Rejection - CoFounder Application

Stage 1
1

Hello Everyone,

I am a Co-Founder/ Head of Product & Business Strategy of a Healthtech (under 5 years). I applied as Exceptional Promise because my previous companies is considered as an Outsourcing company as they provide consulting services across different sectors.

I applied and was rejected after 4 days.

I applied using 3 letter of recommendations and 10 letter of references (which were all embedded google drive links)

LOR 1: Co-Founder/Chief Growth Officer of Agritech
LOR 2: Founder/CEO of Healthtech
LOR 3: Co-Founder/CEO of another Healthtech

MC1: Recognition via LSE Endorsement, Accelarator, Tech Start Up Programs (Had screenshot & email of LSE Start Up endorsement, finalist LSE accelarator program and accepted on Oracle & Microsoft Start Up program) *LSE - London School of Economics
MC2: SAFEs/Investment document (Included Investment document. With bank account
balance displaying the funds has been received from investors. Google drive Link with letter from the investor)
MC3: Media Mentions & Industry Award Nomination (Google drive Link with letter from the award organisers)

OC1.1: Incorporation & Employment contract (Incorporation, Article of Association, Payslip & bank statement)
OC1.2: Demonstrations of commercial success through innovation (Screenshot with Deal with Insurance company & General Hospital worth $1m. Letter in a Google drive link)
OC1.3: Innovative Products and deals (Screenshot of the product, campaign videos, Performance Monitoring dashboard, Client financing NDA which was also a link and partnership deal with Clinton Health Access Initiative)

OC2.1 Facilitator/Mentorship at a Bootcamp (screenshot newspaper & Email from organisers, Letter from organisers in a google drive link)
OC2.2 Speaking engagement at a Health tech conference (Screenshot newspaper, Letter from organisers in a link)
OC2.3 Newspaper publication & Radio tallk show displaying thought leadership (Screenshot of Newspaper article, and google drive link to radio show)

Do you think i stand a chance with appeal or should go ahead to make a new application? Any suggestion and advice if i need to make a 2nd application?

@Francisca_Chiedu, @alexnk , @Victrr , @alex_james , @Jazeb , @ask4jubad , @Yusuf_Adebanjo , @westside , @Secure_Tobs , @Nacsoft

Rejection v1
Rejection v1928Ă—1080 230 KB

2

@Mayowa_Oyatogun sorry that your application did not pull through.

The feedback that you got seems to be one of the most clear feedback I’ve come across.

It’s rather simple. You were appraised against ET requirements so way more was expected.

That said, I’d rather move all pieces of evidence from OC1 to OC3. OC1 is usually very difficult to prove since the idea of innovation is subjective.

For OC2, there was a major concern - that most of your public speaking events were in partnership with Kromium, which I believe is your own company. So, it sends the message of self-promotion. You may want to revisit this.

For most of your evidence should be self contained e.g. mentioning other notable people/projects that were considered for the NHEA awards, the rigor, the number of award considerations, news media publication of such award in the form of snapshots and/or valid URL links etc.

For MC, e.g., your Tech Cabal post, you can try to get TC to use an actual technical writer or editor’s detail. And then upload a web analytics snapshot as shown in the second image below to show the reach and influence.

image
image1293Ă—424 32.2 KB

image
image1465Ă—1077 86.1 KB

3

@ask4jubad Thank you for your reply. I quite agree about the ET instead of promise assesment. I also need to stress the prior exprience wasnt from a product oriented company but a consulting company. Thus, the reason for application for promise.

I will get the organisers to mention in the reference letter that the event was voluntary as well as the process that was made in choosing the speakers. It’s just a norm to have speakers job title on the event flyers so it needs to appeal to the audience.

I will try and get a newspaper publication of one of the awards either NHEA or Healthtech. Yes, i will contact TC and possibly get them to work on the page

4

Hi Mayowa,

You may want to get a “professional” to offer you some guidance on your application, as they would be able to help you structure things properly and also help you sell your story even though you were previously in consulting. Also, it might come off as deceitful if you rework a publication that has already been presented to Tech Nation, so I would suggest that you rid yourself of the TC article as it caused them to question the credibility of your other publications.

Regarding your comapany, it looks like you might also stand a chance with the Innovator visa, so I think you should also explore that route since you are dealing in healthtech and also using a language model through your chatbot.

5

Well, I don’t see anything wrong in correcting an anomaly. It may actually have been a mistake from TC’s end as all publications from them ought to have specific writer or editor e.g.:

image
image1085Ă—363 28.8 KB

The content won’t change, the writer should. In any case, once it’s corrected, one can only use it for a new submission and not the previous submission. With that, the credibility and be evaluated on the merit of the new submission.

It’s good that you suggested the Innovator Visa @Amara_O , but it must be known that it is not evaluated based on an individual’s feats, rather the potential of their so-called “innovation”. That’s not comparable to the Global Talent Visa. In fact, the ET is equivalent to Innovator Visa since both grant pathways to ILR in 3 years but ET seems to have more benefit in terms of the things you can and cannot do on the visa.

If you are intereested however, @Mayowa_Oyatogun , you make check it out here.

7

It was indeed a paid post, hence the “partner.” TC does that for paid publications so it’s not really an anomaly.

Regarding the Innovator Visa, yes, I truly believe that it’s a good opportunity for him since his product is innovative in a way, as it utilises a language model through his chatbot. I wish OP all the best of luck in whatever direction he chooses to focus on.

8

The feedback from TN is very clear and concise, however, what you do with it matters. Also, it has nothing to do with whether you applied for EP or ET, certain boxes were not ticked in your application and your story probably was not compelling enough. I am a GTV recipient as an Exceptional Talent in HealthTech, and I am happy to look through your documents and provide some guidance.

1 Like
9

Sorry to hear about the initial feedback. Hope you get it soon, Mayowa.

@ask4jubad - On the journalist name in the article, is that a mandatory criteria? I have a chance to get a couple of articles published that cover my work profile as well as opinion on tech. But they don’t mention journalist name, only says general team. Reference of a similar article - Meet Chirag Gander and Sahil Vaidya, the IITians behind The Minimalist; know about their journey, profit, and future plans - Lifestyle News | The Financial Express (it is not paid and neither does it say when you click on generic author name)

Also, I have a few other media coverage getting published in the next month or so (articles, podcasts, panel). Would that go against the applicant if all the media coverage is right at the time of the application or the timeline doesn’t matter?

10

I think the issue here is how your evidence have been presented. There are other parts of the tech nation guides that state you must not use external drive or links as they are not obliged to open it. If you are applying for promise, your profile in CV and linkedin should clearly show your tech career is recent.
Aside the promotional media evidence, what other media recognition do you have? Do you have speaking events and award? For innovation, what evidence do you have that your product is novel? Is there a patent? How have you demonstrated that this is different from what is in the market?