What was the primary business model for Ooomf?

Ooomf operated as a curated marketplace for mobile and web development talent. Unlike general freelance sites that use open bidding, Ooomf used a matching system where the 'talent picks the work.' They focused on high-value projects, as evidenced by Slide 6, which shows their average project budget of $5,000 is ten times the industry average of $500.

How did Ooomf differentiate itself from competitors like Upwork or Elance?

The deck explicitly highlights 'no bidding, no spam, and no price wars' on Slide 10. By removing the bidding process and providing 'automatic budget recommendations' (Slide 8), they eliminated the downward price pressure that often drives top-tier talent away from freelance marketplaces, instead focusing on matching clients with a 'single best pro' (Slide 9).

What traction did the company have at the time of this pitch?

The company demonstrated significant early momentum. Slide 5 shows they had facilitated $950,000 in project volume within their first six months of operation, maintaining a 30% month-over-month growth rate. Additionally, Slide 10 claims a 99% match rate within 24 hours, suggesting high liquidity in their marketplace.

Who were the key members of the Ooomf team?

The team consisted of Mikael (Founder, Neuroscience degree, marketing expert), Steph (Actuary and entrepreneur), Angus (Repeat founder), and Luke (Designer). Their collective experience totaled over 15 years as independent creative professionals, which provided them with first-hand insight into the problems they were solving for both contractors and clients.

What is missing from this pitch deck?

The deck is notably missing a specific 'Ask' slide detailing how much capital they are raising and what the milestones for that capital will be. It also lacks a detailed breakdown of their take-rate (revenue model) and a competitive landscape slide that names specific rivals beyond the general 'Online Contractor Billings' category.

Ooomf (later Crew) Pitch Deck (2013): 18-Slide Seed Deck

See all 18 slides of the Ooomf pitch deck — a 2013 Seed deck — with a slide-by-slide teardown of what the deck does well and where it falls short.

The Ooomf pitch deck is a textbook example of using contrast to define a market position. By pitting their 'premium marketplace' against the race-to-the-bottom dynamics of legacy freelance platforms, the founders clearly articulate why high-end talent and high-budget clients were flocking to their service. The deck relies heavily on traction, showing $950,000 in projects booked within just six months and a consistent 30% month-over-month growth rate. While it lacks a detailed financial model or a specific 'Ask' slide, the narrative strength of their three-step product process and the caliber…

Key takeaways

The deck establishes a clear enemy on Slide 2 by showing the 'race to the bottom' bidding wars common on other platforms.
Traction is the centerpiece, with Slide 5 reporting $950,000 in projects over 6 months and 30% MoM growth.
Ooomf positions itself as a premium alternative, claiming an average project budget of $5,000 compared to a $500 industry average on Slide 6.
The product workflow is simplified into three clear steps: Pitch Your Inspiration, Automatic Budget Recommendation, and The Single Best Pro Comes To You (Slides 7-9).
Efficiency is a key metric, with Slide 10 stating that 99% of projects match within 24 hours.
The market size is defined by 'Online Contractor Billings,' projected to grow from $1B in 2012 to $4B in 2014 (Slide 11).
The team slide (Slide 13) highlights specific achievements, such as building a blog to 40,000+ readers and graduating university at age 19.
The deck utilizes social proof through existing investors like Real Ventures and BDC, plus an advisor from a Shopify-acquired studio (Slide 14).

Executive Summary: The Premium Marketplace Play

Ooomf (which later became Crew) entered a crowded freelance market with a very specific thesis: the 'average' is over. While platforms like Elance and oDesk (now Upwork) were facilitating a race to the bottom on price, Ooomf focused on the high-end creative professional. This teardown examines how they used a minimalist design and aggressive traction metrics to prove that a curated, high-budget marketplace was not only possible but rapidly scaling.

Slides 1-4: The Hook and the Antagonist

Slide 1: Title The deck opens with the Ooomf logo and the tagline 'The future of work.' It identifies Mikael Cho as the founder. The branding is clean and professional, setting the tone for a design-centric product.

