Internet searches regularly lead me astray. One minute I’m researching the lithium battery market, and the next thing I know I’ve spent 20 minutes reading an article about the prospect of interstellar metal mining from asteroids.

Investor pitches present the same risk.

Earlier this year I was developing a pitch for an agtech product for farmers. We found statistics about how many farmers who lose money or break even (which is a lot!), which we thought would make our solution incredibly attractive—after all, the company helps farmers reliably be profitable. Slam dunk, right?

The founder tried it out and came back, dejected.

Investors didn’t think that financial struggles for farmers would make them perfect customers for a money-making technology. Instead, all they thought was, “So you're targeting customers who can’t afford you?”

The founder was able to close his round when we reframed the problem as one of the general uncertainty of farming, and how our product increases predictability and profitability.

Our original framing made the audience think about things we didn’t want them thinking about. And since a pitch is a conversation where only one side is talking, the entrepreneur often doesn’t even know that they’ve encouraged the audience to wander off.

In the months since, I’ve paid attention to other pitches where the framing of the problem unintentionally encourages investors to wander off the reservation. Check out the examples I’ve gathered below and then take another look at your pitch. Does anything resonate?

"Hospitals are overloaded and understaffed."

Investors hear: “So your tech adds more work or risk to already burned-out providers?”

Why it's risky: Your customers sound distracted and risk-averse.

Better framing: "Hospitals lose $XM/year due to preventable readmissions caused by missed patient follow-up."

This reframes the problem as a costly, quantifiable failure that your solution can prevent—with clear ROI.

"Biotech startups waste millions on failed mouse models."

Investors hear: “So you’re selling to tiny startups who are already bleeding capital?”

Why it's risky: You're positioning yourself as selling to customers who are (1) high-risk and (2) bad at capital allocation.

Better framing: "The average drug development team spends $XXM optimizing preclinical models that don’t translate to human biology."

This frames the problem as universal inefficiency in R&D, not buyer irresponsibility.

"Deep tech hardware takes years to develop and is hard to scale."

Investors hear: “So... you’re deep tech hardware? Sounds like a nightmare.”

Why it's risky: You reinforce the worst preconceptions about your own category (i.e., capital-intensive, long time to market).

Better framing: "Current hardware cycles miss key market opportunities because they're built sequentially, not modularly."

Now you’re highlighting your technical approach (modular, faster cycles) as the unlock.

"Corporate buyers are slow and risk-averse."

Investors hear: “So your sales cycle is 12+ months?”

Why it's risky: You're admitting upfront to a go-to-market nightmare.

Better framing: "B2B sales cycles are long—but companies are under pressure to act fast when internal cost-cutting fails."

Now you position yourself as the urgent solution to a looming internal crisis, not a nice-to-have in a slow process.

"Gene therapies are too expensive for patients to access."

Investors hear: “So the market isn’t ready to pay for this yet?”

Why it's risky: You may be unintentionally aligning your solution with a pricing deadlock you can’t control.

Better framing: "Gene therapy manufacturers lose billions in failed scale-up and delivery inefficiencies."

You shift the focus to supply-side friction you can address.

"Scientists hate dealing with sample prep."

Investors hear: “So… you’re automating a task that grad students already do cheaply?”

Why it's risky: Minimizing the current cost baseline undermines your pricing power.

Better framing: "Manual sample prep limits throughput and introduces variability in high-value experiments."

Now it’s about scalability, reproducibility, and lost revenue—not just convenience.

Bottom Line

When you’re going after a big, hairy problem, it’s hard (or potentially wrong) to claim that your solution will solve all aspects of the problem. But that doesn’t mean that you should highlight all the other issues or aspects of the issue you’re addressing. Instead, focus on presenting the problem in a way that makes your solution the uniquely powerful and obvious way forward. Is your current framing potentially leading investors astray?