If you’re a technical founder, you may feel you have to prove the depth of your knowledge. So you explain the architecture, the science or the engineering in detail. The investor admires how hard it is, then leaves still unsure about the problem, the customer, the commercial potential and what you’re asking for.
I’ve screened more than 30 pitches for Keiretsu Forum London, and technical founders are the clearest case of a problem I keep seeing. They know the business inside out but can’t explain it clearly to investors, and that can cost them the funding.
You don’t need to simplify the science. You need to make its significance understandable.
Start with the problem, not the technology
Begin with the problem, its consequences and the people affected. Explain the solution in one or two plain sentences before you show how it works. Go deeper only when the detail establishes differentiation, defensibility, feasibility or risk.
[Before and after: one technical sentence, then the same idea in plain terms.]
Lead with the result, not the method
If you have clinical data, test results, prototypes or independent reviews, show the key finding first, then the technical context. State the limitation as carefully as the result. A slide full of specialist terms with no clear takeaway weakens your case.
Prepare two levels of detail
The main pitch should make the investment argument. Answer technical questions with backup slides, a document or a focused follow-up conversation. That respects the investor’s time and shows you can defend the work.
Test it on someone outside your field
Ask someone without your background to tell you what the company does and why it matters. If they can’t, the detail is getting in the way. the six questions give you a fuller test.
Does your pitch explain the technology, or the opportunity?
If you’re not sure, send me your pitch deck along with a short summary. I’ll tell you where the detail is hiding the case.