Hi, I’m a beauty tech founder, launched an app in the UK in December and have grown our user base to 500+ early users as we refine the product. I previously applied for stage 1 but got rejected and have been rebuilding my evidence to reapply in the next 6-8 months.
MC- UK Business Tech Awards - Emerging Talent Category
Founder story publication in print (Voices in the Shadows Vol 6 by Global Tech Advocates - Black women in Tech)
Article in US media (Techronicler) - Black History Month women in tech feature
Founder story article - Founderland (Pan-European media)
Women in AI Accelerator Showcase 3rd place winner ( backed by email, YouTube video and Build club’s substack post on the founders that won)
Foundervine accelerator
The Shift Programme by Inc x Paypal
OC3 - Product Management from ideation to launch of platform leading to early user acquisition and growth
Webinar training sessions empowering the beauty professionals on using tech to build their business structure
Commercial contribution: App download evidence, social media growth and reach analytics, google console analytics on website seo implementation
Community building → converting to app users
0C2 - Article contribution to the UK Business tech award news page
Women in AI mentor
Rewriting the code women in tech community mentor
I am still reselecting my referees as I am not sure I can still present reference letters from my previous referees of the application they rejected. I would appreciate some insight on if I’m on the right path and what I could double down on to strengthen my application
MC has two different categories mixed together. The press features and awards are recognition pieces and could work. But accelerator participation is development, and assessors consistently distinguish programme selection from sector recognition. The Official Guide’s MC examples centre on “nationally or internationally recognised prizes or awards” and “published material in professional or major trade publications.” Focus MC on the recognition pieces and drop the accelerator participation.
OC3 is the most exposed criterion. App downloads and social/web analytics are self-generated metrics. The Official Guide expects “proof of product in market and associated traction through revenue” for founder evidence. If the app has paying users or revenue, lead with that. If the commercial evidence is entirely your own dashboards, assessors will treat it as self-documentation. The webinar training sessions sit more naturally under OC2 than OC3.
OC2 needs restructuring. The article contribution belongs under MC (published material about you), not OC2. The mentorship roles can work if both programmes are structured with selection criteria and primarily in-person. The Official Guide says “online mentoring platforms (such as ADPList) are not considered sufficient” and requires a “consistent track record of mentoring” with “recognition for your personal contribution.” You need external verification from the programme organisers to back this up.
On referees: yes, you can reuse the same people. The letters need to be freshly written and dated for the new application, but there’s no rule against the same authors.