Assignment 22A - Elevator Pitch No. 3

I received comments from two peers for my second elevator pitch. Both were mostly positive on the overall delivery, and again reinforced the viability of the product.

The main critique from the first comment was that the product would likely get resistance from customers, which was already known. Because this feedback was received earlier in the process, additional focus on education and culture shift had already been added to my efforts. Although, it is good to get constant reminders on this so I do not lose sight of it.

The second comment was the most constructive critique received and had the potential to provide me the most benefit to make changes to my pitch. However, at the same, time I found it to be most unhelpful. It was suggested I project more credibility, to convince the audience they should listen to me and invest in my product. While I get that, I wasn’t sure what about my existing pitch the commenter found not to be credible or could be more credible. I was well prepared and delivered the content well, had researched the subject and provided statistics, and incorporated feedback from pitch #1 to differentiate my product from existing ones on the market. I wish the feedback was more specific, with examples, so I could have understood better what they saw to be missing and I could have taken action as appropriate.

Because the feedback was not specific on how my credibility could be increased, I decided to try and incorporate the suggestion as best I could by more explicitly stating my product’s differentiator: that the technology was imposed on the smart device owner versus current products that rely on the device owner to voluntarily use the product. This, I hope, will be a clear line between why someone should invest in me instead of someone else.

https://youtu.be/OR639GFwl3c