Slide 2: The Problem Instead of a bulleted list of grievances, Slide 2 uses a visual representation of the status quo. It shows a job posting for an iOS developer with a 'Fixed Price: $250 or less' and a bidding box where 'Mary' offers to do it for $100. This immediately identifies the 'enemy': low-quality, low-budget bidding wars that devalue professional work.

Slide 3: The Thesis 'Average is over.' This slide serves as a transition, signaling a shift away from the commodity labor market toward something more specialized.

Slide 4: The Solution Ooomf defines itself as 'A premium marketplace of the best mobile & web talent where the talent picks the work.' This is a critical distinction—reversing the power dynamic of the marketplace to attract top-tier developers and designers who usually avoid freelance boards.

Slides 5-6: Proving Product-Market Fit

Slide 5: Traction This is the 'money slide.' It shows a steep upward curve from February 2013 to August 2013. Key figures quoted are '$950,000 in projects in 6 months' and '30% month-to-month growth.' For a seed-stage company, these are exceptionally strong numbers that validate the demand for their specific model.

Slide 6: Quality Metrics To reinforce the 'premium' claim, Slide 6 compares Ooomf's average project budget ($5,000) to the industry average ($500). Citing a '10x' difference is a powerful way to show that they are playing in a different league than their competitors. They also include logos of high-profile companies like Google, Apple, and Path to suggest the caliber of clients or talent they associate with.

Slides 7-10: Product and Efficiency

Slide 7: Step 1 - Pitch Your Inspiration The deck walks through the user experience. The first step involves the client selecting the type of app (iPhone, iPad, Android) and setting an initial budget range ($3,000 to $20,000). This positions the platform for serious development work rather than small tasks.

Slide 8: Step 2 - Automatic Budget Recommendation This slide shows a UI where the platform suggests a tighter budget range (e.g., $13,000 - $17,000) based on 'favorite styles.' This removes the friction of negotiation and price-guessing, a major pain point in traditional freelancing.

Slide 9: Step 3 - The Match The final step in the product flow is 'The single best pro comes to you.' It shows a profile for 'Edward Scherf,' a UI Designer with an Apple Design Award. This emphasizes curation over quantity; the client isn't sorting through 50 bids, they are being matched with one high-quality professional.

Slide 10: Marketplace Liquidity The company doubles down on its efficiency metrics: '99% of projects match within 24 hours.' They also reiterate the 'no bidding, no spam, no price wars' mantra, which serves as their primary value proposition for the talent side of the marketplace.

Slides 11-12: Market and Vision

Slide 11: Market Size The deck uses 'Online Contractor Billings' as its proxy for market size. It shows a jump from $1B in 2012 to $4B in 2014. While these numbers are smaller than the total addressable market (TAM) usually seen in pitch decks today, they were realistic for the nascent 'online work' sector at the time.

Slide 12: Vision The long-term goal is stated as becoming 'The most trusted, collaborative labor marketplace in the world.' It’s a broad, ambitious statement intended to show that they aren't just a niche tool for iOS devs, but a new infrastructure for labor.

Slides 13-14: The Team and Backers

Slide 13: Team The team slide focuses on '15+ years experience working as independent creative professionals.' Specific highlights include:

Mikael: Built the Ooomf blog to 40,000+ readers in 3 months. · Steph: An actuary who started her first profitable business at 16. · Angus: Founded 2 previous startups and graduated university at 19. · Luke: A designer who built a product with 25,000+ monthly downloads.

This is an excellent team slide because it lists concrete achievements rather than just past employer logos.

Slide 14: Investors & Advisors The company lists Real Ventures and BDC as investors. They also highlight Adam McNamara, a founder of a studio acquired by Shopify, as an advisor. This provides the necessary social proof to de-risk the investment for new backers.

Slides 15-18: Case Study and Closing

Slide 15-16: Meet Milan The deck uses a specific case study of 'Milan,' an iOS developer who earned '$15k in one month' through the platform. The quote 'ooomf changed the way I work and with that how I live' adds an emotional layer to the data-heavy deck, showing the impact on the supply side of the marketplace.

Slide 17: The Goal The deck concludes with a bold projection: 'On track to book $100MM in projects by 2015.' This gives investors a clear sense of the scale the founders are aiming for in the near term.

