My friend from Stuyvesant asks:
"What would you say is the essential thing that makes it re-pitchable? isn't it the same thing that makes it pitchable in the first place (i.e. it's just really good?)"
I explain further:
The meaning of "re-pitchable" has less to do with the quality of the project itself and more to do with the functional elements of the pitch itself (quotes, gimmicks, twists, jokes, the "hook" etc.) that your exec can mimic when re-pitching your project to his superiors.
Without these elements you're at the mercy of too many variables:
Since we're Stuy nerds, here's the equation:
(the quality of the project) x (your ability to communicate it in that moment) x (that exec's understanding in that moment) x (that exec's ability to reduce his understanding to a pitch for his bosses) = pitch viability
But with "re-pitchable" awareness you can give that exec well-crafted & repeatable lines he can simply parrot.
Don't trust the exec to understand and then come up with his own pitch. Arm him with the pitch elements that you already approve of (since you deliberately crafted them to be "re-pitchable").
Does that make sense?
Or did I not make this explanation "re-pitchable"?
;-)
1 comment:
FACEBOOK FRIEND POST at 4:44am February 27
right, but what i meant is that what you are saying is that the initial pitch [which contains all the known, standard elements] just has to be good to begin with.
and then the essence will be parrotable, of course, if it is fresh, dynamic, and piques interest [like "girls with low self esteem" :) ]
your emphasis here is on the pitch form rather than the creative concept; i guess my point of departure is that they are inextricably linked, as the structure conveys the essential information of the idea.
FACEBOOK FRIEND POST at 5:09am February 27
might i add that i most certainly defer to your superior practical experience in this area... :)
DAN ABRAMS POST at 11:23am February 27
Yes, I do agree that the "idea" has to be good to begin with but specifically not "JUST has to be good".
My proof is that you can take your favorite movie as an example. Now mangle a pitch for it and envision some big exec rejecting it because he didn't sufficiently "get it". My argument here is specifically that the "good" does not automatically translate.
If I had to create a rough analogy for this phenomenon:
The movie/story/script is the product.
The pitch is the assembly directions.
Poor directions can prevent/hinder proper assembly.
The pitch has to communicate the "good" through the exec you're meeting with to his boss. My argument is that arming your exec with parrot-able elements (quotes, jokes, twists, "the hook" etc.) helps ensure that "good" is effectively conveyed.
But I could be wrong.
Post a Comment