5 main mistakes when applying to the accelerator
Now a huge number of startups are searching for investments in the market from fund to fund. There are plenty of ideas and projects. And in order to increase the conversion of quantity to quality by at least 1%, then the main mistakes of startups with which they come to invest in their projects will be given.
This is probably the main mistake, since this is the first thing where the idea begins. Evaluating applications, we often see how an applicant, proposing a completely suitable idea, does not understand what market he orients at. Simply put, he does not understand who his client is. Examples are different. Cashback service for purchases in online stores, where a startup as a volume of the market gives sales figures in these stores. At the same time, it is quite obvious that not all buyers are ready to take additional actions in order to receive a 5% discount. Finding the exact number of such people probably will not work, but you can make an assumption, a hypothesis - investors will appreciate your logic. Another example, a service for users of public transport. The startaper cites a number, according to the Ministry of Transport, how many people drive vehicles. But during the discussion, it turns out that only 40% of people have access to the mobile Internet. Accordingly, the application’s target market is 2.5 times less at once, not to mention the fact that there will certainly be other filters. Or another example, a start-up confuses the concepts client and user. The client is the one who pays us. In the case of the monetization advertising model, this is clearly manifested. And the target market, respectively, is not fans of cars, plants, pets, toys (insert your own), but specific advertisers in these categories.
Probably one of the most frequent misconceptions, when the applicant, having thought up some idea, is looking for an identical player in the market. and if he doesn’t find one, he immediately concludes that he has no competitors. This is not true. It is necessary to start not from your idea, but from the need that it solves. Most likely people already somehow satisfy this need in other ways, with the help of other services. Even if you do not have direct competitors, with a probability of 99% there are indirect ones who also solve the problem of finding a companion on the road, a partner for playing sports, choosing a suitable gift for a psycho type or a way to exchange things.
Sometimes there is another picture: a start-up incorrectly identifies a direct competitor. Suppose there is a service that greatly simplifies the process of accepting payments on the site, offering to sell anything anywhere. First of all, the start-up leads as a competitor payment aggregators, like Robokassa or Money.Online. But in fact, here the project comes to grips with the Ecwid service, which also allows you to sell anything, anywhere, just does it a little differently. That is, a direct competitor is not one that looks more like you, but one that solves the same problem for a client.
')
The goal of any business (you will be surprised, but a startup is also a business) is to make a profit. Point. No matter how simple it may sound, believe me, very often the impression is that this is news for startups. They come inspired by their idea, which is nice, but at the same time it is important for the investor to understand that the entrepreneur is firmly on his feet and ready to take responsibility for the funds raised. No financial plan will give full performance guarantees, but the investor wants to see that at least in general terms the numbers converge, and these figures are justified. Even when you have nothing, no income, no expenses, you can conditionally assume your potential audience. For example, looking at the number of requests in Yandex. With this figure, you can go to the Unit-Economy. It conditionally consists of marketing and monetization. That is, you are trying to answer the question of how much one user brings me and how much money I spend on it - respectively, the two main indicators of Unit-Economy are ARPU (average revenue per user) and CAC (customer acquisition cost). ARPU per month equals monthly revenue divided by the number of users. In CAC you need to include all the costs of marketing: advertising, analytics, management, invoices, bonuses, kickbacks. By calculating these indicators, comparing ARPU and CAC, one can understand, is the idea profitable at all? Another important point. With the development of your project, each new client is more expensive and brings less profit, this is an axiom, it must be remembered. The most interesting thing is the facial expression of the startup, when he himself comes to the conclusion that one user costs him more than he brings profit. Something like: "Oh, this is a ticket to the Titanic."
At this point it is even more fair to say “just not analyzed”. Most often, a start-up on the basis of some purely subjective reasoning draws conclusions and suggests them as truth. For example, the most popular expression in the questionnaires: "our interface is more convenient, more beautiful, more modern, etc., than that of competitor X". Why? What is more convenient? How to compare it? We have not yet heard a clear, simple answer to these questions. Again, how wide was the focus of the group that showed this? Here's an elementary tip: try the next time at this point compare one particular action on two sites. How many clicks it took and how long it took. These indicators at least can be compared and shown to the investor. There is another situation, probably the most common, you really are more convenient and the benefits are undeniable. Only now these benefits are not needed for free by users Pretty often meets. Or another option, “we have a lot of different functions” - but you will figure it out in the “FIG” system.