Slide 18: Final Slide A repeat of the title slide with contact information. Simple and consistent.

What Works in This Deck

Extreme Clarity of Position: By Slide 2, you know exactly what Ooomf is against. By Slide 4, you know exactly what they are for. · Growth Velocity: Showing 30% month-over-month growth is the gold standard for a startup pitch. It makes the rest of the deck much easier to believe. · Product Simplicity: Reducing the complex process of hiring a developer to three simple screenshots makes the solution feel inevitable and easy to use. · Supply-Side Focus: Most marketplaces focus only on the customer. Ooomf spends significant time explaining why the talent prefers their platform, which is the harder side of the equation to solve in high-end tech.

What is Missing

The Ask: There is no slide stating how much money they are raising, the valuation, or what the 'use of proceeds' will be. · Revenue Model: While they mention project volume (GMV), they don't explicitly state their take-rate or how they actually make money. · Competitive Landscape: They mention the 'industry average' but don't provide a direct comparison against specific competitors like Toptal or 99designs. · Unit Economics: There is no mention of Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) or Lifetime Value (LTV), which are crucial for understanding the sustainability of that 30% growth.

Founder's Playbook: What to Copy

The 'Anti-Competitor' Slide: Use a visual example of why the current market leader's product is broken for your specific target user. · High-Signal Team Bios: Don't just list where you went to school. List the most impressive thing you built or a metric you moved. · Contrast Metrics: If you are a premium play, show your average order value (AOV) next to the industry average. It justifies your smaller user base by showing higher efficiency. · The 3-Step Product Walkthrough: Even if your software is complex, your pitch deck should make it look like it takes three clicks to get value.

Frequently asked questions

What was the primary business model for Ooomf?: Ooomf operated as a curated marketplace for mobile and web development talent. Unlike general freelance sites that use open bidding, Ooomf used a matching system where the 'talent picks the work.' They focused on high-value projects, as evidenced by Slide 6, which shows their average project budget of $5,000 is ten times the industry average of $500.
How did Ooomf differentiate itself from competitors like Upwork or Elance?: The deck explicitly highlights 'no bidding, no spam, and no price wars' on Slide 10. By removing the bidding process and providing 'automatic budget recommendations' (Slide 8), they eliminated the downward price pressure that often drives top-tier talent away from freelance marketplaces, instead focusing on matching clients with a 'single best pro' (Slide 9).
What traction did the company have at the time of this pitch?: The company demonstrated significant early momentum. Slide 5 shows they had facilitated $950,000 in project volume within their first six months of operation, maintaining a 30% month-over-month growth rate. Additionally, Slide 10 claims a 99% match rate within 24 hours, suggesting high liquidity in their marketplace.
Who were the key members of the Ooomf team?: The team consisted of Mikael (Founder, Neuroscience degree, marketing expert), Steph (Actuary and entrepreneur), Angus (Repeat founder), and Luke (Designer). Their collective experience totaled over 15 years as independent creative professionals, which provided them with first-hand insight into the problems they were solving for both contractors and clients.
What is missing from this pitch deck?: The deck is notably missing a specific 'Ask' slide detailing how much capital they are raising and what the milestones for that capital will be. It also lacks a detailed breakdown of their take-rate (revenue model) and a competitive landscape slide that names specific rivals beyond the general 'Online Contractor Billings' category.

Cover slide of the Ooomf (later Crew) pitch deck — Seed 2013 — Ooomf (later Crew) pitch deck, slide 1 (2013)

Ooomf (later Crew) pitch deck: the facts

Company: Ooomf (later Crew)
Year: 2013
Stage: Seed
Slides: 18
Sector: Freelance Marketplace / Future of Work
Deck type: Pitch Deck
Outcome: Rebranded to Crew; acquired by Dribbble in 2017.
Headquarters: Montreal, Canada

Ooomf (later Crew) pitch deck PDF

The full Ooomf (later Crew) deck is embedded on this page and can be read slide by slide in the browser — no download or account required. Each slide is covered in the breakdown above.

