Remaking the pitch: Reuse strategies in entrepreneurs' pitch decks. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 58(1), 45-68. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2015.2415277

• Spinuzzi, C., Nelson, S., Thomson, K. S., Lorenzini, F., French, R. A., Pogue, G., Burback, S. D., & Momberger, J. (2015). Remaking the pitch: Reuse strategies in entrepreneurs' pitch decks. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 58(1), 45-68. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2015.2415277

This is an original research article about Korean entrepreneur document reuse strategies. It is very similar to but not the same as the other article from IEEE, "making the pitch." So whereas "making the pitch" focused on revision, this one, "remaking the pitch," focuses on reuse. I'm not entirely sure what the distinction is between reuse and revision yet. It looks like maybe the former is more concerned with argumentation (changes to claims, evidence, reasons, etc.), whereas the latter is more concerned with reuse and uptake, but we'll see. 

OK. Looking at the two articles right now. The representative anecdote participant in "making the pitch" is K5080, whereas the one in "remaking the pitch" is K5016. Remember, Spinuzzi et al selected 14 out of the 25 finalists, so these two are two of those 14. It also looks like there's a focus on dialogue (Bakhtin) that you didn't catch in "making." 

The results section is initially divided four ways. "Consequently, the interviewees described at least four difficulties these entrepreneurs faced in making these pitch arguments: 1) identifying and characterizing a specific target market, 2) expressing benefits for that market (including relieving problems faced in the current market), 3) describing an appropriate business model for producing those benefits, and 4) supplying evidence for their arguments above."

Identifying the market. It seems like this section is about the problem entrepreneurs have with moving from the technology to the product, as in the move from tech to product to business. "Who in this market would need a portable transmission device? What features does this device have that could provide new opportunities in this market? What regulatory and certification barriers might stymie those opportunities for this market?" But this section also details cultural differences between Korea and the US. "Many innovations tend to focus on import replacement, such as producing domestic versions of products available on the global market; consequently, many innovations offer a value proposition centered on marginal improvements in price, quality, or speed rather than what GIP personnel characterize as a disruptive or a true, broadly recognized value proposition (I1.1, I7.1)."

Expressing the market's benefits. Ok, I think I jumped the gun a little bit on the last section. In the "identifying the market section," it's just what it says. It's about identifying the marketing; they have trouble with that because of cultural differences. The two cultures are just so different. Well, as I think about it some more, I think maybe if we think of that triad again (tech-product-business), the first one is really about the first part (tech-product), whereas the second one is about the second (product-business). 

Business model. I don't see how this section corresponds to its title. It's more like they had to be receptive to feedback and take the Quicklook seriously. 

Evidence. Apparently, the teams weren't used to thinking about things in terms of IP. 

Those four are the general results and are contained in the results' first section, "Program Context and General Results [review, focus on reuse]" I don't know why those brackets are in there... In any case, this part is tantamount to the descriptive statistics section of your synchronic article. 

Then Spinuzzi et al get into the specific results, the results proper in my mind. Three strategies again. "three types of reuse: accepting, continuing, and resisting." Three types of reuse. 

In making (not remaking) the pitch, these are the three strategies. "Below, we qualitatively examine how entrepreneurs’ claims, evidence, and argument complexity changed across these documents." Claims. Evidence. Argument complexity. Three. 

Accepting. 

• Accepting. So this is like if I grabbed a section from my IRB proposal wholesale and lifted it into my article. Like with Davida. 
• Templates. They stole from the templates too, esp the pitch deck template's headings. Least popular. 
• Verbatim. I don't get the difference between this and "accepting."
• Paraphrases. Second most popular. 
• Paraphrase. Most popular. 

Oh shit, I can't get the diff between accepting and verbatim because therein (in accepting) Spinuzzi is overviewing the accepting section rather than delineating something within that category. That was weird. Confusing italics. 

Accepting is like synthesis...no...sorry, understanding or repetition on the Bloom's scale, whereas continuing is more like application or synthesis. 

Continuing. "In these examples, teams demonstrated an uptake of the GIP-generated documents, not just reusing the arguments but extending them in important ways: they did not just mine the GIP documents for facts, they developed them further, extending both the arguments and the genres in which those arguments were offered."

Resisting. Oh ok, I was wrong with this one. Not just saying no or a failure to incorporate advice. This is actually rebutting or countering claims made in the feedback and Quicklooks by messing with the template. So this would be the highest stage. Creativity in Blooms. "...teams found themselves in the difficult position of having to contradict the conclusions that GIP personnel had forwarded. Since the pitch deck template had no place explicitly for handling rebuttals, entrepreneur teams had to be inventive in handling this issue—and many of them violated the genre conventions of the pitch deck in order to do so. This Resisting strategy was the most interesting strategy for us, since it demonstrates an ability to engage in critical dialogue with the stakeholders."

Two subterms in resisting. Counters and rebuttals. Rebuttals deal with mitigation whereas counters challenge back. Only 10 out of 14 decks countered, whereas nearly all (13) rebutted something at some point.

This is from the conclusion. "As they employed these different reuse strategies, the entrepreneur teams not only learned how to imitate the unfamiliar genre of the pitch deck, they learned how to develop it to better support their arguments. That is, they became familiar with it and began to take ownership of it. This ownership is reflected in the critical analysis by the entrepreneur teams of the external comments coming from Deep Dive and Quicklook documents and their improvement of value arguments through greater specificity, clarity, or rebuttal. We believe this is an extremely important finding, since the GIP's purpose is not just to help teams to pitch their innovations, but also to turn these teams into global entrepreneurs. That is, not only could they reproduce the genre's conventions, they also understood these conventions as responses to specific rhetorical exigencies and, thus, they understood when to appropriately extend or resist the conventions" (my emphasis).  

"In all, researchers generated 8645 stanzas."

https://utexas.box.com/s/matf4xuifks6w2j75eewp31iyoff91wl