Separately, I would like to mention the services that combine two groups of users. For example, online education. On the one hand, the lecturers, on the other - the audience. Here you need to think about the utility for both groups. Even if your service has significant advantages for one group, but for another it is not obvious - the project will not be accepted.
As for beauty and modernity, more than once I have heard that old, old-school, unattractive designs often show much greater conversion. So this topic is better not even lift.
This item is the last in order, but not by value. They say "they meet on clothes" - there is absolutely the same principle. Even before you begin to give facts on market assessment and competitor analysis, the investor already has a first impression of you. And the importance of the first impression, I think, is not necessary to explain. Under the competent questionnaire / presentation is supposed not only spelling literacy, which is also important, but completely the form of the presentation of your thoughts. Another saying to the place: "Brevity is the sister of talent." Sometimes the simple question “what problem for the user is solved by your project” - a start-up gives out 300 words of text about service convenience, unique technology, etc., and the answer has to be thought out as a result. The investor wants to hear a simple formula: “for users (X) we offer (Y) by (Z)”, where X is the target audience, Y is the problem, Z is your service. For example: "For people living in conditions of limited finances, we offer a storefront of material values ​​where the user can set a goal and save money in an interactive form, while receiving various bonuses."
Of course, these are not all errors. This is what lies on the surface and catches the eye of the investor. But, having avoided these 5 mistakes, you are guaranteed to raise the chance of success. It can be said that these are errors in form, and not in content, that is, errors of the applications, and not of the projects themselves.
If we talk about errors on the content of projects, you can simply look at what startups most often do when they have a pivot. Two things - reorienting to another market, or changing the monetization strategy. That is, these two points are incorrectly chosen - the main errors in the content of the projects.
1. Wrong priced market
This is probably the main mistake, since this is the first thing where the idea begins. Evaluating applications, we often see how an applicant, proposing a completely suitable idea, does not understand what market he orients at. Simply put, he does not understand who his client is. Examples are different. Cashback service for purchases in online stores, where a startup as a volume of the market gives sales figures in these stores. At the same time, it is quite obvious that not all buyers are ready to take additional actions in order to receive a 5% discount. Finding the exact number of such people probably will not work, but you can make an assumption, a hypothesis - investors will appreciate your logic. Another example, a service for users of public transport. The startaper cites a number, according to the Ministry of Transport, how many people drive vehicles. But during the discussion, it turns out that only 40% of people have access to the mobile Internet. Accordingly, the application’s target market is 2.5 times less at once, not to mention the fact that there will certainly be other filters. Or another example, a start-up confuses the concepts client and user. The client is the one who pays us. In the case of the monetization advertising model, this is clearly manifested. And the target market, respectively, is not fans of cars, plants, pets, toys (insert your own), but specific advertisers in these categories.
2. Wrongly analyzed competitors
Probably one of the most frequent misconceptions, when the applicant, having thought up some idea, is looking for an identical player in the market. and if he doesn’t find one, he immediately concludes that he has no competitors. This is not true. It is necessary to start not from your idea, but from the need that it solves. Most likely people already somehow satisfy this need in other ways, with the help of other services. Even if you do not have direct competitors, with a probability of 99% there are indirect ones who also solve the problem of finding a companion on the road, a partner for playing sports, choosing a suitable gift for a psycho type or a way to exchange things.
Sometimes there is another picture: a start-up incorrectly identifies a direct competitor. Suppose there is a service that greatly simplifies the process of accepting payments on the site, offering to sell anything anywhere. First of all, the start-up leads as a competitor payment aggregators, like Robokassa or Money.Online. But in fact, here the project comes to grips with the Ecwid service, which also allows you to sell anything, anywhere, just does it a little differently. That is, a direct competitor is not one that looks more like you, but one that solves the same problem for a client.
