Heads up! This page uses features your browser doesn’t support. Try a modern browser like Firefox or Chrome for the best experience.

Cartoon. A person stands at a desk. To their right is a whiteboard with a breadboard and fat marker sketch. At the table in front of them is an open laptop and a tablet with a fat marker sketch drawn on it. The person holds a stylus above the tablet while thinking: Are they going to get it?

We’ve got the elements of a solution now, and we’ve de-risked our concept to the point that we’re confident it’s a good option to give a team. But the concept is still in our heads or in some hard-to-decipher drawings on the whiteboard or our notebook. Now we need to put the concept into a form that other people will be able to understand, digest, and respond to.

This is where we say “Okay, this is ready to write up as a pitch.” In this chapter, we’ll walk through the ingredients of a pitch and show some fully worked out examples from real projects at Basecamp.

The purpose of the pitch is to present a good potential bet. It’s basically a presentation. The ingredients are all the things that we need to both capture the work done so far and present it in a form that will enable the people who schedule projects to make an informed bet.

There are five ingredients that we always want to include in a pitch:

  1. Problem — The raw idea, a use case, or something we’ve seen that motivates us to work on this
  2. Appetite — How much time we want to spend and how that constrains the solution
  3. Solution — The core elements we came up with, presented in a form that’s easy for people to immediately understand
  4. Rabbit holes — Details about the solution worth calling out to avoid problems
  5. No-gos — Anything specifically excluded from the concept: functionality or use cases we intentionally aren’t covering to fit the appetite or make the problem tractable

Ingredient 1. Problem

It’s critical to always present both a problem and a solution together. It sounds like an obvious point but it’s surprising how often teams, our own included, jump to a solution with the assumption that it’s obvious why it’s a good idea to build this thing.

Diving straight into “what to build”—the solution—is dangerous. You don’t establish any basis for discussing whether this solution is good or bad without a problem. “Add tabs to the iPad app” might be attractive to UI designers, but what’s to prevent the discussion from devolving into a long debate about different UI approaches? Without a specific problem, there’s no test of fitness to judge whether one solution is better than the other.

Establishing the problem also lets us have a clearer conversation later when it’s time to pitch the idea or bet on it. The solution might be perfect, but what if the problem only happens to customers who are known to be a poor fit to the product? We could spend six weeks on an ingenious solution that only benefits a small percentage of customers known to have low retention. We want to be able to separate out that discussion about the demand so we don’t spend time on a good solution that doesn’t benefit the right people.

How far you have to go to spell out the problem will depend on how much context you share with the people reading the write-up. The best problem definition consists of a single specific story that shows why the status quo doesn’t work. This gives you a baseline to test fitness against. People will be able to weigh the solution against this specific problem—or other solutions if a debate ensues—and judge whether or not that story has a better outcome with the new solution swapped in.

Ingredient 2. Appetite

You can think of the appetite as another part of the problem definition. Not only do we want to solve this use case, we want to come up with a way to do it in six weeks, not three months, or—in the case of a small batch project—two weeks, not the whole six weeks.

Stating the appetite in the pitch prevents unproductive conversations. There’s always a better solution. The question is, if we only care enough to spend two weeks on this now, how does this specific solution look?

Anybody can suggest expensive and complicated solutions. It takes work and design insight to get to a simple idea that fits in a small time box. Stating the appetite and embracing it as a constraint turns everyone into a partner in that process.

Ingredient 3. Solution

Like solutions with no problems, sometimes companies bet on problems with no solution. “We really need to make it easier to find things on the messages section. Customers are complaining about it.”

That’s not ready to pitch or bet on. A problem without a solution is unshaped work. Giving it to a team means pushing research and exploration down to the wrong level, where the skillsets, time limit, and risk profile (thin vs. heavy tailed) are all misaligned.

If the solution isn’t there, someone should go back and do the shaping work on the shaping track. It’s only ready to bet on when problem, appetite, and solution come together. Then you can scrutinize the fit between problem and solution and judge whether it’s a good bet or not.

Help them see it

During the elements phase, it was critical to sketch ideas at the right level of abstraction so we didn’t slow down or lose any of the ideas appearing at the corners of our brains and tips of our tongues.

We also need to draw at the right level of detail when we write the pitch. Here the challenge is a little different. We have time to slow down and prepare a proper presentation. We need to stay high level, but add a little more concreteness than when we worked alone or with a partner. People who read the pitch and look at the drawings without much context need to “get” the idea.

We need more concreteness, but we don’t want to over-specify the design with wireframes or high-fidelity mocks. They’ll box in the designers who do the work later. We also risk side-tracking the discussion into topics like color, proportions, or layout that have nothing to do with the actual shaping work we did.

At the same time, hand-written breadboards have a “you had to be there” quality to them. To people who didn’t watch the breadboard unfold step by step, it can look like a soup of words and arrows.

Therefore we need some techniques to help people see the idea while still not going too far into irrelevant details.

Embedded sketches

Suppose your breadboard from the shaping session looked like this:

A breadboard for the payments form. Under Dashboard: Go to Form, Send Form Link, and Change Form Settings. Go to Form points with an arrow to Simple Payment Form. Under Simple Payment Form: Name, Email, Company, Payment For, Payment Amount, CC Fields, Submit and FI Logo. Submit points to a Thank You screen.

People might have trouble visualizing where these new affordances go on the Dashboard. We could sketch a new box on the Dashboard to make it clearer:

A screenshot of the dashboard with some hand drawing on top. A box is hand drawn at the top of the dashboard. Handwritten laters say: Payment form preview and links go here.

But we’re still asking people to imagine too much. It’s worth the trade-off to go one step down into fat-marker detail here.