What the Ooomf (later Crew) pitch deck was used for

This deck is an 18‑slide **seed‑stage investor presentation from around 2013–2014** for Ooomf, the Montreal startup that pivoted from an app discovery platform into a curated freelance marketplace and later rebranded as Crew. It was used to raise approximately **$2.1M of seed funding** for the premium marketplace model that removed price bidding and focused on vetted mobile and web projects. The deck positions Ooomf/Crew explicitly against incumbent marketplaces like oDesk/Elance (later Upwork), highlighting quality curation and strong month‑over‑month growth.

Business model: Initially an app discovery platform, Ooomf pivoted into a **curated freelance marketplace** connecting vetted designers, developers, and other professionals with web and mobile projects, emphasizing premium, non‑bidding project matching over low-cost auctions.

Round: Seed
Year: 2014
Lead investor: Atlas Venture, led by partner Fred Destin.
Investors: Atlas Venture (lead, via partner Fred Destin), Naval Ravikant, Real Ventures, iNovia Capital, Boldstart Ventures, BDC Venture Capital (prior seed and convertible note), FounderFuel accelerator (prior program involvement)
Founded: February 2012
Founders: Mikael Cho
Headquarters: Montreal, Canada
Industry: Online freelance marketplace / Future of Work

Raising: Seed capital to scale Crew’s curated freelancer marketplace for web and mobile projects, building on traction and earlier funding for Ooomf.

Raised: $2.1 million in new funding associated with Ooomf’s transition into Crew and its freelancer marketplace seed round.

Total funding: Ooomf/Crew raised a $500,000 seed round in 2012 for its app-discovery product and a subsequent $2.1M round when rebranding to Crew; later funding rounds brought total capital above these amounts, but precise aggregate figures vary by source.

Use of funds as presented: According to TechCrunch, the new funding was intended to help Crew further develop its freelancer marketplace connecting vetted designers, developers, and copywriters with web and mobile projects, and to scale the curated platform following the pivot away from app discovery.

What happened after the Ooomf (later Crew) deck

Ooomf evolved from a funded app discovery platform into a curated freelancer marketplace that rebranded as Crew, raised significant seed funding in 2014, and grew to tens of millions of dollars in facilitated projects before being acquired by Dribbble in 2017, with the founders subsequently focusing on their spin‑off project Unsplash.

2012: Ooomf raises a **$500k seed round** for its app discovery platform, led by Real Ventures with BDC Venture Capital
2013: The company **shutters its app discovery service and relaunches as a freelancer marketplace** for web and mobile p
2014: Ooomf’s marketplace rebrands as **Crew** and secures an **additional $2.1M funding round**, led by Atlas Venture w
By 2017: Crew has supported designers from over 32 countries and facilitated more than **$40M in projects**, according t
April 2017: Crew is **acquired by Dribbble**, enabling the founders to focus on Unsplash.

What the Ooomf (later Crew) deck got right

Compelling early marketplace traction metrics. Ooomf/Crew demonstrated **strong early traction**, with projects on the platform reportedly generating $950,000 in six months and achieving 30% month‑over‑month growth, signaling robust demand for curated freelance talent.
Clear "anti‑Upwork" premium marketplace narrative. The company’s **freelancer marketplace positioning explicitly contrasts with Upwork‑style bidding**, offering a premium, vetted alternative that simplifies project selection for clients and appeals to high‑quality designers and developers.
Strong investor syndicate and external validation. The deck is associated with a **$2.1M seed round led by Atlas Venture**, with participation from well‑known investors such as Naval Ravikant, Real Ventures, iNovia, and Boldstart, providing strong validation and signaling confidence in the model.
Experienced founding team with accelerator and prior funding background. Ooomf’s history includes participation in the **FounderFuel accelerator** and a prior seed round led by Real Ventures and BDC, suggesting an experienced founding team with access to mentorship and a track record of attracting capital, which likely comes through clearly in the team section of the deck.
Focused, high‑signal narrative tailored to marketplace investors. The deck focuses on a **lean, high‑signal story**—pivot explained in the press, premium positioning, traction metrics, and investor logos—rather than feature‑heavy product detail, which aligns with marketplace investors’ preference for growth and quality metrics over technical minutiae.
Subsequent performance and acquisition validate seed‑stage thesis. Public accounts later show Crew facilitating over **$40M in projects** and achieving an acquisition by Dribbble, which retroactively validates the core thesis presented in the deck that a curated marketplace for high‑quality web and mobile talent could scale meaningfully.

