I wonder how slide 10 "Finacials" has matched with reality. Especially as the deck was created and used pre-GFC. Would love if one of the founders commented on that, though would be surprised if they did.
Yes, sorry, on closer inspection you are correct; it isn't the actual deck, it's a post-event pitch deck replay. But since I can count the number of actual, in-the-wild pitch decks I've seen on one hand, maybe other people will still find it useful.
Sorry to disappoint, but this is not from Mint - it's actually my team's presentation for the Stanford West Coast Venture Case Competition when I was an undergrad at Berkeley (I am Victor, listed on the first slide).
It's a funny story but we won the competition with this presentation, in part because Shasta Ventures, one of the judges there, happened to actually be funding the company (which they announced 3 days after we pitched it). For the questions regarding the financials, I don't know how closely they match reality but we were told by the judges that we won in part because the numbers were conservative/realistic and were in the same ballpark as their own figures.
I think every startup should look at the slide about the problems that Mint solves for its Total Addressable Market, even if it isn't the original Mint deck. The interesting thing about this presentation is it looks at the problems people managing their money have experienced, and the ways they solved the problems, and quantified the solution in numbers (the bottom-line for any business, not a free open source project, is to quantify the solution in dollars). So Mint saved users time (consistent UI) and matched the buyer to the seller of this data. Before you try to make a dime off any good idea, look at these slides and see if you can answer many of the same questions Mint did.
I thought the most interesting slide was "Value to Partners" (#7) that listed average Customer Acquisition costs for various companies - ex E-Trade spends $475 to acquire a single customer. Wow. That is a lot of money.
Also I know that this wasn't the real deck, but there was too much emphasis on patents and I have never seen a valuation/expected return in a deck.
Good research because it ended up being right, but I suspect that Mint revenue was a lot more than $4M and they spent a lot more than what this research implies.
17 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 42.2 ms ] threadPre-launch? Really?
It's a funny story but we won the competition with this presentation, in part because Shasta Ventures, one of the judges there, happened to actually be funding the company (which they announced 3 days after we pitched it). For the questions regarding the financials, I don't know how closely they match reality but we were told by the judges that we won in part because the numbers were conservative/realistic and were in the same ballpark as their own figures.
The slide lists http://www.emetrics.org/articles/acquisition.shtml as the source, but it is 404'd.
Old data.
Also I know that this wasn't the real deck, but there was too much emphasis on patents and I have never seen a valuation/expected return in a deck.
Good research because it ended up being right, but I suspect that Mint revenue was a lot more than $4M and they spent a lot more than what this research implies.
http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/08/startups-101-the-complete-m...
Interesting how the slides from the 2006/2007 deck are so much less polished and high-value, design-wise, than the 2008 deck they're presented in.