The metrics are very vague, there’s isn’t enough granularity.
What exactly is considered a ‘lead’? If we can only convert 1/6 leads (VC rate) in getting everyone in a zoom meeting and hear a pitch, that’s concerning. Either that or it’s another inaccurate metric. Similarly, 400 bizdev leads seems like an unrealistically large amount too, given that not much has come out in the last few months. Can you give a more detailed breakdown on that? If these are actual leads, then our conversation rate sucks and the strategy isn’t working.
You mentioned just above that Shahar + yourself + Natalia are involved on pitching, yet there was also mention on the TG chat that some of these pitches were “project” pitches. So we need a distinction between network wide efforts/initiatives like the incubator (which I assume is what Shahar leads) vs devs pitching VCs where the Agency acted as a facilitator for the meeting to occur.
The dev onboarding metric is still misleading, if you are going to summarize your data into one number then you need to give the number of devs you got to actively build on the network. That’s the bottom-line that matters. Here’s some feedback I gave at the time about that: Secret University Megathread - #13 by mumuse
As for general scope it seems like there needs to be a re-prioritization. Building a community is only a good idea if there is funding and devs building. Having thousands of people being trained to spread the word around is only good if there are actual things to promote. We need to move on from the idea of building Link Marines 2017 style. Having it is good, but not the priority, and efforts for the former shouldn’t come at the cost of the latter. Hearing it takes multiple months to setup a hackathon is just jarring.
I don’t think the agency is doing a terrible job, but it feels like the approach is to cover a lot of areas without much depth and that’s why metrics look great but the actual results look like nothing happened.