What could have been stronger

Traction framing relies on a single highlighted metric instead of richer unit economics. External commentary about the deck notes strong month‑over‑month growth and deal volume, but the publicly visible version on SlideShare only surfaces a single traction datapoint (e.g., projects driving $950,000 in six months with 30% monthly growth). Without more granular retention, cohort, or contribution margin data, investors reviewing the deck must infer sustainability of growth rather than seeing detailed unit economics.
Investor roles and chronology are not crisply separated in the deck. TechCrunch and CrunchBase coverage of the 2014 funding round emphasize Atlas Venture and well‑known angels like Naval Ravikant, while a teardown of the deck notes Real Ventures and BDC under "Investors & Advisors". This creates some ambiguity over which investors are being showcased as current, prior, or advisory, making the capital stack and investor roles less obvious from the deck alone.
Limited explanation of the pivot and use of prior capital. Ooomf’s pivot from an app discovery platform (supported by a prior $500k seed) to a freelancer marketplace is documented in press, but the deck focuses mainly on the new marketplace story. The earlier funding, product learnings, and risks from the initial model are not deeply explained, which could leave investors with unanswered questions about how prior capital was used and how pivot risk is mitigated.
Defensibility versus incumbent marketplaces not fully articulated. The deck’s "anti‑Upwork" positioning aims at differentiation, but public sources highlight heavy competition from established marketplaces like oDesk/Elance/Upwork at the time of the pivot. The deck emphasizes premium curation, yet does not appear (from available commentary) to lay out a detailed moat—such as proprietary vetting data or network effects—beyond brand and process, which may under‑address long‑term defensibility concerns.

How an investor would read this deck

What draws attention

Ooomf/Crew’s **transition from an app discovery platform to a curated freelancer marketplace** shows a responsive team willing to pivot based on market feedback, supported by prior accelerator experience at FounderFuel.
The marketplace demonstrates **meaningful early traction**, including six‑month project volume of $950,000 and reported 30% month‑over‑month growth, which indicates strong demand for curated web and mobile talent.
The 2014 round was **led by Atlas Venture** with participation from recognized investors like Naval Ravikant, Real Ventures, iNovia, and Boldstart, offering strong external validation and signaling.
The "anti‑Upwork" positioning toward premium, non‑bidding project matching aligns with broader Future‑of‑Work trends and offers a clear narrative investors can understand quickly.
The founding team includes Mikael Cho and colleagues with backgrounds in design, data, and engineering, plus prior startup experience and accelerator pedigree, which likely appears in team slides and is corroborated by Gust and press profiles.

Risks that stand out

Ooomf’s pivot from app discovery to a marketplace indicates **product‑market risk**, as the initial funded product was shuttered within roughly half a year of the seed round.
The freelance marketplace space was already competitive in 2013, with large incumbents like oDesk/Elance/Upwork; Crew’s curated, premium positioning may have faced challenges in acquiring both high‑quality talent and sufficient project volume at scale.
While traction metrics (e.g., $950k volume and 30% growth) are strong, external commentary suggests the company later "found itself running out of money" and needed further pivots like Unsplash, implying **financial and model sustainability risk**.
Reliance on curated, higher‑priced talent could limit addressable market compared with broader marketplaces, potentially leading to slower scaling if not offset by higher take rates or better monetization.
The eventual acquisition by Dribbble and shift of founder focus to Unsplash, while a positive outcome, may reflect **strategic refocusing away from the core marketplace**, which, in hindsight, highlights concentration of value in side products rather than the original model.

