Stay organized with collections
Save and categorize content based on your preferences.
Help improve the quality of a presentation.
You can query a model directly and test the results returned when using
different parameter values with the Cloud console, or by calling the
Vertex AI API directly.
Provide point-by-point feedback for improvement of the content of each slide with specific examples to achieve an exemplary presentation.
Response
Of course. This is a solid, well-structured pitch deck with a clear narrative. The feedback below aims to elevate it from good to exemplary by sharpening the messaging, adding clarity, and increasing the persuasive impact on potential investors.
Here is a point-by-point breakdown of feedback for each slide:
Slide 1: Title Slide
What's Good: Clean, professional design. The company name and logo are clear.
Areas for Improvement: The tagline "ZUMVIE HELPS ENGINEERING MANAGERS OPTIMIZE PRODUCTIVITY" is a bit generic. "Optimize productivity" is a common buzzword that can mean anything.
Specific Suggestions:
Make the tagline more benefit-oriented and specific. What is the ultimate outcome of optimizing productivity?
Example 1 (Focus on Time): "Zumvie: Giving Engineering Managers Their Time Back."
Example 2 (Focus on Team Output): "Zumvie: The 1:1 Platform for High-Performing Engineering Teams."
Example 3 (Focus on Action): "Zumvie: Turn 1:1s into Action, Not Administration."
Slide 2: The Problem (Visual)
What's Good: The visual clearly communicates the 1-to-many relationship of a manager. The statistic "SPENDS 5 HOURS PER WEEK ON 1:1'S" is a strong, quantifiable hook.
Areas for Improvement: The core problem isn't that 1:1s happen, but that they are inefficient. The current text just states a fact. The floating code snippets (</>, :/>) are distracting and don't add value.
Specific Suggestions:
Reframe the headline to present the time as a loss or a pain point.
Example: Change "SPENDS 5 HOURS PER WEEK ON 1:1'S" to "Engineering Managers lose 5+ hours every week to inefficient 1:1s." This immediately frames the time as a problem to be solved.
Remove the decorative code snippets to keep the focus on the central message.
Slide 3: The Problem (Details)
What's Good: This slide effectively breaks down the "why" behind the 5 hours of inefficiency. The four points are highly relatable pain points for the target user.
Areas for Improvement: The final point, "Hundreds of hours lost yearly," can be made much more powerful with a specific calculation. The sub-heading is slightly clunky.
Specific Suggestions:
Quantify the Impact: Change "Hundreds of hours lost yearly" to "Over 250 hours lost per manager, every year." (5 hours/week x 50 weeks). Specific numbers are more memorable and credible.
Refine the Title: Consider a more impactful title for the slide, such as "The Hidden Cost of Inefficient 1:1s" or "Why 1:1s are Broken." This makes the sub-heading "The struggles with the 1:1's" unnecessary.
Slide 4: The Solution (Intro)
What's Good: The social proof "Result of 300 demos to engineering managers" is excellent. It shows you've done extensive customer discovery and are building something the market has validated.
Areas for Improvement: The slide introduces the name but doesn't state what the solution is. It's a missed opportunity to define the product in one clear sentence.
Specific Suggestions:
Add a concise, one-line product description.
Example: Below the logo, add: "Zumvie is the integrated 1:1 and performance platform built directly into Jira." Then, follow with "Co-developed with insights from over 300 engineering managers." This connects the what, how, and why all in one place.
Slide 5: The Solution (Product Shot)
What's Good: The UI looks clean and the color-coding is intuitive. It gives a glimpse into the product.
Areas for Improvement: The screenshot only shows a calendar/scheduling view. This doesn't address the core problems from Slide 3 (templates, collaboration, multiple tools). The star ratings are ambiguous—what are they rating? This can be a red flag for investors wary of simplistic performance metrics.
Specific Suggestions:
Show, Don't Just Tell: Use a composite image or a more feature-rich screenshot. Show the collaborative agenda, a section for notes/action items, or integration with Jira tickets.
Add Annotations: Use callout boxes pointing to specific UI elements and explaining their benefit. For example:
Point to an agenda: "Shared, collaborative agendas."
Point to action items: "Trackable action items."
Point to a Jira ticket link: "Context from Jira, right where you need it."
Clarify or Remove Stars: Either add a small note explaining what the stars represent (e.g., "Meeting Feedback Score") or remove them to avoid ambiguity.
Slide 6: Market
What's Good: The TAM/SAM/SOM structure is standard and easy to understand. The bottom-up data point about company spending is a great way to ground the opportunity.
