Frequently Asked Questions

The old process had two steps: a long application (Step 1) and a pitch interview (Step 2). Step 1 had very low success rates (below 10%), while Step 2 had much higher success rates (around 50%). Startups found that their chances of getting funding improved as they progressed through the steps. Many applicants used professional writers to help with the application.

The effort-to-success ratio is crucial because it determines whether the time and resources invested in the application are worthwhile. If applicants spend a lot of time on an application stage with a low success rate, it can be frustrating and discouraging. Ideally, the effort required should be proportional to the chances of success.

Remote pitch evaluations could allow the EIC to screen more companies at scale. This could potentially lower the success rates for the interview and pitch evaluation stage. It could also change the dynamics of the application process, requiring applicants to adapt their pitch strategies.

The worst-case scenario is when applicants invest a significant amount of effort into the initial application stages, only to face a very low success rate in the final step. This leads to a considerable waste of time and resources, making the entire process feel unproductive and frustrating for those who are ultimately rejected.

Thematic topics are separate funding arms within the EIC Accelerator that focus on specific areas. They have their own budgets, evaluator pools, and levels of competitiveness. This increases the complexity of the evaluation process and can affect the effort-to-success ratio for each step's selection.

Applicants should stay informed about the latest updates and guidelines from the EASME and EIC. They should also focus on crafting a compelling mini-application and video pitch that effectively communicate their innovation and potential. Consider seeking professional advice to optimize your application strategy.

The ESR helps you decide whether to rework or abandon the application. It highlights the weakest sections and why they are lacking. It also emphasizes the balance between sub-criteria scores. Finally, it offers a shortlist of improvement strategies based on experience and score ranges.

A score in the 12-13 range suggests an average proposal. Improving the narrative, such as the EU impact, quantifying sections better, and creating clearer roadmaps, can be sufficient to achieve a higher score. Re-assess the narrative, consistency, and design of the application, and ensure the innovation is presented effectively.

The sub-criteria are graded on a scale. 'Very Good to Excellent' is 4.5-5, 'Good to Very Good' is 3.5-4.49, 'Fair to Good' is 2.5-3.49, 'Insufficient to Fair' is 1.5-2.49, and 'Insufficient' is 0-1.49. These ranges help you understand the strengths and weaknesses of different aspects of your proposal.

The overall impression is crucial because evaluators are influenced by the initial presentation. Issues like cut-off text, unreadable graphics, or inconsistent font use can significantly lower the score. Addressing these superficial elements can have a surprisingly positive impact on the overall evaluation.

If your proposal scores are consistently 'Good to Very Good,' focus on enhancing the overall presentation. Improving the writing quality, quantification, consistency, design, and narrative can elevate the overall impression. This can potentially raise the base score to 'Very Good to Excellent' without needing to overhaul each sub-criterion.

When resubmitting, start by thoroughly analyzing the ESR. Identify the weakest areas based on the scores and evaluator feedback. Then, focus on making targeted improvements to those specific sections. Remember to address the overall presentation and narrative to create a strong, cohesive proposal.

The sub-criteria scores provide a more granular view of the evaluation. Focus on the relative values of these scores. Identifying which areas stand out as significantly lower than others is key. It's more beneficial to balance the sub-criteria scores than to try and maximize each one individually.

A score below 11 indicates significant issues with the proposal. It likely means the template wasn't properly addressed, answers were too brief, or the innovation doesn't align with EU criteria. The writing, design, and overall quality are probably insufficient, so consider working with a professional writer or grant consultant for a comprehensive overhaul.

A score of 13-14 is excellent and qualifies for the EU's Seal of Excellence. Improvements at this level are usually minor and detailed. Focus on maintaining consistency throughout the application and identifying any areas that might 'throw the reader off.' Also, emphasize the impact of the innovation and its relevance to EU priorities.

Receiving the Seal of Excellence (SOE) means your proposal has been evaluated as high-quality and meets the EU's standards. While it doesn't guarantee funding from the EIC Accelerator, it makes you eligible to receive grant funding from other sources. It's a strong validation of your project's potential.

