I'm really curious as to why you state "I'm not convinced yet that this will be the next Google, but at least I'm starting to engage with it." and then later say "One good trick for describing a project concisely is to explain it as a variant of something the audience already knows."
These seem like conflicting statements: on the one hand you're looking for a groundbreaking, original idea. On the other you seem to advise comparisons to existing products, which immediately appears to dilute the value of the product and pigeonholes the mission of the team.
Could you comment on the balance you are looking for between these two? Would you rather someone describe their business as "Like [big website] for [target market]" or distinguish themselves for its inherent value?
These seem like conflicting statements: on the one hand you're looking for a groundbreaking, original idea. On the other you seem to advise comparisons to existing products, which immediately appears to dilute the value of the product and pigeonholes the mission of the team.
Could you comment on the balance you are looking for between these two? Would you rather someone describe their business as "Like [big website] for [target market]" or distinguish themselves for its inherent value?