Back side of the Web Ready Contest
I would like to say a few words about the Web Ready contest from the side of the participant - Russian Creators , which passed to the semifinals, but did not reach the final. And, it seems to me, from this point of view, the assessment will be the most objective, since on the one hand I do not have euphoria about passing to the finals, but there is no resentment about being screened at the very first stage.
The negative impression of the competition can be found in this article and in the comments to it. Here are the main things that people write about:
1. The competition is held for Ingria’s self-PR and everything else is done in any way.
')
I do not think so. Moreover, the organizers showed a serious attitude to the projects from the very beginning, even at the first stage. The application system failed and the applications were not fully preserved. No one gave up on this. They called me, explained the situation, sent a request by mail with a request to read it and add it if necessary. When I didn’t send an answer before the deadline for receiving applications, they called me again to remind and make sure that I’m waiting for a letter from me if I have not changed my mind about participating in the contest. In general, throughout the entire competition there was a telephone connection, it was possible to personally resolve all issues and find out incomprehensible moments. I honestly come across this for the first time. Usually, even a letter is unlikely to receive an answer, and that it is possible to call, even speech can not be.
2. It was announced about the evaluation of projects in terms of innovation, but in fact only commercial success is evaluated.
We read the evaluation criteria voiced on the contest website: “The economic indicators of the project are also important. The project should generate income in reality or in the future. ”,“ Various parameters of the project’s market circumstances matter: market saturation, globality, stability, growth potential. ”,“ More attractive are projects whose potential goes beyond the region and country . "," We are interested in those projects in which it is easier to raise capital, saying profitability. "
And where is the discrepancy? The organizers immediately made it clear that there are more chances for projects that have good commercial prospects, or better yet, generate income. And the fact that in the final there were no projects at the stage of building an idea, it means there were simply no projects with really strong ideas in which experts would see the potential.
3. The projects that have already received investments and have existed for more than two years allowed for participation.
Honestly, I do not see any contradictions with this - “The projects that are in the following stages of preparation are accepted for participation in the“ Web Ready ”competition: Seed stage (seed stage), Startup stage (startup stage), Early stage (early stage) - first steps to monetize and form business processes for scaling. ”.
What exactly is considered an early stage? Our project, for example, is a year. Is it already a year or another year? If you look at the indicators, it is 500-700 visitors per day and 1000 registered authors. I would not even take it to the Early stage, for me it is still the Startup stage. A year or two later, we may well find ourselves at the Early stage and the project will start generating revenue. That is, for some projects and 5 years is not a term, it all depends on the development plan. Judging by what I heard at the presentation of the projects, the mentioned giants with attracted investments are still at the Early stage. The founder of YouDo recently wrote on Habré that $ 600K was invested in the project and now they are ready to start somehow to return this money, that is, in essence, the project is not even profitable yet. Why should one refuse to participate in a project in which so much effort, time and money were invested, but miss the raw project that Vasya weakened over the weekend before the competition.
I liked the approach to the organization most of all, especially considering the fact that this competition is being held for the first time. I feel that the organizers spent more time on me than I did on them. All I had to do was make an application and then prepare a presentation (the template of which was again provided). And I did it for the first time, and for good, every start-up should already have a description of the project and its presentation.
What was really well done was the preparatory session for the semi-finalists. For several days the invited experts talked with all the participants together and with each individual, delved into the projects, gave advice on improving the presentation and the projects themselves, and shared their thoughts on promotion. By the way, I have heard more than once that in the process of launching a startup, its monetization model may change or new markets open up. So, experts sometimes took into account this moment, offered some ideas on monetization, which were not voiced by the creators of the projects. In general, for all the semi-finalists, I think it was quite a valuable experience. Especially for those who first presented their project. Next time participants will be able to avoid many mistakes and present their project much better.
These are the feelings of the competition. There were flaws and minuses, but this is not a pofigism of the organizers, but the first experience. The number of pluses is much greater. So I have not lost interest in the competition despite the absence of our project in the final. Very interesting how it all ends and who will win. Organizers of success in the organization, and projects in the competition.
