Explores how innovators in a pitch competition learned how to revise their pitches to better attract stakeholder.

1. How do entrepreneurs
hone their pitches?
Analyzing how pitch presentations
develop in a technology
commercialization competition
Clay Spinuzzi et al.

2. Authors
◻ Clay Spinuzzi, University of Texas
◻ Gregory Pogue, IC2
◻ R. Scott Nelson, University of Texas
◻ Keela S. Thomson, UCLA
◻ Francesca Lorenzini, IC2
◻ Rosemary A. French, University of Texas
◻ Sidney D. Burback, IC2
◻ Joel Momberger, IC2

3. The situation
◻ Korean innovators want to
◻ become global entrepreneurs
◻ commercialize their innovations
◻ To do so, they entered a training program structured as
a pitch competition.
◻ 200 applicants
◻ By the pitch phase, just 25
◻ These 25 have received training, feedback, and
technology commercialization reports (“Quicklooks”)

4. Title with pic
hdo.utexas.edu
The genres leading to the pitch

5. The gap
◻ Although some studies have explored how
pitches are received…
◻ Few studies examine how these pitches are
developed and revised.
◻ Spinuzzi, C., Nelson, R. S., Thomson, K. S., Lorenzini, F., French, R. A.,
Pogue, G., Burback, S., & Momberger, J. (2014). Making the Pitch:
Examining Dialogue and Revisions in Entrepreneurs ’ Pitch Decks. IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(3), 158–181.
◻ Spinuzzi, C., Nelson, R. S., Thomson, K. S., Lorenzini, F., French, R. A.,
Pogue, G., Burback, S., & Momberger, J. (2015). Remaking the pitch:
Reuse strategies in entrepreneurs’ pitch decks. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, 58(1), 45–68.

6. Research Questions
◻ RQ1: What kinds of feedback did presenters
receive in the Quicklook®
reports and training?
◻ RQ2: What changes did they make to
individual pitch arguments between training
and final pitches?
◻ RQ3: Do these changes correspond with
favorable judges' scores?

7. Data collection
◻ Selected four firms (K6008, K6010, K6015,
K6017) for close analysis
◻ Videorecorded training pitches
◻ Videorecorded trainer’s feedback on training
pitches
◻ Collected Quicklooks
◻ Videorecorded final pitches
◻ Collected copies of judges’ score sheets

8. Data analysis
◻ Paraphrased spoken words, slides, and
visible actions in training presentations and
final presentations
◻ Paraphrased conversational turns in trainer’s
feedback videos and in Q&A segments of
final presentations
◻ Coded data using open coding approach

9. RQ1: What kinds of feedback did presenters
receive in the Quicklooks and training?
◻ Structure: In deviating from the template,
some key claims had been eliminated; trainer
identified these and suggested they be re-
inserted.
◻ Claims and evidence: Trainer suggested
rebuttals, qualifiers, and additional evidence.
◻ Engagement: Trainer suggested and/or gave
feedback on engagement strategies:
demonstrations, stories, questions.

10. RQ2: What changes did presenters make to
arguments between training and final pitches?
◻ Structure: Three adjusted slides to better
address concerns in the Quicklook; K6008
ignored key suggestions.
◻ Claims and evidence: Three revised claims
and arguments in individual slides; K6008
ignored key suggestions.
◻ Engagement: Trainer suggested changes to
K6008, K6010, K6015; K6008 ignored
suggestions but did add videos of product.

11. RQ3: Do these changes correspond with
favorable judge scores?
◻ The question is not as straightforward as it
appears:
◻ Judges had already read Quicklooks.
◻ Presenters were limited in options: Could
adjust arguments, but not design or use.
◻ Ultimately, adjustments to the presentation
seemed to sway judges on marginal cases
but could not rescue hard cases.
◻ Maybe K6008’s approach made sense.

12. Implications for program
◻ Pitch competition tends to conflate different
categories of feedback (structure; claims and
evidence; engagement).
◻ Pitch competition artificially narrows repertoire
of pivots: argument, but not design or use.
◻ Pitch competition currently supplies
Quicklooks to competitors too late and without
enough guidance; firms often can’t assimilate
and respond adequately.

13. Implications for research
◻ Studies of the pitch in professional
communication are still relatively rare, and
accounts of their rhetorical decisions are rarer
still.
◻ Entrepreneurship involves rhetorical
dimensions that go beyond spoken and
textual arguments. Choices of Design and
Use are also rhetorical.
If you want to help fill this research hole...

14. Calls for papers
◻ Special Issue of IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication on
Entrepreneurship Communication (December
2016)
◻ Special Issue of the Journal of Business and
Technical Communication on the Rhetoric of
Entrepreneurship: Theories, Methodologies,
and Practices (July 2017)
http://spinuzzi.blogspot.com/2015/04/two-calls-for-proposals-on.html