Patron: When bumpy story­telling distracts from great numbers #DHDL

Founders Raphael and Martin were extremely confi­dent that they would be able to present their lunchbox to the lions and started their pitch with an impor­tant topic: the increasing amount of waste in nature, which every mindful outdoor sports enthu­siast is sure to have noticed at some point.

They were also both­ered by this and were inspired to launch a move­ment that has set itself the goal of cleaning up – and is now doing so across Germany and beyond during their so-​called ‘clean-​up days’.

These are meet­ings of volun­teers who, armed with tongs and bin bags, go out into the coun­try­side and remove rubbish from popular places. Volun­teers can use an app to see where the next event is taking place and every­thing is organ­ised online.

Over 50,000 people have now taken part, the move­ment has over 30,000 active users and esti­mates that it has already collected over 20 tonnes of waste.

However, this is not the ‘solu­tion’ to the initial problem of waste in nature that the two founders are ulti­mately pitching. Their actual – and truly commer­cial – product is a different one.

The pitch actu­ally revolves around the lunchbox they devel­oped, which not only contains a wooden chop­ping board and a knife, but can also be attached to the leg with a strap to create a mini table.

There is also a barbecue grid with a gas connec­tion which, together with a commer­cially avail­able cartridge, turns the lunchbox into a barbecue in seconds.

The product is perceived as imag­i­na­tive and of high quality, but very quickly Lion Nils Glagau seems to turn the conver­sa­tion to some­thing that has prob­ably caught the atten­tion of all the lions: how does this product prevent littering in nature?

The two founders argue from several sides, mentioning the basis of the clean-​up commu­nity, in which they have success­fully sold the box around 10,000 times without a marketing budget and thus gener­ated over one million sales. They also argue that this commu­nity marketing and strong connec­tion with the clean-​up move­ment makes their customers even more aware of the problem of waste avoid­ance, and that a lunchbox – espe­cially in combi­na­tion with a knife and chop­ping board – helps to prevent people from going out with unsus­tain­ably pack­aged food in the first place.

But the TV investors seem to have realised that there is no direct link here and are drop­ping out one by one.

But how could this happen despite good figures and the other­wise popular social aspect of the busi­ness model?

A major problem with Patron’s pitch could be that, although it appears to follow the usual narra­tive struc­ture of ‘problem – solu­tion’, it doesn’t actu­ally do so. This is because investors are used to being told the problem of a target group before the solu­tion is presented.

This has estab­lished itself in the start-​up world for a reason: not only is a pitch easier to under­stand, but it can also make the audi­ence curious about the actual product and secure their atten­tion. And if the two fit together really well and the pitch convinc­ingly presents the so-​called ‘problem-​solution fit’, you hardly have to explain the raison d’être and often also the USPs – i.e. the unique selling points – sepa­rately.

But on the other hand, profes­sional investors are also trained to think through this problem-​solution fit in detail – and unfor­tu­nately, in the case of Patron, it became apparent that some­thing didn’t really fit here.

Even though the clean-​up events are part of the lunchbox’s origin story, the strong commu­nity is more a part of the Patron brand or supports it and enabled the great early sales figures despite the rather high price of up to €109 per box.

If we had wanted a clear problem-​solution struc­ture, it would prob­ably have made more sense to describe the problem of the conscious and sustain­ably orien­tated outdoor sports enthu­siast who cannot find a high-​quality lunchbox that meets all their require­ments.

But no matter how tried and tested the familiar struc­ture is, not every start-​up pitch has to follow it. If it’s done well, breaking with familiar patterns can even attract more atten­tion.

An alter­na­tive for the pitch struc­ture might have been to make it clearer that you first tell the story of the company’s origins and then empha­sise the very good sales figures. This would have given investors the chance to concen­trate on what they are pushing for the most: Making money.

Because good story­telling may distract for a while, but it can never really erad­i­cate the numbers part. However, unclear story­telling simply causes confu­sion in the worst case and, as in this case, some­times unfor­tu­nately means that even good figures don’t really come into their own.