Why "Pay-to-Pitch" makes no sense for anyone

Over the last few months, a firestorm has erupted over angel venture funding groups and "deal-finders" that charge startups to pitch to their investors. The battle has been led by Jason Calacanis, who's declared war on pay-to-pitch. The most recent pay-to-pitch scheme to come under the spotlight is from New York Angels, led by David Rose (not the one with the orchestra.) New York Angels charges $150 as an application fee for a chance to pitch to whichever members of his group decide to show up that night. That's a lot less than some other groups and finders who charge thousands of dollars, but it's still pay-to-pitch.

In defense of why his group charges an application fee, Rose said the following: "The reason we charge a fee is because we're between a rock and a hard place. The unfortunate but accurate fact is that 90% of all companies requesting funding are simply not fundable, by anyone, anywhere...no matter how earnest the entrepreneur might be. The larger VC funds get upwards of 10,000 plans each year, but that's ok for them because they either completely ignore over-the-transom submissions, or have them read by a paid associate." (Click here for a link to his complete response.)

The problem with this logic is that $150 isn't going to spell the difference between a fundable startup and one that's not, and New York Angels is taking money from all of them. Assuming that Rose and his team only actually present the plans that they think are fundable to investors, they're effectively collecting $1,500 for every startup that gets to pitch. On the other hand, if they're letting startups pitch that they know aren't fundable, they're misleading the startups and wasting their investors' time.

If I were an angel, I'd want to screen my own deals, rather than let someone else tell me what's good and what's not. I wouldn't put any more trust in Mr. Rose than into a stockbroker or investment banker who's trying to get me to make an investment.

I don't begrudge Mr. Rose or his logic; I just think that it's wrong. Pay-to-pitch doesn't open up any real funding opportunities for startups. Investors involved in pay-to-pitch schemes either a) could do better by screening their own deals, or b) are motivated by the money they make from pitching fees, which means that they're not serious investors.

The Entrepreneurial Challenge

2010 has just begun, and depending on who you talk to, we're either still in the Great Recession, or it recently ended. Either way, there are millions of people in the U.S. and around the world who will remain unemployed or underemployed even after the economy recovers. As a society, we have both a moral and economic imperative to help these people get back on their feet. As a country, the U.S. can't survive with a hollowed-out manufacturing base, and having Wal-Mart or McDonald's as employers of last resort helps no one.

I believe that the end of the Great Recession presents a tremendous opportunity for individuals who want to start their own businesses. For many people, entrepreneurship will represent their best, or even their only, means of getting back on their feet financially. The challenge for those of us who have spent most of their careers in Silicon Valley and other entrepreneurial centers is to bring that startup culture to people who need it.

We've got the tools to spread ideas quickly and inexpensively; we need to use them to encourage new businesses, no matter where they're located. We also need to adapt our philosophy and techniques to the needs of entrepreneurs outside the major technology and business centers. It's far more likely that these new entrepreneurs will start a restaurant than a software company, and very few of them are ever going to have a business that's likely to go public. We need to help them build sustainable, profitable businesses that will allow them to make a good living and support themselves and their families.