I chose to look at the Mixpanel pitch deck, which they used to raise $65M. I found it to be very simplistic. It presents the problem across two slides: companies make decisions “by either guessing or using their gut,” and they measure “bullshit metrics like page views and installs.” They then state their solution on the next slide: what they have built and what they will continue to build. I think it makes sense to present the problem and solution side-by-side, but I found the connection between the two to be unclear at first glance and overly broad. Despite this, the two problem statements themselves were clearly presented.
Mixpanel never states its ICP or TAM. I think this is because they were already established at the time of this deck, so they instead presented their KPIs, monthly recurring revenue (405% growth from 2011 to 2012), marketing, and expansion plans as their evidence for the problem being real and the market being available. The lack of market identification may have worked for them, but it would not work for our deck because we are unestablished.
I don’t have a firm idea of who Mixpanel serves beyond “product and marketing.” While the deck was concise, it told no story. It does not appeal via Pathos, so it relies entirely on the numbers to persuade. The final issue I take with this deck is that it never presents a conclusion or a final ask. It instead ends on their financing history. An investor would still be wondering who their ideal customer is, how big the market is, and what the $65M is for. However, I like how clearly each problem was stated and how each slide only held one idea, which I will use in my pitch deck.
Images were formatted using Claude Code.
