In this advisory video, Stacy L. Chin challenges the common excuse that SBIR reviewers can’t grasp a founder’s technology. She argues that the fault usually lies with the applicant’s narrative. The talk outlines a step‑by‑step framework for crafting a clear, persuasive SBIR proposal: (1) identify the correct agency and program and engage the program officer early; (2) make the problem and the gap in existing solutions unmistakably clear; (3) quantify the improvement with concrete metrics; (4) explain the technology at a high‑level roadmap before diving into technical details; and (5) write persuasively to answer five core reviewer questions—what’s the problem, why it matters, why current solutions fail, how the innovation solves it, and why the team can execute. Stacy emphasizes that being highly technical is not the issue; being difficult to understand is. The video ends with a call to like and subscribe for more fundraising guidance.
Chapters
Check out my buddy Steve here. Steve says, my technology is too new. The SBIR reviewers just don't understand it. And if that sounds like something you said before, I got a slightly harsh truth for you to hear. It's probably not the reviewer's fault. It's yours. It's yours. If someone reviews your application or your NSF project pitch in this case, and they still don't understand what your technology does, why it matters, and why it's innovative, somewhere in your application, the story broke down. And I hear this from founders all the time. My technology is too complicated. It's too innovative. The reviewers just don't get it. Well, guess what? Your job is to not just explain the cool thing you're building. You're the one pitching it. And if the person reading your application should have to work harder than you do to figure out why they should care, that's kind of on you. So if you want to avoid ending up my buddy Steve here, there's a few things you have to get right in your SBIR application. First, understand who you're exactly pitching to. Before you start writing, understand the agency that the program actually cares about. Don't just ask, is my tech Instead, ask why does this innovation matter to the agency? What problem are they trying to solve? And why should they spend their own federal dollars funding you? And that's because you can have an incredible technology and still be applying to the wrong program. And that doesn't exactly mean technology is bad, but it just might mean it's a bad fit. And whenever you have the opportunity, talk to the program officer before you submit. Don't just make them figure it out after you already spent weeks writing the application. Second, make the problem and the gap painfully obvious. A reviewer needs to understand what happens today before they can appreciate why what you built is much better. What's the current solution? Who are the competitors? What does existing technology do well? And more importantly, where does it fail? Maybe it's too expensive, maybe it's too slow, or maybe the sensitivity just isn't good enough, or maybe it requires specialized equipment, or maybe it works in the lab, but it doesn't work well in the environment where your customer actually should care about it. Whatever the gap is, fill it, because innovation doesn't exist in a vacuum. Your technology is innovative because it solves an important limitation that existing approaches have not solved. Third, quantify that difference whenever you can. In your SBIR application, don't just tell me your innovation is faster, better, more accurate, or cheaper. The reviewers are wondering how much faster, how much better, compared to what. For instance, if the current technology takes 4 hours and yours might take 20 minutes, definitely say that. If your system costs 50% less, say that. Give the reviewers something concrete so that they can understand and remember your innovation. And fourth, explain the technology at the right level. This is where many technical founders sometimes get themselves in trouble, and that's because you know your technology better than mostly anyone else, so it's incredibly easy to dive straight into the weeds. But remember, your reviewer needs that roadmap before they need the details. So in your SBIR application, here's the problem I'm trying to solve. Here are the current approaches and why they're insufficient. And here is what we built. Then go on and explain what makes it fundamentally different. And this is the evidence that could tell you it could work. Then take the reviewers and run them through the technical details at this point. And when you do this, you're not dumbing down your science or how brilliant you are. You're just making the science accessible enough to someone who could actually evaluate it. And then finally, make the reviewer want to keep reading because Yes, an SBIR application is technical writing, but it's also persuasive writing. You're the one pitching to investors. You're the one building the argument. And by the end, reviewers should understand what's the problem? Why does it matter? Why are current solutions not good enough? What's the difference about your innovation and your approach? And why should I believe that you and the team can pull it off? And if they can't answer any of these questions after reading your application, the problem probably isn't because your technology is too innovative. It's because you haven't made the clear enough in your SBIR application. And that's the harsh truth, Steve. So before you blame the reviewer, Steve, go back in your application and ask yourself, did I actually make this easy to understand for reviewers? Because being highly technical is not the problem. Being difficult to understand is. If you like more content like this, make sure you like and subscribe to this channel and make sure to follow along so you can learn to keep your equity throughout your fundraising journey.
