2024 National Finals

Feedback from the shortlisters

2024 was the biggest ever year for submissions for the Future Anything National Finals!

Over 270 applications from 650+ students from across Australia were received, and the standard was higher than ever.

Whether you made it to the next stage or not, we’d like to congratulate all teams who created such compelling, exciting ideas, and acknowledge all the wonderful teachers that supported them.

The reviewers had a super hard task to narrow down the applications to the top 40 pitching teams to progress to the National Semi Finals, and a further 10 showcase teams to progress directly to the National Grand Final Showcase.

Here we share some of the common feedback from the reviewers:

  • Clearly articulating the problem & points of difference:
    • Some of the strongest submissions were those that were able to clearly articulate their problem and innovative solution in one short sentence
    • There was much better problem articulation this year compared to previous years using statistics and facts to back up why the problem is actually a problem. Great work!
    • The strongest solutions named competitors and articulated clear points of difference to these organisations – makeing it clear how they were different or better.
    • Many submissions used ‘cheap/cheaper’ as a point of difference when their product hadn’t yet been produced – so there’s no way to guarantee that it can be made cheaper than the named competitor. We recommend all teams avoid ‘cheaper’ as a point of difference.
  • Common products/solutions:
    • There were lots of submissions for certain products meaning that there was strong competition in these areas. Where a submission was for a very common product/solution, the strongest submissions were those that showed a clear point of difference, had attempted some physical prototyping and/or addressed the issues below
    • There were many submissions for apparel again this year– the strongest ones were those that had mock-ups (using online mock up creators) and a clear point of difference with a niche target audience. In may cases, the team had a creative on the team who had designed the apparel.
    • There were many submissions for safety buttons or jewellery for elderly or people experiencing family violence  – this is a very saturated market and many submissions did not present a clear point of difference from the very expensive solutions already available. Again, cheaper is not a point of difference.
    • There were many (many) submissions for books this year. These are easy to prototype and sell (event digitally) so to be competitive, these submissions needed to have well-crafted (and complete) prototypes.
    • There were many sunburn / sun care solutions this year. Where a tech solution (e.g to notify the wearer of UV levels), there needed to be greater explanation of how the tech worked and research to back up that this is possible. Without this, the ideas lacked credibility.
    • There were many (many) jewellery products made from recycled products – this is a good microbusiness but limited in levels of innovation. Successful ideas had a product that they had developed and were selling to their local community.
    • There were several vertical garden / garden bed solutions without clear differentiation from a crowded market. It wasn’t always clear how these were going to be manufactured, or compete against the options available in large retailers like Bunnings. Identifying a niche target user was one way to create a unique take on the idea.
    • There were lots of app solutions again this year (especially for mental health). Apps are very expensive to produce, and in most cases, the team hadn’t articulated how their solution was different to existing digital solutions. Successful teams had wireframed their idea, had connections to potential tech developers and had tested their idea in analogue form to ensure the idea had traction.
  • Clear focus:
    • Some teams pitched ideas with multiple products / ideas. This diluted the impact of their solution and made for a crowded idea. Successful ideas had a clearly defined problem and a clear solution that was often very simple.
  • Evidence to back up claims/solution
    • Teams often referenced getting feedback or support, but didn’t specify who had provided the feedback/ support, using that profile to build credibility of the idea and the team.
    • Some teams made references to prototypes or having an MVP, but didn’t include any evidence or links (photos/ videos).
    • Where the solution is an app, a user journey would have been helpful to explain the features and user case for the tech. Storyboarding might have been a good fix for doing this.
  • Feedback on videos:
    • To be fair to all teams, if the video was longer than a minute, the judges only watched the first 60 seconds. The strongest submissions made their point clearly and succinctly within the 60 second time limit.
    • Some videos focussed too much on the problem – when this had already been clearly articulated in the written response.
    • The strongest videos were those that were used to provide additional context not covered by written responses, and enabled the judges to get to know the founder team and see their passion
    • Some of the most compelling videos were single cut speaking to camera without any tech / slides involved as the authenticity and passion came through
  • Misc feedback
    • Lots of ideas relied on donation without strategy on how they would get the donations, store the donations and manage quality control
    • Some ideas had potential, but the target user was too broad – teams would benefit from narrowing their focus to solve a specific problem for a specific target user.
    • Food ideas needed to have addressed barriers to market re: Food safety etc