I remember the categories I came up with:
* Name of company
* Problem being solved
* Solution being offered
* Total Addressable Market
* Current revenue/signups/other hockey stick graph
* How much is being asked for/current investors
* Who is on the team/why they are most qualified
Most of the pitches went in the order above, with some minor variations. Some skipped some of the slides.
But what I remember is the the ones that seemed most notable and memorable were the ones that used a significantly different order.
 - https://blog.ycombinator.com/intro-to-the-yc-seed-deck/
What I'd love to do with this at some point is to label each slide and do some analysis of the pitches: i.e. what percentage of pitches have traction slides, what percentage have market size slides, what order do they appear in (as you have said), how many slides are dedicated to the solution, etc, etc.
Thanks for sharing your insight, it's an interesting exercise. If those notes ever appear again, HMU :) I'd love to see them.
It's also interesting that there's no information on sources or anything to explain these pitch decks. I'm pretty sure the original would not start with "Facebook's original pitch deck", so how much each pitch has been altered?
Also survivor-ship bias... these are all highly sucessful companies with amazing products. It would also be great to see how failed businesses still got funding, e.g; "Juicero" or "Theranos"...
1) list of big names advising or on board of directors acquired through connections
2) total adressable market of blood tests
3) current cost and complexity - need full vial for each single test
4) promise of lower cost and complexity - just one drop of blood
5) at some point down the time line they likely have added DoD contract and Walgreens partnership
Don't think it's quite as dramatic as you imply here, and I don't think anyone is deliberately fabricating slide decks in order to trick you.
So, I look at a a couple, but quickly get the feeling that these may not be genuine, that this site might be theonion of pitch decks, or something. I go to HN comments to see what others think.
I was disappointed to find that the author of the site apparently doesn't really know if these are real or not. I'd like to see more than a passive aggressive "oh gee thanks this was a fun project 2nd year business student blah blah I'll look into it", when the site clearly claims to show me “Facebook's original pitch deck” as the FIRST one which is very obviously not genuine.
Comparing these decks to the decks I have in our tracker (a dataset of similar size to yours), there's a lot of differences. Even if you only take the pitch decks of the successful companies (most of which we didn't invest in), a lot of these decks look a lot more polished.
Here's what I think is going on: Some decks are undoubtably real seed pitch decks, some decks are demo day decks from accelerators, and a few of these decks (Facebook's, for example) are after-the-fact business school exercises from students.
So, I do think most decks are real, but what's tripping up some people is how polished some of the decks are. True pitch decks used to get a seed round or into an accelerator aren't very polished because you're constantly changing the deck based on feedback over the span of 20-50 pitches. The truth is that many investors I know worry when they see a too-polished deck that everyone else has already seen the deal and passed :-P.
(But then they think German sauna is weird.)
I gathered the decks from a variety of sources on the web and trusted they were originals. Although interpretations of company pitch decks may be of value for some people. I'd rather this be a collection of original pitch decks.
If I had have known this would receive the interest it got, I would have spent more time vetting them before uploading. The vast majority of them are originals and come from demo days of accelerators. But going through them again, some of them do indeed look dubious and I've removed them. I'm working on adding sources/references to each of the decks as well some of the other great ideas people have had.
If anyone notices pitches that don't look to be originals please comment here and I'll take them down. Thanks :)
There are already two comments here that could use the feature.
Not only economic conditions, political environment and personal relationships matter, but we are simply selling the same idea to hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs around the world. The boomers are determined to explain to us how successful they were and the steps they took to achieve their enormous fortune and success. What they forget to explain is how a large part of their success is based on the economic conditions created by their parents and mostly on fraud or dubious behavior.
We sell the idea that they can be Google or Facebook, that they can compete or create new markets. But this idea is false. They have capitalized on all economic sectors, all market verticals and captured 90% of the existing opportunities. And if they forget some of them, they can eventually buy it. They drown you before you're born.
The market is rigged, even if you find market-traction, you will fail to attract investors even with the right relationships (no luck for you syrian refugee). Even the idea is good and represent a jump in a deep tech space, you essentially will get nothing unless you come out from MIT, Stanford and so (No luck for you Italian engineer)
Your pitch deck doesn't matter to anyone. VCs are waiting for 90% of projects to sink without financing, for months to get better conditions or simply to keep the surviving companies. Something their parents would never have done.
The truth is that the biggest early-ish rounds (pre Series B) were not closed because of the pitch deck, but despite of it.
Actually, the earlier the round the less important does the pitch deck become.
It's the illegible part, that so few talk about and that can't be shared that is the main driver. It's the social reality surrounding the founders and the round. It's the whisper and rumors inside the investor community, who makes the intro, the medium of the intro (phone or email) and many other small things.
The reddit one is the exact opposite in that regard, but it has cats.
I came to comment about this, it seemed particularly bad. I can only imagine doing this if I wanted to send a message of:
"We don't really need you - we're not taking this seriously at all".
1) A date as there's a fashion to these decks and what worked a few years ago might be all wrong today
2) Did they get funded from the deck?
3) revenue (or user count) at the time of the deck
4) Market Size
5) Founder's previous exit (or connection to Google/FB etc..) I know this is difficult, but some founders can get money on an envelope sketch because they made VCs wealthy in the past.
I realize this is difficult data to get, but it would make the decks much more informative.
I had to search for "a" to have a kind of full list of the presentations.
Will be nice if there is some sort of categories, collections or tags.
To my mind, Uber chooses to lose money. They don't have to spend 700m a year advertising, and they could probably trim the fat in other areas as well (and have in the case of COVID--19),
Leaving COVID--19 alone for a second, the operating expenses have to be taken with a grain of salt, I would be very surprised if they HAVE to do a lot of those to keep the business from falling apart.
Imagine being so entitled that you get this annoyed by something you were given for free and can close at any time.