ElevenLabs: Put the first customer before the expansion plan
A review of the available early deck, from the dubbing problem to the research appendix, followed by a proposed order and a proposed edit that keeps the original product demo.
Reading the full deck
Reviewed all 11 pages in the public PDF. The printed slide numbers run from 2 to 13, with 11 absent. This is a review of that available copy, not a claim that we have the complete original fundraising deck.
Read the source documentElevenLabs makes a straightforward argument: dubbing is slow and expensive, a working prototype can speed it up, and creators already have a reason to pay. The deck then moves through the founders, a broad expansion plan, market estimates, a creator example, competitors, and the underlying research. The material is there. The main problem is that the first customer and the reason they would buy arrive after the expansion story.
What already works
The cost and turnaround figures make the problem concrete. A real product demonstration follows the solution, and the team’s experience is relevant to building it. The creator-market page also attempts a calculation from usage and price, rather than relying only on a large industry total. We would keep those choices.
Walk through the original, page by page 11 pages reviewed
Page 1 · Dubbing today · printed 2
A useful opening: the cost and turnaround are prominent. Explain the comparison conditions before treating those figures as a benchmark.
Page 2 · Problem · printed 3
A short statement gives the audience a pause, but repeats the opening. In a shorter version, combine these two pages.
Page 3 · Solution · printed 4
Quality, voice preservation, and ease of use are separate benefits. The small explanatory paragraphs need a live demonstration to make them believable.
Page 4 · Prototype · printed 5
The screenshot shows that a product exists. Six processing steps compete with the result; the timing sits at the bottom.
Page 5 · Team · printed 6
Relevant research and deployment experience supports the technical claim. Keep the two founders’ roles and their most relevant evidence.
Page 6 · Expansion · printed 7
Creators, media, games, and real-time communication show ambition. The logos illustrate possible uses; they should not be read as customers.
Page 7 · Market categories · printed 8
Three market estimates suggest scale, but they describe different markets. Do not add them together without checking overlap.
Page 8 · Creator-market calculation · printed 9
The diagram narrows to 10,000 creators, but the 9 million minutes calculation matches 100,000 creators at the stated usage. Label the population used in the calculation.
Page 9 · MrBeast example · printed 10
A recognizable example explains why translation could matter commercially. It is an example of creator demand, not evidence of ElevenLabs revenue or a customer relationship.
Page 10 · Competition · printed 12
The positioning is easy to read. Quality and speed need defined tests before this can serve as a performance comparison.
Page 11 · Research · printed 13
The speech, voice, and translation diagram explains the technical approach. Keep it available for questions; the main pitch can introduce the distinction more briefly.
What we would change
Put the first customer before the expansion plan.
Move the creator example and the creator-market calculation immediately after the demo. The reader should understand the first sale before being asked to imagine several additional industries.
Show the market calculation in one line.
Use creators × videos per month × minutes per video × target languages × price per minute. The slide’s stated assumptions produce 9 million minutes for 100,000 creators, or 900,000 minutes for 10,000. State which case is intended. These are revenue scenarios, not actual sales.
Separate the demo from the technical explanation.
Keep the real screenshot and the reported processing time together. Save the detailed pipeline and research diagram for a technical follow-up. A still image can show the workflow, but the audio is needed to judge voice quality.
Make the final request explicit if this is used to raise money.
No funding request appears in this public copy. We would ask for the missing pages before calling that a flaw in the original. A presentation built from this copy would need a closing request tied to the next product and commercial milestones.
The order we’d use
Problem → product and demo → first customer → market calculation → team → expansion → competition → funding request. Keep the research diagram in an appendix.
The edit we would make
The proposed edit keeps the original demo frame and moves the reported timing into the headline. It is intended for a spoken pitch with the demo playing. The original six-stage explanation remains useful in a technical follow-up; a still image cannot establish voice quality.
Make the demo the point.
The original shows a working product, explains the pipeline, and supplies a concrete timing claim. Keep all three; give the live demo priority.
What this changes
The edit puts the timing claim in the headline and retains the actual demo frame. The detailed six-stage process moves to the technical discussion; it is not thrown away.
What it doesn’t solve
This version suits a spoken pitch with the demo playing. For an engineer reading without a presenter, the original process list is more useful. The two-minute figure is a historical company claim; its test conditions are not supplied.
Presenting a product?
The Standard Deck includes screenshot layouts with space for a clear takeaway. The proposed edit above is an independent editorial example.
See the Standard Deck layouts — $99