The luggage dilemma
5/10
Clarity review
Right now the deck reads like “impact-led consumer brand” first and “investable, defensible business” second. The story is there, but the opening doesn’t lock the category + wedge fast, and a couple of unit-econ math issues undermine confidence.
Audience clarity: 6/10
It’s clearly written as an investor deck (“THE ASK,” tranches, market sizing), but it doesn’t immediately answer the investor’s first question: what are you, in one line, and why you win vs existing luggage brands? Page 1 is only “INVESTOR DECK,” so you spend precious seconds before they can even label the company.
Problem clarity: 7/10
The plastic waste problem in Lagos/Nigeria is clearly stated and repeated (pages 2 and 7). The issue is: investors don’t fund problems; they fund solutions that win. The deck over-indexes on “plastic is bad” relative to “here’s why customers switch and pay.”
Outcome/value clarity: 5/10
The consumer value proposition is poetic (“carry your memories with you”) but not commercially sharp. You hint at “high quality” and “better for the planet,” but you don’t define the concrete outcomes that drive conversion: durability, price-to-quality, warranty, design differentiation, or “why this beats Away/Samsonite/cheap Amazon.”
Differentiation (alternatives + edge): 4/10
You say “few brands are creating sustainable products in this category” (page 4), but you don’t name the real alternatives customers use today (Away, Samsonite, DTC Amazon brands, “buy whatever’s on sale,” etc.) or why you win beyond “made from recycled plastic.” Investors need an edge that persists: manufacturing advantage, cost, supply chain, proprietary material, design, brand wedge, or distribution.
Proof/credibility: 5/10
You do have meaningful execution proof: $350k raised, factory site secured, equipment purchased, sampling/testing, head of marketing hired (page 15). But you’re missing market proof (waitlist, preorders, LOIs, CAC tests, influencer pilots), and there’s a glaring credibility leak: page 11 states “Minimum net profit per suitcase $190” while also listing price as $190 and cost as $34;this can’t be true and will trigger immediate investor doubt.
“Why now” urgency: 6/10
You gesture at travel recovery and sustainability demand (pages 4–8), but some timing references are dated (“2024” on page 4). Investors still buy the macro tailwinds, just make them current and tie them to why [redacted] now (e.g., DTC distribution maturity, recycled material supply, consumer preference shift, manufacturing economics).
CTA strength: 6/10
The ask is clear ($500k 2nd tranche; use of funds; capacity target 40,000 units/year) (page 15). What’s missing is the “this round unlocks X, which de-risks Y” framing: what milestones turn you from story to machine?
Paste-ready rewrite (deck opening)
Opening slide headline (replace current cover)
[redacted] : Premium luggage made from 100+ recycled plastic bottles, manufactured in Nigeria, sold DTC to UK/US/EU travelers.
This immediately tells investors the category, the product, the wedge, and the distribution model.
Opener (talk track, 20–30 seconds)
Most luggage is either premium-but-generic, or cheap-and-disposable, and almost all of it is plastic made from virgin materials. [redacted] is building a modern luggage brand that turns waste plastic into premium suitcases, manufactured in Nigeria where the input supply is abundant. We sell direct-to-consumer globally, starting with the UK and US, aiming for a high-margin product with a supply-chain advantage and meaningful waste reduction per unit. We’ve already secured a factory site, purchased key equipment, completed product design and sampling/testing, and raised an initial $350k to get here; this round funds launch and scales capacity.
Slide 2 framing
Goal: Build a profitable, memorable luggage brand with premium pricing and strong margins.
Challenge: Customers choose among “faceless” luggage options; sustainability claims are noisy; supply chains are optimized for cheap imports, not quality + circular materials.
Value: [redacted] combines a premium product (design + durability) with a circular material story and a manufacturing footprint that improves margins and control over time, each suitcase removes about 100 bottles from the waste stream while still targeting premium pricing.
The 3 fixes
Fix 1: Rebuild the opening around a crisp Positioning “Lock”
What to change: Replace the current “INVESTOR DECK” cover + the long plastic/travel narrative opening with a 2-slide positioning lock: who it’s for, what it is, the alternative, and why you win.
Why it matters: This fixes the two biggest missing elements: target customer wedge and competitive alternative. It also forces a clean GCV spine: investors understand the Goal (profitable DTC category winner), the Challenge (faceless luggage + unsustainable materials + weak differentiation), and the Value (premium product + margin + supply chain advantage).
Slide 1 (cover): “[redacted]; premium luggage made from recycled plastic bottles, manufactured in Nigeria, sold DTC globally.”
Slide 2: “Why customers switch” + “Why we win vs alternatives.”
Fix 2: Patch credibility: correct unit economics + add one “proof” slide
What to change: Fix the math and tighten unit economics into one clean table: price, COGS, landed cost, gross margin, contribution margin assumptions (shipping/returns), and how it improves with scale. Remove or correct the “net profit per suitcase $190” claim.
Then add one proof slide: what’s true right now that indicates demand or readiness (prototype photos, testing results, waitlist size, influencer commitments, pre-order targets, manufacturing readiness milestones already completed).
Why it matters : your proof is currently mixed (good operational milestones, weak market validation) and the math error is a trust-killer. You’re asking investors to believe the Value without enough credible signals.
Replace pages 10–11 with one “Unit Economics” slide and one “Traction / Validation” slide (even if it’s early; be honest and concrete).
Fix 3: Name the alternatives and sharpen differentiation into 3 defendable edges
What to change: Add a slide called “Why [redacted] wins” that names the real alternatives and your 3 edges. Example structure:
Alternative A: “Buy mainstream premium (Away/Samsonite)”
Alternative B: “Buy cheap/imported”
Alternative C: “Buy ‘sustainable-ish’ accessories, not luggage”
Then your edges (choose what’s true): vertical integration in Nigeria, cost advantage via local PET supply, manufacturing know-how via Turkish partners, carbon-neutral shipping/packaging, design + durability standards, and a specific go-to-market wedge.
Why it matters: This fills competitive alternatives + unique attributes and makes your value legible as commercial, not just ethical. Investors need “why you” to be more than “recycled plastic.”
Exactly where it goes: After market sizing (around page 6), before business model (page 9), so the deck reads: market --- why win --- how it works --- economics.
One-liner (3 versions)
Version A (plain + direct): [redacted] makes premium suitcases from recycled plastic bottles and sells them direct-to-consumer globally.
Version B (outcome-first): Premium luggage you’re proud to carry; built to last, priced for margin, and made from 100+ recycled bottles per suitcase.
Version C (category-first) A DTC luggage brand with a circular manufacturing supply chain in Nigeria, turning local PET waste into global premium travel goods.
What to stop saying
Stop leading with poetic travel language like “carry your memories with you.”
It’s not that it’s “wrong”, it’s just not doing investor work. In the first minute, investors need crisp category placement, the switching trigger, and why you beat alternatives. Save the brand poetry for consumer copy; your deck opening should sound like a business, not a mood board.
The #1 Confusion Point (the real problem)
You haven’t decided (or you haven’t shown) whether this is primarily a premium DTC luggage brand, or a recycled-plastics manufacturing company that happens to launch a luggage brand first.
Pages 2–3 position [redacted] as a brand (“carry your memories…”) and “turning bottles into luggage,” while later slides emphasize manufacturing advantages and processing flakes for other producers (page 9/13). That split makes investors unsure what they’re underwriting: a brand-led DTC growth bet (marketing + retention + product) or an ops/manufacturing moat bet (capex + yield + quality control + B2B supply). Until you pick the dominant frame, the deck feels like two companies in one presentation.