Mistake #1: Not clearly articulating the basics in the beginning of a pitch.

Every single pitch should, but unfortunately often doesn’t, contain specific, succinct details about WHO the customers/end-users are, WHAT problem is being solved, and HOW the company’s product/service accomplishes it.

While some VCs do some basic homework prior to an initial meeting about the company, most don’t. And even if they do, without a contextual framing of the business explained by the entrepreneur, the basic facts of the business can easily get lost. Instead, it’s productive to over-communicate the core components of the company and opportunity so they form a lasting impression when you leave the meeting. (One very simple way to approach this would be to use a single slide up front that previews the conversation to come, covering these basics so the investor is up to speed right away.)

Mistake #2: Worrying about the demo/presentation that just won’t seem to work.

Murphy’s Law often comes into play with demonstrations and on-screen presentations. VCs understand. But for Zoom sessions, founders should have the right demo windows open and know where the share screen button is, so it’s a natural transition from conversation to demo. And for in-person meetings, entrepreneurs should find out if they can get their laptop hooked up to a projector in the room before the meeting starts. This requires arriving at the office a few minutes early which, surprisingly, doesn’t consistently happen.

If a product demo doesn’t work, it’s best to try again once, then move on. Wasting 10 minutes to attempt to fix whatever isn’t working kills the conversation momentum and effectiveness of the pitch.

Mistake #3: Not knowing who you are talking to ahead of time.

Different partners in a VC firm behave differently. Entrepreneurs should know their audience and most importantly, how savvy it is about the company’s particular market segment. If the partner involved is already on the board of marketing technology company, an entrepreneur spending tons of time presenting an argument about the impact that AI is having on marketing isn’t necessary. Also, it’s important to note that sometimes other partners, junior investment professionals, and EIRs unexpectedly “ambush” a pitch session when they’re in person. So when a meeting is confirmed, it’s best to ask who will be attending. The situation may change, but the answer will help set expectations.

Mistake #4: Not controlling the timing and pace of the meeting.

The meeting time, whether informal for feedback or more formal for a pitch, is the entrepreneur’s opportunity to shine. Spending too much time on introductions, small talk, and the name-game detracts from the opportunity to convey the primary message. While some VCs may allocate an hour for an in-person first meeting, most only allot 30 minutes–especially for those initial Zoom screening calls. As a general rule, founders in in-person meetings should ask those at the table how much time they have and/or confirm the initial allotted time (e.g. “Does the full hour still work for you?”). This initial time-check helps frame the pacing of the presentation and discussion.

It can also help the entrepreneur better decide when and how to address midstream questions. Spending time where an investor wants to learn more can be productive, but founders should proactively guide the conversation away from less relevant topics and towards things that are essential in communicating the full agenda and full value of an idea. A VC’s mind will wander, but it’s the entrepreneur’s job to refocus the conversation when it drifts.

Admittedly, this can be difficult or even awkward. Of course the urge is to immediately answer any question a potential investor may pose during a pitch meeting. Here’s how I’d recommend refocusing the conversation: First, as mentioned above, understand how much time you have. Second, have an “out” if the conversation starts getting away from you. If you’re going too far down one path, say something like, “We’ve got some backup slides or data elsewhere that I can definitely send you to address that.” Third, be polite but firm: “There are a couple other points I want to make sure we address in this time period. Is it okay if we come back to that?” And lastly, above all, use good judgment. If a question comes up repeatedly, then absolutely answer it. If it feels like a tangent, make the call as best you can.

Mistake #5: Attempting to force definitive feedback immediately.

It takes a few days for VCs to “process,” consider, possibly do some early diligence and fact-finding, and to think about what’s been presented to them in the context of what they already know. Additionally, if there was more than one person in the meeting, they need to take some time to reconvene and assess together.

I’d recommend ending your interaction by asking what the process is like from that point onward. You might even ask, “If this ends up being of interest to you, what would be the things you’d want to cover in the next conversation?” Above all, show that you’re outcome-driven. Asking to understand the process shows you’re focused on the task to be done in a tactful way, without being overly demanding. As a bonus, it also showcases a good character trait to the VC: You’re focused on and driven by results.

Mistake #6: Not following up in a timely manner.

Entrepreneurs should check in with their primary contact a few days after the conversation to suggest possible next steps that the VC can follow to learn more about the company and the opportunity. No news isn’t necessarily bad news for a founder, but it’s helpful to keep your startup top of mind and communicate some urgency about your fundraising process to an investor. This email can serve as a catalyst for pushing the process ahead — either forward in a favorable direction or to a definitive pass from the VC. Obviously, these are vastly different outcomes, but both are helpful to know and preferable to waiting in limbo as an entrepreneur.

Mistake #7: Inauthenticity.

At NextView Ventures, we talk quite a bit about valuing authenticity in founders. But all investors implicitly look for entrepreneurs who genuinely present themselves and their businesses — as in, both truthfully (i.e. no easy-to-spot sensationalism) and true to the founder’s experiences (i.e. building companies based on real passion and not merely distant recognitions of market opportunities). Attempts to “dress up” or “massage” their own individual backgrounds or the current company situation will be either immediately recognized by the VC or discovered later in the due diligence process. It goes without saying that, in any introductory meeting in life, one should put their best foot forward … but never at the expense of the truth.

All of the mistakes above, when committed, show a lack of effective leadership in the fundraising process on the part of the founder. So while making a minor mistake in the above categories may seem inconsequential, they can absolutely signal something greater and much more worrisome when strung together. With the team being the most critical component to any early stage investment decision, these little things can be big, but they’re easy to get right.