')
3. The project economy is incorrectly calculated.
The goal of any business (you will be surprised, but a startup is also a business) is to make a profit. Point. No matter how simple it may sound, believe me, very often the impression is that this is news for startups. They come inspired by their idea, which is nice, but at the same time it is important for the investor to understand that the entrepreneur is firmly on his feet and ready to take responsibility for the funds raised. No financial plan will give full performance guarantees, but the investor wants to see that at least in general terms the numbers converge, and these figures are justified. Even when you have nothing, no income, no expenses, you can conditionally assume your potential audience. For example, looking at the number of requests in Yandex. With this figure, you can go to the Unit-Economy. It conditionally consists of marketing and monetization. That is, you are trying to answer the question of how much one user brings me and how much money I spend on it - respectively, the two main indicators of Unit-Economy are ARPU (average revenue per user) and CAC (customer acquisition cost). ARPU per month equals monthly revenue divided by the number of users. In CAC you need to include all the costs of marketing: advertising, analytics, management, invoices, bonuses, kickbacks. By calculating these indicators, comparing ARPU and CAC, one can understand, is the idea profitable at all? Another important point. With the development of your project, each new client is more expensive and brings less profit, this is an axiom, it must be remembered. The most interesting thing is the facial expression of the startup, when he himself comes to the conclusion that one user costs him more than he brings profit. Something like: "Oh, this is a ticket to the Titanic."
4. Wrong analysis of their advantages.
At this point it is even more fair to say “just not analyzed”. Most often, a start-up on the basis of some purely subjective reasoning draws conclusions and suggests them as truth. For example, the most popular expression in the questionnaires: "our interface is more convenient, more beautiful, more modern, etc., than that of competitor X". Why? What is more convenient? How to compare it? We have not yet heard a clear, simple answer to these questions. Again, how wide was the focus of the group that showed this? Here's an elementary tip: try the next time at this point compare one particular action on two sites. How many clicks it took and how long it took. These indicators at least can be compared and shown to the investor. There is another situation, probably the most common, you really are more convenient and the benefits are undeniable. Only now these benefits are not needed for free by users Pretty often meets. Or another option, “we have a lot of different functions” - but you will figure it out in the “FIG” system.
Separately, I would like to mention the services that combine two groups of users. For example, online education. On the one hand, the lecturers, on the other - the audience. Here you need to think about the utility for both groups. Even if your service has significant advantages for one group, but for another it is not obvious - the project will not be accepted.
As for beauty and modernity, more than once I have heard that old, old-school, unattractive designs often show much greater conversion. So this topic is better not even lift.
5. The form is illiterate
This item is the last in order, but not by value. They say "they meet on clothes" - there is absolutely the same principle. Even before you begin to give facts on market assessment and competitor analysis, the investor already has a first impression of you. And the importance of the first impression, I think, is not necessary to explain. Under the competent questionnaire / presentation is supposed not only spelling literacy, which is also important, but completely the form of the presentation of your thoughts. Another saying to the place: "Brevity is the sister of talent." Sometimes the simple question “what problem for the user is solved by your project” - a start-up gives out 300 words of text about service convenience, unique technology, etc., and the answer has to be thought out as a result. The investor wants to hear a simple formula: “for users (X) we offer (Y) by (Z)”, where X is the target audience, Y is the problem, Z is your service. For example: "For people living in conditions of limited finances, we offer a storefront of material values ​​where the user can set a goal and save money in an interactive form, while receiving various bonuses."
Of course, these are not all errors. This is what lies on the surface and catches the eye of the investor. But, having avoided these 5 mistakes, you are guaranteed to raise the chance of success. It can be said that these are errors in form, and not in content, that is, errors of the applications, and not of the projects themselves.
If we talk about errors on the content of projects, you can simply look at what startups most often do when they have a pivot. Two things - reorienting to another market, or changing the monetization strategy. That is, these two points are incorrectly chosen - the main errors in the content of the projects.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/237041/
All Articles