This is a really sharp piece, I love how it frames the reality that AI-driven pitch deck tools risk making decks trivial. Once every founder can spin up 20 “beautiful” slides in seconds, the deck itself loses signaling power. What truly matters is the narrative, the thesis, what I often call the unique insight, plus the credibility that comes across in real conversations with investors.
To complement this article, I’d add some context on why we’ve ended up here. For years, entrepreneurs were told, often by non-experts in the startup world, that “the deck is everything.” Commentators played on the emotional trigger that if you raise, it’s because you have a great deck. Which is false. A deck is nothing more than a memory aid in a VC’s CRM, or at best a filter for deciding whether to take a meeting.
On top of that, an entire content industry has fed this illusion by publishing “famous decks that raised billions,” implicitly suggesting that if you study and copy them, you’ll raise billions too. These attention-grabbing posts have poisoned the ecosystem, creating a shallow education around fundraising.
In reality, the hierarchy is very different: everything starts with the unique insight. Then, as substance builds, you prepare a data room full of real context. Only at the very end do you produce a deck, not at the beginning.
If AI now accelerates the commoditization of decks, maybe that’s a good thing: it forces founders to focus on the essential. And maybe, just maybe, it will push amateur commentators to stop selling false promises to entrepreneurs.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment. You actually nailed exactly what I was trying to get across: AI-driven pitch deck tools risk making decks trivial. That’s the heart of it.
I also agree with you. It's insight first, substance second, deck last. What struck me fro being a judge and in so many founder conversations is how easily the focus flips: founders obsess over the slides because the industry keeps telling them “the deck is everything.” As you say, that’s not how fundraising works.
And I’ve heard the same thing you mentioned from angels and GPs at larger firms: they don’t rely on the deck to make decisions. Yet they still request it as part of the process. To me, that feels like a contradiction or even a conspiracy of sorts, where investors want to see how founders present themselves, even if they claim the deck doesn’t really matter.
If AI speeds up the commoditization of decks, maybe the silver lining is exactly what you suggest, that it forces the conversation back to narrative and credibility.
Really appreciate you sharing your POV. Let me know how else I can help you.
Thanks a lot for your thoughtful comment, you really nailed the point I was trying to make. Decks are becoming trivialized, and AI will only accelerate that. The real work is in the insight, narrative, and credibility. I couldn’t agree more.
This is a really sharp piece, I love how it frames the reality that AI-driven pitch deck tools risk making decks trivial. Once every founder can spin up 20 “beautiful” slides in seconds, the deck itself loses signaling power. What truly matters is the narrative, the thesis, what I often call the unique insight, plus the credibility that comes across in real conversations with investors.
To complement this article, I’d add some context on why we’ve ended up here. For years, entrepreneurs were told, often by non-experts in the startup world, that “the deck is everything.” Commentators played on the emotional trigger that if you raise, it’s because you have a great deck. Which is false. A deck is nothing more than a memory aid in a VC’s CRM, or at best a filter for deciding whether to take a meeting.
On top of that, an entire content industry has fed this illusion by publishing “famous decks that raised billions,” implicitly suggesting that if you study and copy them, you’ll raise billions too. These attention-grabbing posts have poisoned the ecosystem, creating a shallow education around fundraising.
In reality, the hierarchy is very different: everything starts with the unique insight. Then, as substance builds, you prepare a data room full of real context. Only at the very end do you produce a deck, not at the beginning.
If AI now accelerates the commoditization of decks, maybe that’s a good thing: it forces founders to focus on the essential. And maybe, just maybe, it will push amateur commentators to stop selling false promises to entrepreneurs.
I’ve written more about the unique insight here if useful: https://thevcinsider.substack.com/p/down-the-rabbit-hole-of-the-unique
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment. You actually nailed exactly what I was trying to get across: AI-driven pitch deck tools risk making decks trivial. That’s the heart of it.
I also agree with you. It's insight first, substance second, deck last. What struck me fro being a judge and in so many founder conversations is how easily the focus flips: founders obsess over the slides because the industry keeps telling them “the deck is everything.” As you say, that’s not how fundraising works.
And I’ve heard the same thing you mentioned from angels and GPs at larger firms: they don’t rely on the deck to make decisions. Yet they still request it as part of the process. To me, that feels like a contradiction or even a conspiracy of sorts, where investors want to see how founders present themselves, even if they claim the deck doesn’t really matter.
If AI speeds up the commoditization of decks, maybe the silver lining is exactly what you suggest, that it forces the conversation back to narrative and credibility.
Really appreciate you sharing your POV. Let me know how else I can help you.
Thanks a lot for your thoughtful comment, you really nailed the point I was trying to make. Decks are becoming trivialized, and AI will only accelerate that. The real work is in the insight, narrative, and credibility. I couldn’t agree more.
Great stuff. Reciprocal - Subscribe here when time allows https://open.substack.com/pub/keithnewman/chat?r=3d4ef&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=share