COMMENTS
#1 is Phil Bernstein, hands down. His pitch is short, sweet, and easy to understand. I immediately get "what's in it for me".
Phil Bernstein is my vote for #1, hands down. Because I don't have to wade through jargon and buzzwords to get what he's saying. And - his first sentence is short, simple and to the point. It doesn't try to pack in tons and tons of info that makes my brain hurt as I try to decipher it. His whole pitch eliminates the details and gives me the big picture. Which is what I want when I first meet someone - I want to understand what they do without having to figure it out. #2 - my vote is for Roger because his pitch is short and simple.
BUT - the next time you run the contest, you might want to videotape the finalists. Or maybe require that people submit all entries on video. Because an elevator pitch is delivered in person, not in writing, and there's a huge difference in how we read and how we watch/listen. Could be that in person Phil's would have seemed too short, and Dan's, which is very long, may have seemed just right....
@Catie excellent point about listening v. reading.
That's a great idea for next time.
#1 Phil Bernstein - To be effective, an elevator pitch has to roll off the tongue like a natural conversation. If he said that to me riding the elevator to the top floor, I would want to hear more !
I have to go with Roger Llamas. His pitch gives specific examples of how and why his product is useful while still giving the broader picture. I'm a big fan of clear sentences that don't need to be read and reread (or in the case of an elevator pitch... disregarded completely)
#1 is a clear, concise pitch. It is a statement.
#2 is a question. "If you are...."
#3 is too jargony. "purpose-built to be relevant" (what the hell does that mean?)
#4 is sweet and short, but still doesn't tell me how or what they really do "attention rental business". Sounds clever - but still kinda vague.
Bernstein wins for brevity and clarity. I was interested enough I clicked through to his blog.
Serafini is good, but loses points for lengthiness.
Llamas lost me at "(Saas)" - why include the acronym?
Harding reads like a downer and has too many TLAs. (That's a three-letter-acronym, fyi.)
All of these are too long and chunky. I would not vote for any of these.
The test for an elevator pitch is short and sweet. It needs to be told between the 3 ½ and 4th floors and hit you between the eyes. Like Apples “Think differently” or “Nikes Just Do It” (sorry to use such overused brand examples but they works)
#4 piques my interest. It makes me want to ask more questions, and for that reason it gets my vote. I've already checked out his website.
#1 hands me enough answers that I can tell whether his product is for me or not. Good try. Not for me, but I know that now.
#2 & #3 make me check to see how many floors until I get off, and consider faking epilepsy in order to stop the technobabble.
#4 piques my interest. It makes me want to ask more questions, and for that reason it gets my vote. I've already checked out his website.
#1 hands me enough answers that I can tell whether his product is for me or not. Good try. Not for me, but I know that now.
#2 & #3 make me check to see how many floors until I get off, and consider faking epilepsy in order to stop the technobabble.
#4 piques my interest. It makes me want to ask more questions, and for that reason it gets my vote. I've already checked out his website.
#1 hands me enough answers that I can tell whether his product is for me or not. Good try. Not for me, but I know that now.
#2 & #3 make me check to see how many floors until I get off, and consider faking epilepsy in order to stop the technobabble.