons? What is the purpose of page numbers at the top when there's already a scrollbar showing where I am? I think it does nothing but adds clutter and distracts from the message they are trying to convey. A simple web page with the same infographics would tell me the same story, take less time to design, print wel…
I'm with you. The buttons on the top and the next are redundant. However, the worst bit is that if a point doesn't fit on the screen, you can't hit the down button on the keyboard to scroll down because the down button takes you to the next point. Painful.
Is it strange that as potential investor my biggest concern about this deck would be that its for a bridal product with 3 Men and only one woman on the founding team?
I don't get the market estimate where you include the guests. It seems like you're treating each wedding as an independent event. I'm attending two weddings in the next month. Are you counting instances as the same person at different weddings as the same person? Otherwise, the presentation looks amazing and it's interesting to see a company be so open about their deck.
On one hand, the hosts will provide certain things for each guest. Invitations, individual decorations, etc. It's not like Rose & Billy can skimp on their flower budget because Marcie & John had nice bouquets at their wedding last month.
On the other hand, each guest will bring their own gift. In case of a themed wedding, they will probably buy something for that specific occasion.
One thing to note: 4) says 444.5 million people x 28 k = 75.6 billion spent each year. The 75.6 billion came from 2.7 million * 28K.
Which seems wrong to me. Only ONE COUPLE spends 28k per wedding. The cap should really be $28k/wedding * 2.7mil wedding. Fancy design, flawed math.
The final number itself isn't flawed, but the graphical equation on the deck does have the math symbols in the wrong places.
The "Market" slide makes a very effective point. On the "Problems / Solutions" slide: "save ... up to 100% off retail" says absolutely nothing, except perhaps that the author doesn't know how percents work. "save ... up to 100%" means "save somewhere between nothing and everything". On the graph in the "Customer Acquisition" slide, the "reduce customer acquisition cost through SEO" point implies a lower cost to acqui…
Their market slide: http://investors.dressrush.com/#slide4 Their math doesn't compute? 2.7M weddings * (14+152) people per wedding = 445.5 million people * 28k $/wedding = 75.6B $ They probably mean: 2.7M weddings * 28k $/wedding = 75.6B $ But surely they're not trying to pocket $28k per wedding just for clothes? It certainly looks beautiful, but the information is lacking. Also, 31% conversion rate?!!