Dave Cowan has a great
post on what he expects to see in an elevator pitch. One thing I think he should have added is a rule to include a direct comparison to the next best alternative. Without this, there is no reference point. Without the reference point, how can you know what you're doing is any better? IMHO, this is key.
Its in his example, just not one of his rules.
My perspective on this comes right out of Geoffrey Moore's classic,
Crossing the Chasm. I've gone to the pages on the elevator pitch so many times I can tell you without checking that it starts on
page 154. There, he outlines a silly little exercise that mechanically creates an elevator pitch for you.
Simply fill in the blanks:
- For (target customer)
- Who are dissatisfied with (the current market alternative)
- Our product is a (new product category)
- That provides (key problem-solving capability)
- Unlike, (the next best alternative).
- We have assembled (whole product feature that creates the compelling reason to buy).
Simple as that.
I've done a fair amount of consulting for start ups and, without exception, the ones that are really messed up don't have a elevator pitch. They might think they have one, but it's probably not compelling (vitamin not an aspirin). That's the easiest kind of problem to fix. Just make it more compelling.
Easier said than done, right? Yes, but, once you know what you ought to be doing, its easier to prioritize your scarce resources based on the extent to which they contribute to fulfilling the value proposition described in the elevator pitch.
Assuming it's compelling, another common problem is for there to be 2, 3 or more different elevator pitches, depending on which prospects you're talking to. That's a company that, on the surface might seems successful (because they can sell to different kinds of customers), but ultimately will run into a ditch when it can't keep up with the demands of trying to execute on what might be 2, 3 or more different strategies.
Even worse than having a different pitch for different prospects is having 2, 3 or more pitches depending on which VP you talk to. That's always a sign of trouble.
Whenever I work with companies to help them figure out their strategy, I always start with developing an elevator pitch. I'm never surprised by the confusion it can sometimes cause.
I start by getting all the executives in a room and have them fill in the blanks above and see what they each come up with. I've done this about 20 times and I can now almost predict how successful the company is going to be, not by the answers to the questions, but rather by the consistency of the answers.
If the CEO says the product is for a CIO and the VP Engineering says its for sys admins, you're in trouble.
If the VP Engineering says the competition comes from systems integrators, but the VP Marketing says Cisco, you're in trouble.
If the sales guys says the customers buy because of price, it doesn't matter what anyone else says, you're in trouble.
It usually doesn’t start with everyone being on the same page, but getting people to discuss their choice of words reveals a lot about how the strategy is perceived internally. Sometimes these discussion can take days. In fact, I've witnessed management teams arguing about a single word in an elevator pitch for weeks. It is less filling? Or does it taste great?
Other times when the company seems to have their act together, even if they've never worked on an elevator pitch, the answers are remarkably consistent.
Everyone knows, for example, that the customer is the VP of Service, they compete directly with PeopleSoft, and they win business because their product integrates best with VoIP.
I completely agree that having an elevator pitch is essential, but it's just as important that everyone on the team knows what it is and are lined up behind it. You can always change the words. And often do, as circumstances change. But if the team isn't all pulling in the same direction, none of the words matter.
