ERA Workshop Pitch Deck Teardown: An Investor's Guide

Introduction to the ERA Workshop Deck

This presentation, titled "ERA Workshop on Seed Stage Fundraising and Angels," was delivered by Tom Wisniewski of RosePaul Ventures for the Entrepreneurs Roundtable Accelerator (ERA). Unlike the standard startup pitch decks analyzed on this platform, this is an educational teardown. It provides a rare look at how investors categorize startups and the specific metrics they use to gatekeep capital. The deck is structured into three primary sections: Introductions, an Introduction to Angel Capital, and Key Success Factors.

Slide 1: Title Slide

The title slide establishes the partnership between RosePaul Ventures and ERA. It identifies Tom Wisniewski as the presenter. The background features a New York City skyline, signaling the geographic focus of the workshop.

Slide 2: Agenda

The agenda slide outlines the three-part structure of the session. It notes that the content is based on classes led at General Assembly in NYC, reinforcing the educational and pedagogical nature of the slides.

Slide 3 & 4: Kick-Off and Introductions

Slide 4 provides the professional biography of Tom Wisniewski. Key details include his background as a programmer at Morgan Stanley, an MBA from Tuck (Dartmouth), and his tenure at Mitchell Madison Group. Notably, it mentions his role as a member and director at New York Angels, one of the most active angel groups in the region. This slide serves to establish the 'authority' of the speaker.

Slide 5: Audience Engagement

This slide is a placeholder for workshop interaction, asking participants about their companies, fundraising history, and specific questions regarding angels. In a fundraising context, this represents the 'qualification' phase where an investor assesses the room.

Slide 6 & 7: Introduction to Angel Capital and Sources of Investment

Slide 7 is the most data-dense slide in the deck and serves as a benchmark for the industry. It breaks down the funding lifecycle into four distinct columns:

Friends and Family: Round size $10s of K to $100K; Valuation < $1M. Requirements: An idea and a rough business plan. · Angel Investment: Round size $100s of K to $1M+; Valuation $1M - $5M. Requirements: Prototype/alpha tested, some revenue, and full-time founders. · Seed VC: Round size $500K to $1.5M; Valuation $5M - $10M. Requirements: Significant growth potential and a path to $100M revenue. · Traditional Series A VC: Round size $5M - $15M; Valuation $10M - $25M. Requirements: Revenue growth (B2B) or strong usage trends (B2C).

This slide is critical for founders to understand where they fit. If a founder has no prototype, they are likely in the 'Friends and Family' column, regardless of their ambitions.

Slide 8: Who are these Angels?

This slide profiles the typical angel investor. It describes them as experienced entrepreneurs (often with multiple exits) or corporate executives. Most are aged 40-60. A key metric provided is that they typically invest about 10% of their investable capital into startups and maintain a portfolio of 3 to 10+ investments. This highlights the risk-mitigation strategy angels use.

Slide 9: RosePaul / Tom Wisniewski Investor Profile

Wisniewski provides his specific investment criteria. He lists a portfolio including companies like Pond5, Wanderu, and Jackpocket. His 'sweet spot' is $25K-$250K investments at $1M-$5M valuations. He explicitly lists 'NOT' sectors: hardware, healthcare, cleantech, and education. This slide illustrates the concept of 'Investor Fit'—pitching him for a biotech startup would be a waste of time based on these stated preferences.

Slide 10: NY Angels Profile

Focusing on the group level, this slide describes the New York Angels. It notes they have ~100 members and have invested $45M+ in 70+ companies. The slide explains their 'opt-in' model, where individual members make their own decisions, though they recently added a small seed fund that operates on a democratic model. This distinction is vital for founders to understand how capital is actually deployed in a group setting.

Slide 11: The "Right" Investors

This slide addresses the strategy of targeting. It argues that "people invest in things that they understand and have experience with." It advises founders to use LinkedIn and AngelList to find investors who have previously invested in their specific industry or customer market.

Slide 12 & 13: How to "Get" the Pitch Meeting

Slide 12 focuses on preparation, suggesting founders use Google, Quora, and CrunchBase to find an investor's 'hot buttons.' Slide 13, however, crosses out the title "How to get a pitch meeting" and replaces it with "How do I build a relationship first?" The solution offered is to "Ask for advice, not money." This is a classic fundraising trope that emphasizes the long-game of networking over the short-game of the 'ask.'

Slide 14, 15 & 16: Key Success Factors and Take-Aways

These slides provide tactical advice. Slide 15 emphasizes that "Communication is Paramount" because investors start knowing nothing about the venture. Slide 16 introduces the concept of the "Lead Investor," noting that their role is to drive the due diligence and term sheet process. It explicitly states that "Investors trust... other investors," meaning the first check is the hardest to get, but it brings 'followers' with it.

Slide 17: Valuation and Timing

The final advice slide warns that fundraising is "brain damage"—a distraction that wastes time which could be spent growing the business. It advises founders to delay fundraising as long as possible to increase their valuation and compelling case. It also asks a sobering question: "Are you ready to work for someone else?" referring to the board of directors that comes with institutional capital.

Slide 18: Thanks and Contact

The deck concludes with contact information, including an email address and a link to the RosePaul website.

What Works in This Deck

The primary strength of this deck is its transparency regarding metrics . Slide 7, in particular, removes the guesswork for founders by providing specific dollar ranges for rounds and valuations. By defining what is 'expected' at each stage (e.g., alpha tested for angels, revenue growth for Series A), it provides a clear roadmap for readiness. Furthermore, the inclusion of a 'NOT' list on Slide 9 is a masterclass in efficiency; it tells founders exactly who should not be in the room, saving everyone time.

What is Missing

As a workshop deck, it lacks the narrative arc of a company pitch. There is no problem/solution framework, no competitive landscape analysis, and no team slide for a specific venture. While it explains how to pitch, it does not provide a template for the content of the pitch itself. Additionally, while it mentions 'legal documentation' as a requirement for angel investment, it does not specify what those documents are (e.g., SAFEs vs. Priced Rounds), which is a common point of confusion for seed-stage founders.

What a Founder Should Copy

Founders should emulate the segmentation strategy found in Slide 7. When building their own decks, they should be able to point to their current metrics and clearly state which column they belong in. They should also adopt the 'Investor Fit' mindset from Slide 11. Instead of a broad outreach, a founder's 'Target Investor' slide should reflect the specific industry experience and 'hot buttons' identified in this workshop. Finally, the advice to identify a Lead Investor (Slide 16) should be a central part of any fundraising strategy; founders should not just look for money, but for the specific individual who will lead the round and provide the social proof needed to close other participants.

Conclusion

The ERA Workshop deck is a pragmatic guide to the NYC seed ecosystem. It strips away the hype of startup culture and replaces it with the cold reality of investor expectations. For a founder, the value lies in the benchmarks: if your pre-money valuation expectations are $10M but you haven't finished your prototype, this deck tells you exactly why you will fail to secure an angel investment. It is a document of alignment, intended to ensure that when a founder finally does 'get' the meeting, they are actually ready for it.