This is the Clockworks Analytics pitch deck to raise a $8m series-d round in 2020. I don’t know why they call this a series-D, when it looks like it should be technically a series-A round.
About
Clockworks Analytics offers market-leading automated diagnostics and building performance management software and services to facility managers, engineers, and service providers. KGS’s flagship software, Clockworks is used around the world by direct customers and service partners to deliver persistent energy savings, pro-active maintenance, more comfortable buildings, and more efficient building operations.
Clockworks provide tools to identify and prioritize energy savings opportunities, improve operations, track savings over time, and connect to building data, diagnostics, and information anywhere, anytime. Clockworks can help fully leverage commissioning or retro-commissioning processes, LEED projects, measurement and verification, and performance-based incentive programs.
While the pandemic ushered in a year of uncertainty for many business owners, Nicholas Gayeski faced the opposite issue: An increased demand in his company’s analytics platform, which tracks the operation of filters and ventilation, lead him to raise the startup’s second round of funding in 12 years.
Clockworks Analytics — which Gayeski cofounded in 2008 — raised $8 million in December, bringing its total funding to $13 million. The round was prompted by the pandemic, which put an emphasis on proptech such as sanitizing UV-C technologies, movement trackers that enforce social distancing, and upgraded HVAC systems.
Clockworks’ technology monitors the performance of building systems to track maintenance, energy usage, and overall health while simultaneously collecting data on those functions. Clockworks then uses that information to help customers determine the most pressing issues to fix and how to avoid equipment degradation.
“The meat and potatoes are at the system level,” said Gayeski, who also serves as CEO. “By turning data at the system level into actionable information and insight, we can help an organization realize savings and improve comfort.”
Gayeski plans to use the $8 million to accelerate both the growth of Clockworks’ product and its customer base, which spreads across 420 million square feet of space around the world, Gayeski said (At the time of fundraising, it was across 370 million square feet of space). He also used the announcement to change the company’s name from KGS Buildings to Clockworks Analytics.
Funding rounds
| Announced Date | Transaction Name | Number of Investors | Money Raised | Lead Investors |
| Dec 9, 2020 | Series D – Clockworks Analytics | 3 | $8M |
Carom Growth Partners, Evans Capital
|
| April 14, 2016 | Series C – Clockworks Analytics | 3 | $2M | — |
| Jan 1, 2008 | Non Equity Assistance – Clockworks Analytics | 1 | — | — |
Pitch deck review summary
Structured summary review
Words
There are generally not enough words to explain what slides mean. This is an issue.
Slide length
At 19 slides the length is solid.
Headers
The headers are not well written and I’m not sure that they are also in the correct order.
Appearance
It’s an ugly deck. They’ve spent the effort to make the deck look nicer, but they’ve made it worse in the process.
The headers start out a reasonable size and then for inexplicable reasons double in size half way through.
Narrative
There isn’t a narrative.
Structure
There are no page numbers. Things are generally aligned but most of the slides look messy.
Slides
It’s not obvious what their market size is, how they make money, there is no team slide, I don’t know what the ask is etc.
Slide by slide review
Cover is fine. Adding a TM is super annoying.
Do not put images in backgrounds. They add nothing and just make it harder to read content.
The header is at least a line too long and the font size is too large.
There’s a long title and then you have to read the stats to understand the point.
It’s an ugly slide because they are trying too hard.
Quit with the background images.
Deal with traction once I care about your problem. This is too early.
No one cares about awards.
Wow the design is bad. Don’t bold the description text.
The header is balls as it says to read the slide and it will explain it. That’s so lazy. Investors want the point asap.
There is too much on the slide and the right hand side is bizarrely formatted. There has to be a better way of presenting it.
The header is far too large. Just be consistent and boring and you can’t mess up your deck.
The headers are big now, ok.
They’re just pasting images on the deck and not caring anymore.
Do you know what this means? I do not. There are little squiggles and I do not see the point.
Do not just paste an image and leave it there. This could easily be formatted natively. Can you tell what is good and bad in this chart?
Case studies are hard to do. I would try and show examples in a structured manner a la before and after and ideally using numbers where possible, especially if you have more than one case study so they are easier to read.
Superlatives like ‘transformative’ annoy me.
Link to more data isn’t a terrible idea as gives investors the option to read more (if they care to).
The headers are too large and are distracting.
They are listing out customers from A to Z. You don’t need to keep writing “customer” as removing the word would make easier to read.
I’ve never heard of ARR potential and I don’t know how they come up with that number.
Don’t write the market is big, write what the market size is.
Deal with things once at a time. Deal with market sizing in a slide and your traction on one or a series of traction slides.
Slide is not clear. Why will investors randomly just read a slide when they don’t understand the point?
Another weird slide.
They have three slides now. There is absolutely no reason for them to have three slides to explain one thing. You can do this if you are doing a presentation on stage, or if you are going to present off a laptop. Don’t do this if you are sending a deck.
The points that they write are solid such as specific ARR target.
Rather than writing ‘in 4 years’ write the year for the target. it is easier to follow.
There is too much text in the investment scenario. The 2 and 5 year ARR could be in one line.
Deck Collection
See the rest of the collection here:
Comments (0)
There are no comments yet :(