Areas for Improvement: The market sizes lack sources, which can reduce credibility. The connection between the top-down market size and the bottom-up spending example could be stronger.
Specific Suggestions:
Cite Your Sources: Add a small note at the bottom, e.g., "Source: Gartner, Atlassian Marketplace Data, Internal Analysis 2022."
Connect the Dots: Rephrase the bottom text to explicitly link it to your opportunity.
Example: Change "100 engineer company = $6k in developer productivity tools per month" to "The Opportunity: Companies already spend ~$6k/mo on developer tools for a 100-person team. We tap into this existing budget, making adoption frictionless."
Slide 7: Addon to Jira
What's Good: This is a powerful strategic slide. Highlighting Jira's dominance with the "4/5 engineers use it" stat is very effective.
Areas for Improvement: The title is functional but could be more strategic.
Specific Suggestions:
Strengthen the Title: Change "ADDON TO JIRA" to "Our Go-to-Market: The Jira Ecosystem" or "Our Unfair Advantage: Built on Jira." This frames it as a deliberate, winning strategy rather than just a feature.
Slide 8: Addon to Jira (Benefits)
What's Good: The four benefits listed are excellent and directly address key business concerns (adoption, billing, security, distribution).
Areas for Improvement: The language can be sharpened for more impact. "Built in privacy" is vague.
Specific Suggestions:
Be More Specific:
Change "Built in privacy" to "Enterprise-Ready Security: Leverages Jira’s existing permissions and privacy controls."
Change "Organic reach: 226k orgs use Jira" to a more active statement: "Instant Distribution to 226k+ Organizations via the Atlassian Marketplace."
This reframing makes the benefits sound more robust and intentional.
Slide 9: Business Model
What's Good: The pricing is simple and clear.
Areas for Improvement: The slide is a bit stark. It's unclear if this applies to every Jira user in an organization or just the ones using the tool. This has massive implications for the deal size.
Specific Suggestions:
Add Clarity and Context:
Specify the user type: "$2.50 per engineering user, per month."
Add a simple example to make it tangible: "A team of 20 engineers is just $50/month."
Give it a title: "Simple, Scalable Pricing"
Slide 10: Go To Market
What's Good: Shows a clear, phased approach from current tactics to future strategy.
Areas for Improvement: The phrase "BRING ORGS OFF JIRA" is very aggressive and could be alarming, as it suggests you plan to compete with your primary distribution partner.
Specific Suggestions:
Reframe the Future Vision: Change "BRING ORGS OFF JIRA" to "EXPAND BEYOND JIRA." This communicates growth into a larger market without sounding adversarial to your key partner. The goal is to become a standalone solution for companies not on Jira, not to pull existing customers away from it.
Slide 11: The Roadmap & Strategy
What's Good: This is an excellent slide. It shows past validation ("Take Off Ready"), current traction (Launch, MRR), and clear future goals. It builds immense confidence.
Areas for Improvement: This slide is already very strong. Any changes would be minor polish.
Specific Suggestions:
Minor Visual Polish: Consider adding a small icon next to the "2022 Scale & release new products" text (e.g., a small factory or a + symbol) to visually break up the text and reinforce the "building" concept. No major changes are needed here.
Slide 12: What We're Looking For
What's Good: The ask ($500K), use of funds (team split), and runway (18 months) are perfectly clear. This is exactly what an investor needs to see.
Areas for Improvement: The calculation at the bottom is highly problematic and must be removed.
It's confusing and appears out of nowhere.
It uses a "$25 per seat" price, which directly contradicts the "$2.50 per user" on the Business Model slide. This is a major red flag for attention to detail.
It distracts from the core message of the slide: the ask.
Specific Suggestions:
DELETE THE BOTTOM BOX. The calculation "$100mn ARR = $25 per seat X 100 engineers X 3,300 orgs" should be removed entirely. If you want to talk about the long-term vision, create a separate "The Vision" slide and ensure your numbers are consistent.
Refine the Title: Change "WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR" to the more standard and direct "The Ask."
By implementing these changes, you will create a more persuasive, credible, and professional presentation that anticipates investor questions and tells a compelling story of growth.
[[["Easy to understand","easyToUnderstand","thumb-up"],["Solved my problem","solvedMyProblem","thumb-up"],["Other","otherUp","thumb-up"]],[["Hard to understand","hardToUnderstand","thumb-down"],["Incorrect information or sample code","incorrectInformationOrSampleCode","thumb-down"],["Missing the information/samples I need","missingTheInformationSamplesINeed","thumb-down"],["Other","otherDown","thumb-down"]],["Last updated 2025-09-23 UTC."],[],[],null,[]]
