

Startup Competitions- Miss Congeniality Theory - mchannon

On the circuit of startup competitions, a familiar formula plays itself out.  A smattering of entrepreneur teams puts out 2- to 15-minute powerpoint pitches to a small all-star cast of VC's and a large cast of people-paid-to-be-there.<p>At the end of the affair, a winner-takes-all prize is awarded to the best presenter, usually selected by popular vote.<p>What's interesting about this system is that on top of the systemic shortcomings beauty pageants have (Nobody pays close attention, everyone is distracted, the time is too short to get an in-depth understanding of the project or the presenter, there's just way too many to choose between) many of the reviewers have little in the way of technical background to suss out snake oil versus the golden goose, or business background to sense who has a chance of making their whizbang predictions into reality and who couldn't sell booze to a drunk.<p>It's never as simple as "invest in the winner" to a deep-pocketed attendee at one of these events, but it occurs to me that if you had to pick a winner to receive the cash prize, there's a more disinterested and skilled set of voters- the other presenters.<p>If I was tasked with investing X in a single presenter at one of these events, I'd invest in Miss Congeniality, not Miss Pageant.<p>What does everyone else think?<p>On that note, an experiment:  Why not set up a crowdsourced YC-like class along the same lines?  You'd have to apply to vote, and you'd have to vote to apply.  Applicants wouldn't have the same discerning skills of a YC, but they'd be able to screen chocolates from turds in a massively parallel capacity.  It'd also save the staff a massive crush of application reviews.
======
nickler
The challenge with crowdsourcing votes is avoiding users gaming the system.
Even a well organized system with this in mind requires tremendous buy in from
the entire network, such as a vested interest, to avoid popularity contests,
two horse races, and troll votes.

I agree with your assessment that many times the other presenters will be
exceptionally qualified, but as you state about the other judges, they also
may not have the deep domain knowledge required to make an informed choice.

The most important vote to earn is from your customers, which is why at many
of these presentations, traction and market validation still reigns supreme.

~~~
mchannon
I'd posit that gaming the system is more of a problem with investors (who
already have bets in) than with other startups (they bet on themselves).

The term "jury of your peers" carries a lot of weight here.