UK companies can participate in the EIC Accelerator grant program but are not eligible for equity financing. This could be beneficial for UK companies, as non-dilutive grants are highly desirable, and there's no risk of receiving an unwanted equity counter-offer.

Unlike the EIC Pathfinder and Transition, the EIC Accelerator uses a YES/NO grading system for each evaluation step instead of scoring and ranking. This means applications are assessed based on whether they meet the criteria, potentially leading to a less transparent evaluation process. The evaluators will determine if the application is approved or rejected.

The EIC Accelerator is evolving from a pilot phase into a fully-fledged investment arm of the European Commission. This includes changes to the application process, evaluation steps, and technical aspects. The program now offers blended financing (grant and equity) and is part of the Horizon Europe initiative.

Open Calls are available to all eligible applicants, while Strategic Challenges have specific topic restrictions. Each funding arm has its own budget and guidelines, focusing on different types of companies and their impact on EU policy targets. Companies must decide which call they will apply to.

A major improvement in the new EIC Accelerator is the introduction of concrete feedback for rejected applicants. Both successful and rejected Step 1 applications will receive comments from the evaluators. This feedback aims to help applicants understand why their proposal was unsuccessful and improve future submissions.

Step 1 requires a 5-page project summary, a 3-minute pitch video, and a pitch deck. The 5-pager should focus on the Excellence and Impact of the technology, while the pitch video should address all evaluation criteria. The pitch deck will likely follow the structure of previous Step 3 interviews.

Companies now have a limited number of attempts to succeed in each evaluation step. If rejected twice at the same step, they'll be blocked from further submissions for at least 12 months, potentially impacting their ability to secure funding for that specific project. This encourages applicants to seek professional help earlier in the process.

The Strategic Challenges focus on the Green Deal, digital technologies, and healthcare. The Green Deal targets climate mitigation, clean energy, and sustainable mobility. Digital technologies include areas like AI, cybersecurity, and cloud infrastructure. Healthcare focuses on AI-driven diagnostics, cell and gene therapy, and e-health solutions.

Successful Step 1 applicants receive 3 days of coaching. The Seal of Excellence is awarded based on Impact and Excellence, while Implementation determines funding decisions. Applicants can now be natural persons (individuals) if they form an SME before signing the contract. Equity components can be postponed by first applying for a grant.

Yes, the EIC aims for 40% of Step 3 interviewees to have female CEOs and 35% of funded businesses to meet this criterion. Additionally, each EU member state and associated country must be represented in the Step 3 interview stage, proportionate to their application numbers, introducing geographic restrictions.

Use timelines and schemes to illustrate the past and future developments of your project. Highlight the current point in time as a unique investment opportunity. Present TRL stages by segmenting past developments (TRL 1-6) from future developments (TRL 6-9), or summarize the entire project timeline in a full-width spread.

Yes, the principles of using effective graphics and design apply to both the written proposal and the interview pitch deck. A professional writer or consultant should be aware of the impact of visuals on the evaluation process in both formats. Use images to clearly and concisely communicate your key messages during the interview.

The overall page design is crucial for increasing the application's appeal. Use a cover page, consistent colors, easy-to-read spacing and fonts, a table of contents, and visually separated headers and sub-headers. These simple steps can significantly improve the application's presentation and readability for evaluators.

You can use either vector graphic software (like Adobe Illustrator or Corel Draw) or slide software (like PowerPoint or Google Slides). Slide software is easier to use with many presets, while vector graphics software offers more customization and higher quality results. Choose the software you're most comfortable with to create clear and effective visuals.

In the Innovativeness section, use comparison tables to clearly communicate your unique value propositions and highlight competitors' shortcomings. Axis graphics or overlapping-circles graphs can also be effective. Consider including technically oriented figures that compare your technology to alternatives, showcasing its advantages.

If your technology is complex, use a schematic graph or mindmap to explain its basic principles before diving into the specifics of your innovation. This helps evaluators understand the underlying technology. Alternatively, you can use an image to illustrate the 'missing link' and how your solution fills the need, showing the overall strategy for solving the problem.

