I have been thinking about our startup culture for quite some time. The more startup events, competitions, and entrepreneurship programmes I see, the more one question bothers me: Are we actually developing entrepreneurs, or are we becoming very good at producing pitchers?
Go to almost any university entrepreneurship event today and you will hear familiar instructions: “Come up with an idea.” “Build a team.” “Prepare your pitch deck.” “You have three minutes to convince the judges.”
The young person prepares beautiful slides. There is a problem statement, solution, market size, revenue model, projected growth and sometimes even a valuation. The presentation is impressive.
But I often want to ask a much simpler question: Has anyone paid you yet? That question changes everything.
A startup is not a PowerPoint presentation
I am not against startups. Bangladesh needs more entrepreneurs, innovators and new businesses. We need young people who are willing to solve problems instead of simply waiting for jobs. My concern is with the startup culture we are creating around them. We are sometimes teaching the process backwards. The popular pathway looks something like this:
Idea → Pitch → Competition → Incubation → Funding → Business
But business rarely begins that way. It begins when somebody has a problem and another person creates enough value that the first person is willing to pay for the solution. A healthier pathway would be:
Problem → Customer → Validation → Solution → First Sale → Delivery → Repeat Customer → Sustainable Business → Scale
Funding may come somewhere along that journey. Or it may never be necessary. That is perfectly fine.
The Pitch Trap
Pitching is important. An entrepreneur must know how to communicate an idea. But pitching should be a tool of entrepreneurship, not entrepreneurship itself. When we repeatedly reward young people for presenting ideas rather than executing them, we may unintentionally create what I call the Pitch Trap.
A student can participate in five startup competitions, win two awards, complete three incubation programmes and confidently introduce himself as a founder. Yet he may never have convinced a single customer to pay ৳500 for his product. Which experience teaches entrepreneurship better? I would choose the first paying customer.
Because that customer forces you to understand value, pricing, negotiation, delivery, quality, feedback and trust. A judge can appreciate your presentation. A customer has to appreciate your value enough to spend money. Those are very different tests.
There is another danger: ideas are not businesses
We also encourage young people to explain their ideas publicly in great detail.
- “Tell us your innovation.”
- “What makes it unique?”
- “How does the technology work?”
- “What is your competitive advantage?”
- “Show us your business model.”
There is nothing inherently wrong with these questions. But young entrepreneurs also need to understand what should be shared, what should be protected, and when disclosure makes sense.
An idea alone is rarely a strong competitive advantage. Larger organisations may have more capital, technology, distribution, people and market access. Similar ideas can also emerge independently.
So entrepreneurship education should teach intellectual property, confidentiality, execution advantage and competitive positioning alongside pitching. The lesson should not be “Never share your idea.” It should be: Know what to share, with whom, at what stage, and for what purpose.
Then the entrepreneur meets the financial system
Here comes another contradiction. We tell a young person: “Take risks.” Then they approach a traditional financial institution and are asked:
- Where is your collateral?
- Where is your business history?
- Where is your stable cash flow?
- How will you guarantee repayment?
From the bank's perspective, these are reasonable questions. Banks manage depositors' money and therefore have to manage credit risk carefully. But this also tells us something important.
Traditional banking and startup financing are fundamentally different types of risk.
Early-stage businesses need an ecosystem that can absorb uncertainty. That can include angel investment, seed capital, venture capital, innovation grants, credit guarantees, corporate venture programmes and other forms of patient or risk capital. If those mechanisms are weak, we create an uncomfortable situation.
- University: Have an idea.
- Competition: Pitch it.
- Incubator: Make a deck.
- Bank: Bring collateral.
- Investor: Show traction.
- Market: Show me why I should buy.
The young entrepreneur is standing in the middle of all these expectations.
We may also be making entrepreneurship unnecessarily glamorous
There is another cultural problem. The word “startup” sounds exciting. “Small business” often does not. A young person may proudly say, “I am building a startup,” but feel less excited saying, “I run a small profitable business.” Why?
A business employing five people, serving 200 customers and generating healthy cash flow may contribute far more to society than a startup with an impressive pitch deck, large claimed valuation and no sustainable revenue.
We need to bring dignity back to business building. Not every entrepreneur has to build the next unicorn.
Someone can build a profitable local business, solve a community problem, employ ten people and create enormous economic value. That is entrepreneurship too.
What should we teach instead?
I believe entrepreneurship education should start with problem-solving, not pitching.
- Take students outside the classroom.
- Ask them to identify ten real problems.
- Make them talk to 20 potential customers.
- Ask them to design the simplest possible solution.
Then give them perhaps one challenge: Get your first paying customer.
After that, teach them accounting, cash flow, sales, customer service, negotiation, digital tools, AI, operations, intellectual property, team building and financing. Then let them pitch. Imagine the difference.
Instead of saying:
“We believe 10% of this market may buy our product.”
the young entrepreneur can say:
“We spoke with 100 potential customers. Thirty tried our solution. Twelve paid for it. Eight came back.”
Now we are no longer listening to an idea. We are looking at evidence.
Startup is not the illusion. The wrong pathway is.
So I would modify the thought that originally came to my mind. Startup itself is not an illusion. Startups have created extraordinary products, industries, employment, and wealth around the world.
But the dream we sometimes sell around startups can become an illusion if we separate entrepreneurship from the fundamentals of business. We should stop making young people believe that becoming a founder begins with a title, a pitch deck or an investor.
It begins much earlier.
- Find a real problem.
- Understand people.
- Create something useful.
- Convince someone to pay for it.
- Deliver what you promised.
- Learn. Improve. Repeat.
Then build the company. Because ultimately, entrepreneurship is not about pitching an idea. It is about creating value that can survive in the real world.