First of all, I would like to refute what the organizers are now blaming.
The negative impression of the competition can be found in this article and in the comments to it. Here are the main things that people write about:
1. The competition is held for Ingria’s self-PR and everything else is done in any way.
')
I do not think so. Moreover, the organizers showed a serious attitude to the projects from the very beginning, even at the first stage. The application system failed and the applications were not fully preserved. No one gave up on this. They called me, explained the situation, sent a request by mail with a request to read it and add it if necessary. When I didn’t send an answer before the deadline for receiving applications, they called me again to remind and make sure that I’m waiting for a letter from me if I have not changed my mind about participating in the contest. In general, throughout the entire competition there was a telephone connection, it was possible to personally resolve all issues and find out incomprehensible moments. I honestly come across this for the first time. Usually, even a letter is unlikely to receive an answer, and that it is possible to call, even speech can not be.
2. It was announced about the evaluation of projects in terms of innovation, but in fact only commercial success is evaluated.
We read the evaluation criteria voiced on the contest website: “The economic indicators of the project are also important. The project should generate income in reality or in the future. ”,“ Various parameters of the project’s market circumstances matter: market saturation, globality, stability, growth potential. ”,“ More attractive are projects whose potential goes beyond the region and country . "," We are interested in those projects in which it is easier to raise capital, saying profitability. "
And where is the discrepancy? The organizers immediately made it clear that there are more chances for projects that have good commercial prospects, or better yet, generate income. And the fact that in the final there were no projects at the stage of building an idea, it means there were simply no projects with really strong ideas in which experts would see the potential.
3. The projects that have already received investments and have existed for more than two years allowed for participation.
Honestly, I do not see any contradictions with this - “The projects that are in the following stages of preparation are accepted for participation in the“ Web Ready ”competition: Seed stage (seed stage), Startup stage (startup stage), Early stage (early stage) - first steps to monetize and form business processes for scaling. ”.
What exactly is considered an early stage? Our project, for example, is a year. Is it already a year or another year? If you look at the indicators, it is 500-700 visitors per day and 1000 registered authors. I would not even take it to the Early stage, for me it is still the Startup stage. A year or two later, we may well find ourselves at the Early stage and the project will start generating revenue. That is, for some projects and 5 years is not a term, it all depends on the development plan. Judging by what I heard at the presentation of the projects, the mentioned giants with attracted investments are still at the Early stage. The founder of YouDo recently wrote on Habré that $ 600K was invested in the project and now they are ready to start somehow to return this money, that is, in essence, the project is not even profitable yet. Why should one refuse to participate in a project in which so much effort, time and money were invested, but miss the raw project that Vasya weakened over the weekend before the competition.
Secondly, just a couple of words from the participant and obvious advantages.
I liked the approach to the organization most of all, especially considering the fact that this competition is being held for the first time. I feel that the organizers spent more time on me than I did on them. All I had to do was make an application and then prepare a presentation (the template of which was again provided). And I did it for the first time, and for good, every start-up should already have a description of the project and its presentation.
What was really well done was the preparatory session for the semi-finalists. For several days the invited experts talked with all the participants together and with each individual, delved into the projects, gave advice on improving the presentation and the projects themselves, and shared their thoughts on promotion. By the way, I have heard more than once that in the process of launching a startup, its monetization model may change or new markets open up. So, experts sometimes took into account this moment, offered some ideas on monetization, which were not voiced by the creators of the projects. In general, for all the semi-finalists, I think it was quite a valuable experience. Especially for those who first presented their project. Next time participants will be able to avoid many mistakes and present their project much better.
These are the feelings of the competition. There were flaws and minuses, but this is not a pofigism of the organizers, but the first experience. The number of pluses is much greater. So I have not lost interest in the competition despite the absence of our project in the final. Very interesting how it all ends and who will win. Organizers of success in the organization, and projects in the competition.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/78317/
All Articles