Founders love to believe that if the product is good enough, the numbers are strong enough, and the market is big enough, the pitch will take care of itself. In my conversation with Kat Weaver, founder of Power to Pitch, she made it clear this is rarely true. What actually moves investors isn’t a random sequence of slides or a deck stuffed with buzzwords; it’s a deliberately structured story that starts with the human problem, showcases the founder, and ends with a clear, confident ask.
Kat’s central idea is simple: there is a structure that works, especially at the pre-seed and seed stages. She uses what she calls “script blocks,” a recommended order and cadence any founder can adapt. Her non-negotiable is to lead with the story and the problem, not the product. Investors are people first; if you open with a feature list or a brain dump of statistics, you skip the emotional hook that makes them care. Story plus problem is how you pull them into your world: how you get them to feel what’s broken before you sell the solution.
From there, she’s flexible about the middle, but adamant you close with the ask. Too many founders bury or blur it: “We’re raising a round” or “We’re looking for strategic partners.” A strong pitch ends with a specific, confident, well-justified ask: how much you’re raising, what kind of capital you want, and what you’ll do with it. Investors need to leave knowing exactly what decision you want them to make.
What struck me is how much of this structure is really about the founder. Investors are ultimately betting on the person driving the deck. Kat shared an example of a founder who casually mentioned he was a former athlete and didn’t think it mattered. Yet many investors will choose an athlete with less traditional experience over a more polished but untested founder because traits like grit, coachability, and performance under pressure are highly predictive. A good pitch structure surfaces those signals instead of hiding them.
Kat is also blunt about what doesn’t move investors. She keeps a list of overused buzzwords (“revolutionary,” “AI native,” “massive potential,” “sustainable”) that signal fluff over substance. She’s seen founders spend tens of thousands on beautiful decks that go nowhere because the narrative is weak and the relationship-building is nonexistent. A deck is a small tool, not a magic bullet. The structure only works if it’s anchored in clarity, honesty, and a founder who has done the hard work of understanding their own story.
Our conversation reinforced something I see repeatedly as a founder and investor: the best pitches don’t feel like performances, but they’re not improvised either. They’re intentional. They lead with a real story, articulate a painful problem, show why this team is uniquely suited to solve it, and end with a clear, unapologetic ask. That’s the kind of structure that doesn’t just inform investors: it moves them.
Discussion points:
- How early should founders start crafting and testing their “story + problem + ask” structure?
- What’s the right balance between rehearsed structure and authentic, in-the-moment conversation during a pitch?
- How can founders identify the personal details (like being an athlete) that actually belong in their pitch narrative?
- Where should traction, metrics, and financials sit inside this structure to maximize impact?
- How can accelerators and incubators better teach “script blocks” instead of just slide templates?