Verbal Hedging


I delivered a practice round of an investor pitch to one of my mentors yesterday, who is a successful Angel investor and serial entrepreneur.  The reason I practiced it was to specify any ambiguous language, tighten any unclear concepts and to make sure the general flow of the presentation moved smoothly, but also at a fair pace.  On Friday, I have my first “real” pitch with an association of seed investors where I won’t have the luxury to make mistakes.

A large aspect of my team’s business model is dependent on the mainstream acceptance of Twitter and the micro-blogging movement.  When my practice-round presentation hit the slide which covers Twitter’s recent growth (see below), and why it is relevant to the long-term viability our business model, I began by stating that “our team believes that Twitter is going mainstream.”

Why now?

I was quickly interrupted, and told that I was setting myself for failure.  The fact that I “believe” Twitter is going mainstream, or “believe” anything for that matter, is worthless to an investor.

It was a natural slip, and looking back I realized it was meaningless to talk with emotions.  The reason I said it, and why most people say it, is because it feels safe.  It feels comfortable because you are floating in a balanced middle ground.  When you believe or feel something, it’s an easy scapegoat if and when you are proven wrong.

Stating you “believe” something is weak strategy when pitching to investors.  It’s a hedge against being wrong, which is not a stable stance if you are attempting to make a solid case for anything, especially an investment.  Robert Greene talks about this in 48 Laws regarding the avoidance of being dangerously open with your emotions.  He states that “it’s easy and natural to always want to talk about one’s feelings.  More important, by being unabashedly open you make yourself predictable and familiar.”

Verbal hedging is a faulty hedge and opens up holes for deliberation, doubt and uncertainty from your audience.  If you are pitching an idea, you better believe what you are saying is correct.  If you’re not sure, then do more research or don’t bring it up.  Speak in a way that portrays certainty (with data to back up it up), rather than relying on a flimsy bridge of emotion (even if it is).  It adds credibility, assuming you are not completely making things up.

(Note:  If you are putting together an investor pitch, this Venture Hacks slide deck tutorial was incredibly helpful.  Also, if you’d like to debate the future of Twitter with me, leave a comment or email me.  I’m curious to hear both sides of the argument.)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
  • HackerNews
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

Related Essays


Post Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • I'd agree a large amount of the Facebook feed is useless clutter. Just idiots wanting to run their mouths about how drunk they got last night.

    On the other hand, my close observations of Twitter is that it really tips into mainstream life. People aren't simply saying "what they are doing," they are actively adding value to others (with a handful of useless chatter as well).

    In my opinion, Twitter's monetization strategy lies within its public data feed. Don't you think product managers and marketers would be interested in what people are thinking, saying and feeling at any given time? What if you could spot trends before they happen? Of course the data needs to be mined, but that's a different story.

    Feel free to follow-up with me via email if you 'd like to continue the discussion.
  • Joel
    Twitter seems like a lot of noise to me. It's reminiscent of all the news feeds on Facebook that waste time and have no value. What's the point of knowing someone was cut off merging on I-75 or that the Starbucks barista was rude to them while they were ordering their de venti whatever? At some point one has to draw a line where the so called productivity of social networks becomes counter productive. I'm not trying to be a rude guss I enjoy your writing I'd be interested in hearing some ideas of where you think Twitter is moving and how it can make some big moves.
  • Thanks James. I'll follow-up with you offline.
  • I was actually just debating the future of Twitter with a friend yesterday.

    I'd be happy to dish out some harsh/realistic criticism if you'd like to give me a short pitch, but that would mean I'd get to pitch you in return :D
  • Right, I understand what you are saying. My approach was more from the psychological standpoint. In saying I "believe," it felt as if I came off saying "I really have no idea." Perhaps your hypothesis suggestion is the fair (and correct) medium to use.
  • Alex,

    I understand the desire to speak with certainty — "Twitter is going mainstream". But there is nothing wrong with a scientific and hypothesis-oriented approach: "Our hypothesis is that Twitter is going mainstream."
    The scientific approach clearly indicates the hypotheses — all areas where you could be wrong.

    Since you're selling, it may not make sense to call everything a hypothesis, but a few fundamental hypotheses are just fine, if not encouraged.
    “In a startup no facts exist inside the building, only opinions.” –Steve Blank
blog comments powered by Disqus

© Copyright 2010 alex j. mann (.com)