´óÏó´«Ã½

There are only two things you need from an investor during a business pitch: their interest and their money. And it's important to note that you must do so in that order. If you get an investor's interest then they move from needing to be persuaded to invest to hoping not to be dissuaded from investing.

Companies fail at both hurdles. Tonight's show was interesting in that it highlighted the failure at both stages, and also showed how, when the hurdles are approached in the right order, even subsequent issues can be overcome.

Diane White and Tim Bhullar unfortunately demonstrate what happens when you do not capture interest first. They describe the product in terms of its social benefit, that is how it will help children learn to eat five portions of fruit and vegetable a day. This is not a USP. It's not a compelling statement. It doesn't tell us why the product will sell.

When I teach classes I insist that each entrepreneur answer one question: What does your product or service do that people want or need? And how can you prove it?

In fairness to Diane and Tim, they point out that they've sold some books; not enough to make an investor interested solely on the sales numbers but enough to suggest that there is something about the books that make them sellable.

But the momentum of the pitch was lost before they began.

Compare that to Patrick van der Vorst who presents a different case. His product pitch was succinct and clear though admittedly not compelling of itself. Ignoring the fact that he didn't catch the interest of three dragons, he clearly caught Theo's interest from the beginning. What moved Theo from needing to be persuaded to wanting to invest was Patrick himself. He had started from the bottom and worked his way to a position of senior responsibility. It was a surprise and a delight that had not been anticipated.

And then we come to Patrick and Tim with their innovative system for extracting air from toilets.

What is so astonishing about their pitch is that they didn't even state their USP in their pitch. They sold it as a device to get rid of toilet smells when it's actual uniqueness lay in its ability to replace the need for an extractor which is more expensive and less appealing in use.

Their pitch was simply wrong. They were so fixated on the origins of the products intent that even though they were meeting with market acceptance for its replacement utility they still pitched it as they had invented it. And all of the problems of their pitch flowed from that initial error.

And as for Chris Elsworthy and his Power8 Workshop. His is the pitch that demonstrates the power of first getting an investor's interest before trying to get their money. His product demonstration was extraordinary, crisp and professional. His company was making money and he mentioned it right up front. He succinctly painted a picture of innovation an demand without hyperbole.

The issues that arose later surrounding the complexity of his share structure, which would have scuppered most investments, were not enough to dissuade the Dragons. They were at the point where they were looking for ways to invest; not ways to say no.

The art of the pitch is a difficult one. But if you remember that desires precedes deals; then you are unlikely to go wrong.

Last updated: 30th August 2010. Follow Doug on Twitter

These are the views of Doug Richard, not those of the ´óÏó´«Ã½