Questions this deck invites

How did Ooomf allocate the initial **$500k seed round for its app discovery platform**, and what specific learnings from that product informed the marketplace pivot?
What were the underlying **unit economics** of early marketplace projects (take rate, customer acquisition cost, freelancer acquisition cost, repeat usage, and contribution margins) behind the reported $950k in project volume and 30% monthl
How did Crew plan to **compete long‑term with incumbents** like oDesk/Elance/Upwork—was there a defensible moat in vetting, data, or community beyond brand and curation?
What proportion of marketplace project volume came from a **concentrated set of large clients vs. a broad base**, and how did that concentration risk evolve over time?
Given that Crew ultimately raised further rounds and later was acquired by Dribbble, what milestones (GMV, revenue, geographic expansion) did the team commit to at the time of this seed deck, and how were those tracked against forecasts?

What founders can take from the Ooomf (later Crew) deck

A **crisply defined positioning against a major incumbent** (here, "anti‑Upwork" with a focus on vetted, premium projects) can make a marketplace pitch more legible and memorable to investors, provided differentiation is clearly articulated with traction to back it.
Showing **concrete project volume and growth metrics** (e.g., $950k in six months, 30% month‑over‑month growth) offers strong evidence of demand in a marketplace, even when full financials are not disclosed.
A deck can acknowledge a **pivot**—from app discovery to marketplace—by focusing the story on the new model’s traction and investor support, but investors will still probe prior capital use and lessons, so founders should be ready with a narrative that connects both phases.
Featuring **credible, well‑known investors and advisors** (Atlas Venture, Real Ventures, BDC, Naval Ravikant, iNovia, Boldstart) in the deck strengthens social proof and helps overcome category skepticism in crowded spaces like freelance marketplaces.
The subsequent trajectory—additional funding rounds, Unsplash spin‑off, and Dribbble acquisition—illustrates that **side projects can become major value drivers**, so it is important for marketplace founders to think about how adjacent products fit into the broader strategic story even at the seed s
Ooomf/Crew’s experience shows that even with strong early growth, **cash runway and economics discipline** matter; later reports of running low on money despite traction underscore the importance of using decks not just to sell growth but to explain the path to sustainable unit economics.

Ooomf (later Crew) pitch deck: common questions

What was Ooomf’s original product, and how did it become Crew?

Ooomf began as an app discovery platform that helped mobile developers promote their apps, but in 2013 it **shuttered that product and relaunched as a freelancer marketplace** connecting web and mobile projects with designers, developers, and copywriters. The marketplace later rebranded to **Crew**, maintaining the curated, higher‑quality positioning.

How much did Ooomf/Crew raise in its early funding rounds, and who invested?

Ooomf raised **$500,000 in seed funding in 2012** for its app discovery platform, led by Montreal’s Real Ventures with participation from BDC Venture Capital and angels, including a $150,000 convertible note from BDC after completing the FounderFuel accelerator. After pivoting to a freelancer marketplace and rebranding as Crew, the company raised an **additional $2.1 million round in 2014**, led by Fred Destin of Atlas Venture with participation from Naval Ravikant, Real Ventures, iNovia Capital, and Boldstart Ventures.

What specific fundraise is this Ooomf/Crew pitch deck associated with?

According to TechCrunch, Ooomf’s 2012 seed round for the app discovery platform was **$500,000**, led by Real Ventures with BDC Venture Capital and angels. In 2014, when Ooomf became Crew, TechCrunch reported an **additional $2.1M round** led by Atlas Venture with several well‑known marketplace and seed investors. A contemporaneous investor presentation hosted on SlideShare is described as "the investor presentation we used to raise 2 million dollars," matching the size and timing of that 2014 round.

Where was Ooomf/Crew based, and what was its positioning in the freelance marketplace space?

Ooomf (later Crew) operated from **Montreal, Canada** and built a curated marketplace for web and mobile designers and developers. The deck’s "anti‑Upwork" positioning reflects Crew’s focus on higher‑quality, vetted talent for projects, rather than open bidding and price wars typical of broader freelancer platforms.

What eventually happened to Crew after this seed round?

Crew, the successor to Ooomf’s marketplace, was **acquired by Dribbble in April 2017**, allowing the founders to focus on their spin‑off project Unsplash. By that time, Crew had supported designers from over 32 countries and facilitated over **$40 million in projects** on its platform.