The same screenshot again. This time in the box on top some small drawings are superimposed. They correspond to the elements in the breadboard. They are drawn roughly, in the fat marker style. In the left side, text appears saying: Send the link to customers. A squiggle below suggests a copyable URL. Below that a link is hand-drawn with the text: Change your Form Settings. A vetical line divides the box. To its right a rough sketch of a payment form appears with the words Go to Your Form above it.

This makes it easier to see what the elements are and evaluate how clearly the feature presents itself on the dashboard. The downside is we’ve gotten into some layout decisions that would have been nice to avoid. Designers should feel free to find a different design than the box divided with a vertical line. We’d add a disclaimer here in the pitch that reminds designers of the latitude they should take.

This is an example of selectively getting into more visual detail because we need it to sell the concept. Fortunately, we won’t need to make as many visual decisions in other parts of the concept. This was a “linchpin” part of the design that everybody had to see concretely in order to “get” it.

Annotated fat marker sketches

Sometimes ideas are inherently visual or a little too complicated to express in a schematic breadboard. Fat marker sketches can be very effective in a pitch; you just need to take more care to label them cleanly.

Redrawing the sketch on an iPad—still with a fat brush size—works well. You can use different colors to separate the labels from the material parts of the sketch.

A fat marker sketch of the to-do groups concept, drawn a bit more neatly with different colors. The fat marker sketch itself is orange. To its right, labels hand drawn in purple point out the List Name, the Loose items and the Groups.

Or you might add some call-outs to enable discussion of specific elements.

Two fat marker sketches are annotated with hand drawn numbers one and two on the left. The numbers are drawn neatly in white on black circles so they look like call-outs.

Ingredient 4. Rabbit holes

Sometimes addressing a rabbit hole just requires a few lines of text. For example, in the Payment Form project above, the shapers wanted to call out a specific solution for how to create URLs. The URLs would never live on custom domains for v1 of the project. This is the kind of thing that’s not central to the concept, but spelling it out patches a potential rabbit hole.

Ingredient 5. No Gos

Lastly if there’s anything we’re not doing in this concept, it’s good to mention it here. In the case of the Payment Form project, the team decided up front that they wouldn’t allow any kind of WYSIWYG editing of the form. Users would only be able to provide a logo and customize the header text on a separate “customize” page. WYSIWYG might be better in some peoples’ eyes, but given the appetite it was important to mark this as a no-go.


Here are two examples of real pitches.

This pitch for grouping to-dos together starts by showing a workaround people are using in the current design. Then it sketches out all the main ideas for how to enable optional to-do groupings.

A scaled-down screenshot of a full pitch for the To-Dos feature. It looks like a document. The document starts with two screenshots demonstrating the workaround for grouping to-dos without the feature. Then five fat marker sketches follow that show the shaped idea. Paragraphs of explanatory text surround each sketch.

Two screenshots demonstrate the problem. Fat marker sketches describe the solution. Rabbit holes motivated some of the sketches.

This pitch for changing how notifications work starts with two videos to demonstrate the problem. The black boxes toward the end are a visualization of user behavior data that supports a decision in the pitch.

Another scaled-down screenshot of a pitch. This one has two videos embedded in the document at the start. After some paragraphs, a fat marker sketch appears, followed by a screenshot thats annotated with handwriting. Two black boxes contain what looks like some data visualization. A breadboard is at the end. All the images are interspersed with short paragraphs of text.

Two videos show the problem. A fat marker sketch and a breadboard describe the solution. The black boxes contain data visualizations that support trade-offs in the solution.

Ready to present

The next step will be to make the case that this pitch describes a bet worth making. This can happen in a couple ways.

We prefer asynchronous communication by default and escalate to real-time only when necessary. This gives everyone the maximum amount of time under their own control for doing real work. That means the first step for presenting a pitch is posting the write-up with all the ingredients above somewhere that stakeholders can read it on their own time. This keeps the betting table short and productive. In ideal conditions everyone has time to read the pitches in advance. And if that isn’t possible in some cases, the pitch is ready to pull up for a quick live sell.

How we do it in Basecamp

We post pitches as Messages in Basecamp. We created a Message Category called Pitch so we can easily find them. Pitches are posted to a Team called Product Strategy that can be accessed by people on the betting table.

A screenshot of a Message Board in a Basecamp team called Product Strategy. Five Pitches appear in the list.

Pitches on the Message Board of the Product Strategy team in Basecamp

A screenshot of a Pitch posted as a Message in Basecamp. It is titled: Sort Messages Setting (Revised). It looks like a document. The first part of the pitch describes an example customer case. The second section is titled 'Looking for a 1-weeker' and describes the appetite.

A pitch as a Message. Note the one-week appetite. This was a Small Batch project.

When we need to include a fat marker sketch in a pitch, we’ll draw it on an iPad (with Notability) and take a screenshot. Basecamp’s text editor makes it easy to insert images and caption them so they make sense in the flow of the pitch.

Screenshot of another Pitch in Basecamp. The part of the pitch that is scrolled into view has a fat marker sketch embedded in the middle.

A sketch drawn on an iPad in the middle of a pitch

People comment on the pitch asynchronously. Not to say yes or no — that happens at the betting table — but to poke holes or contribute missing information.

A screenshot of a pitch that is scrolled down to the bottom. A breadboard appears at the end of the document. Below that, a comment thread begins. The first comment is by David, the CTO, providing information about what the pitch requires from a technical standpoint.

Our CTO responds with technical thoughts on the pitch.

In the next chapter we’ll look at the betting process in more detail to see where pitches go and how we turn them into scheduled projects.

We built Basecamp to execute the techniques in this book. It puts all our project communication, task management, and documentation in one place where designers and programmers work seamlessly together. See How to Implement the Shape Up Method in Basecamp.