(Photo by Gorodenkoff on Shutterstock)
LONDON — What would happen if you stepped onto an elevator and there stood Kevin O’Leary, aka “Mr. Wonderful,” from the hit entrepreneurial show Shark Tank? Your palms are sweaty, your heart is racing, and you have just 60 seconds to convince this notoriously tough investor that your idea is worth his time and money. Do you lead with your passion for changing the world, or do you dive straight into the dollars and cents? According to new research, the answer might surprise you – and it could make all the difference between hearing “I’m out” or “You’ve got a deal.”
The study, published in the journal Innovation: Organization & Management, reveals that when it comes to pitching truly innovative ideas, even to seasoned investors like those on Shark Tank, concrete details trump lofty visions. But for more incremental improvements? That’s when it’s time to paint the big picture. This insight could revolutionize how entrepreneurs approach their make-or-break moments in the tank – and beyond.
Led by researchers from The George Washington University, New York University, and City, University of London, the study challenges conventional wisdom about how to pitch innovative concepts. While many entrepreneurs might instinctively focus on the grand vision behind their ideas, this approach could backfire for truly disruptive innovations.
“We wanted to identify the best way for entrepreneurs to pitch their ideas to get audiences’ attention and investment,” says Professor Simone Ferriani of Bayes Business School in London. “Could the way they pitch affect their success? What if they had great ideas but were pitching them in the wrong way?”
To answer these questions, the researchers conducted a series of experiments testing how different framing strategies affected people’s responses to new ideas. They found that when pitching truly groundbreaking concepts, it’s best to focus on the concrete “how” rather than the abstract “why.”
This finding flies in the face of much conventional startup wisdom, which often emphasizes the importance of communicating a big vision. But for ideas that represent a significant departure from the status quo, that lofty approach for entrepreneurs might actually be counterproductive.
Consider the case of a startup developing a revolutionary virtual reality gaming platform. Professor Ferriani explains: “Our findings suggest that in their pitch to potential users, they should emphasize concrete usability details such as the advanced feedback technology, the immersive 360-degree visuals, and the seamless integration with existing gaming consoles. When ideas have the potential to disrupt the status quo, this explanatory approach is key to offset the puzzlement that novel ideas can cause.”
In other words, when you’re pitching something truly new and potentially mind-bending, you need to help your audience envision how it would actually work in practice. This concrete framing helps bridge the gap between the unfamiliar concept and people’s existing mental models of the world.
But what about ideas that are more evolutionary than revolutionary? Here, the researchers found that the opposite approach works best. For incremental innovations or improvements on existing concepts, abstract “why” framing tends to be more effective.
“This strategy taps into the audience’s existing knowledge and expectations, connecting the new idea to familiar concepts and emphasizing its place within a broader vision or goal,” explains Denise Falchetti, Assistant Professor of Management at George Washington University School of Business.
So if you’re pitching a more modest improvement—say, a new feature for an existing smartphone app—you have more latitude to focus on the bigger picture benefits and how it aligns with users’ values and aspirations.
The key takeaway? There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to pitching innovative ideas. Instead, entrepreneurs and innovators need to tailor their framing strategy to match the novelty of their concept.
“The research advises a tailored approach: for groundbreaking innovations, detail the practicalities; for incremental improvements, focus on the overarching vision,” summarizes Gino Cattani, Professor of Management and Organizations at New York University Stern School.
This insight has far-reaching implications beyond just the world of startups and venture capital. It could impact how marketers introduce new products, how politicians frame policy proposals, or how anyone tries to champion change within an organization.
By mastering the art of framing, entrepreneurs can dramatically improve their odds of turning groundbreaking ideas into reality. In the high-stakes game of innovation, it turns out that how you say it might be just as important as what you’re saying.
Paper Summary
Methodology
The researchers conducted two controlled experiments. In the first, business students evaluated pitch decks for novel product ideas. The pitches varied in how the ideas were framed (concrete “how” explanations vs. abstract “why” explanations) and in the level of novelty (incremental vs. radical innovation). Participants rated their liking of the idea and likelihood to invest. The second experiment used a similar setup with crowdfunding backers, who could choose to invest a small bonus payment in the pitched product.
Results
Both experiments consistently showed that radical ideas received more favorable evaluations when framed concretely (focusing on “how”), while incremental ideas fared better with abstract framing (focusing on “why”). This effect held true for both the students’ ratings and the crowdfunders’ willingness to invest.
Limitations
The study used simplified pitch decks rather than full, real-world pitches or crowdfunding campaigns. It focused on lay evaluators (students and crowdfunders) rather than professional investors or industry experts. Only a limited number of product types were tested, which may not represent all possible innovations.
Discussion and Takeaways
The study provides practical guidance for tailoring pitch strategies based on an idea’s novelty level. It suggests that entrepreneurs need to be flexible in their communication approach, adapting their framing to match how people process different levels of innovation. The findings have potential applications in marketing, product development, policy communication, and other fields where new ideas need to be effectively conveyed.
Funding and Disclosures
The research was supported by a grant from the Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research. The researchers did not report any conflicts of interest related to the study.