Images are crucial for simplifying complex information and making your application more engaging for evaluators. They can summarize large amounts of text, highlight key differentiators, and visually represent your technology and its impact. Effective visuals can significantly improve your proposal's score and chances of success.

While requiring slightly more skill, vector graphics software provides extensive features for designing and customizing images perfectly. The result is typically higher in quality and more customized. Vector graphics software also simplifies working with customized pictograms and imported vector graphics, avoiding tedious conversions.

The Solution section should be highly visual, showcasing your product's features and how it operates. Use a variety of images, such as concept charts, product photos, screenshots of user interfaces, or diagrams of production machinery. Start with a concept graphic explaining how your innovation works, then move to images representing software and hardware components.

In the introduction, use images that quickly and clearly illustrate the problem your project solves. Think charts, graphs, or visuals that summarize key facts about the environmental, political, social, or commercial issue you're addressing. The image should tell a story, leading from one fact to another and highlighting the core problem or business opportunity.

Images are crucial because they quickly convey information and capture reviewers' attention. Reviewers often scan the application visually first, so compelling images can significantly improve the proposal's perceived quality and overall score. They help communicate complex ideas concisely and can highlight key aspects of your innovation project.

No, the content of your proposal should always be your primary focus. However, don't neglect the visual presentation. While formatting and design shouldn't be the first priority, a well-designed proposal can significantly improve its chances of success by making it more engaging and easier to understand.

Focus on illustrations that visually represent aspects unique to the EIC application. This includes the timing of your innovation, Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), financing history, non-bankability, or the need for EIC support. Also, consider illustrating projected GHG emission savings, scientific principles, or complex commercial strategies.

To ensure high image quality, recreate relevant images instead of relying solely on existing ones. This allows you to control font sizes, color schemes, and resolution, creating a consistent and professional look. High-quality images contribute to the overall appeal and success chances of your application.

Consider collaborating with a professional writer or grant consultant who has experience in page design and illustration. They can help you create visually appealing and effective images that enhance your proposal. Investing in professional design can significantly improve your chances of success.

This is Part 1 of a series. Look for Part 2 of this article for more in-depth guidance on designing effective images for your EIC Accelerator application. The second part will likely provide further tips and strategies to improve your proposal's visual presentation.

While you can use existing images, it's often better to create dedicated illustrations. Existing images might have poor formatting, low resolution, or fail to address the specific requirements of the EIC Accelerator template. Recreating images ensures consistency in font sizes, color schemes, and resolution, enhancing the proposal's overall appeal.

Illustrations can compress complex messages into easily digestible visuals. They help readers quickly understand principles and concepts that might take longer to explain in text. Visuals are particularly useful for illustrating scientific principles, multi-channel commercial strategies, or the impact of your innovation.

Make sure each page includes some type of visual element, such as an image, photo, table, or figure. Use formatting tweaks like lines, boxes, and pictograms to enhance visual appeal. Illustrations are particularly effective for conveying key messages and drawing the reader's attention.

Consistent font sizes, color schemes, and resolution quality across all images enhance the application's overall appeal. This consistency creates a professional and polished look, signaling attention to detail and increasing the reviewers' confidence in your proposal. It shows you've invested time and effort into presenting your innovation effectively.

Consider which partners hold the most authority in your target market. Think about how their endorsement could build trust with customers. Explore diversifying your existing strategy with additional partners and sales channels to maximize your potential for growth and profitability.

Don't just describe your product development and target markets. Instead, detail the specific steps you'll take to scale within those markets. A strong commercial strategy should outline a network of carefully selected partners who are crucial for reaching your target customers and driving significant growth.

Your commercial strategy should detail the specific measures you'll take to scale within your target markets. It should also describe a network of carefully selected partners who are imperative to reaching your target customers. Clearly outline the roles of these partners in commercializing your product.

New startups often face skepticism from potential customers, especially in B2B settings. Established companies may be hesitant to commit to a new business that might not last. Building trust through social proof (validation by trusted third parties) or a strong track record is essential for overcoming this hurdle.