Richard Wilson: compelling edges still need the basics in place
In the thirteenth Rainmaker module, Richard described a proposal that has an interesting feature but still leaves basic questions unanswered. A distinctive idea does not make a new team experienced or turn an unclear business model into an understandable one.
Interesting features can coexist with gaps
Richard described opportunities with one or two interesting features alongside an unproven idea or a brand-new team. His point was that the attractive feature and the weakness can both be present. A promised return does not answer the other questions.
Two separate parts of the review
Richard called for compelling edges while keeping the fundamentals in place. In the recording, these are separate requirements. Naming what catches attention is only part of explaining an opportunity; the team must also be able to explain how the activity works.
In Richard's words
"if something just has high returns, that's not nearly enough to get an investor involved." (Richard C. Wilson, recorded library commentary)
How to use this
- Write the interesting feature and the unresolved basic question on separate lines.
- Check whether a discussion of returns has displaced an explanation of how the activity works.
Questions and answers
What gap did Richard describe?
An interesting proposal could still have an unproven idea, a new team or an explanation that was hard to understand.
Did a high promised return answer those questions?
Richard said a high return by itself was not enough.