2. How to Announce Your Fundraise Without a Headache - A PR Crash Course With Elisheva Marcus from Earlybird VC

A crisp crash course on announcing your fundraise correctly, including:a good timeline for drafting, reviewing, and sending out the press releasehow to correctly manage stakeholder feedbackand how to maximize the benefits of the announcementThe guest you’ll hear from today, Elisheva Marcus, and I met at the Deep Tech Momentum conference in Berlin and connected over nerding out about comms.Elisheva Marcus has an MSc in Biomedical Communication and brings expertise from the San Jose Mercury News, Ada Health, Bayer, and more. Since 2020, she has been the VP of Communications at Earlybird Venture Capital, supporting portfolio founders as a sparring partner. By the way, Earlybird Venture Capital was founded in 1997 and is among the most experienced venture investors in Europe, covering all development and growth stages from pre-seed to growth in industries like fintech, health tech, and deep tech.---LinksConnect with Elli:https://www.linkedin.com/in/elisheva-marcus/Check out Earlybird:https://earlybird.com/Connect with me:https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/Structure of a Strong Press Release or AnnouncementTitleUse active, direct language.Avoid buzzwords.Commit to a single, powerful title (no subtitle).Key Bullet PointsThree concise bullets summarizing the essential news.Designed for quick journalistic scanning.Represent the three to four main ideas the body will expand on.Header InformationInclude date and location.Opening ParagraphStart with a strong, engaging first sentence.Avoid generic or slow openings.Main BodyExpand on the bullet points in a clear, logical flow.Ensure coherence and story progression.Cover the who, what, where, when, and why.Include:Amount raised (with correct denomination)Impact and significanceThe team and why they’re the right peopleA quote from leadership or a clientHow the funds will be used and why it’s memorableClosing SectionEnd with a short About section or call to action.Provide contact or follow-up information.

Climate activism failed to inspire hope, can founders fill the void? Discover why the next cultural revolution won’t be led by politicians, but by startup leaders.Episode SummaryIn this solo episode, Marina Schmidt dissects how startup founders have become some of the most powerful public communicators of our time—and why that power matters. She explores the rise of founder evangelism, the cultural shift from corporate branding to personal leadership, and the urgent need for integrity-driven voices in an era of polarization and information overload.Drawing on her decade of experience across media, startups, and communications, Marina outlines six theses that map the transformation of founders from company builders to narrative shapers—people who influence culture, policy, and public trust. She argues that after the failure of fear-based climate activism, the responsibility to offer hope, direction, and credible optimism now falls to founders who are building tangible solutions for a better future.The rise of founder evangelism and the decentralization of influenceHow social media and podcasts transformed CEOs into cultural figuresThe power shift from institutions to individualsFounders as lighthouses: signaling hope, direction, and visionThe dark side of influence—when founders mislead or polarizeWhy climate activism failed and what founders can learn from itThe “Hope–Hook–Opportunity–Path–Excitement” framework for storytellingThe role of founders in restoring public trust and building new role modelsThe role of founders is no longer limited to business leadership. In an age where voices travel faster than institutions, founders shape how society sees the future. They can deepen divides—or illuminate the path forward. The question is not whether to speak, but what kind of lighthouse you want to be.Key Wordsfounder branding, founder influence, startup communication, leadership storytelling, public narrative, media influence, hope-based communication, climate activism, decentralization of media, founder evangelism, science communication, tech founders, responsible leadership, thought leadership, narrative framing, communication strategy, startup culture, future builders, social impact founders, trust and influence

The food tech and biotech podcast Red to Green is becoming Scaling Nerds: the communications podcast for science & tech founders. New episodes every two weeks!Please share with friends, colleagues and whoever might be interested.Connect with Marina Schmidt on LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/Need help with comms as a startup founder? Check out https://www.wearekinetik.com/

Find out all the details about micro fermentation. Discover how Formo is using this process to churn out Koji protein-based cheese alternatives that are hitting over 2000 stores in the DACH region. The episode breaks down the differences between micro and precision fermentation and why micro fermentation's quicker market route is so exciting. Learn about the sustainability perks and the cool science behind cheese without cows. Whether you're into biotech, sustainable food, or just love cheese, this deep dive offers a taste of the future. LINKS / Mentions The Bright Green Partners overview on different types of fermentation https://brightgreenpartners.com/precision-fermentation/ Formo - https://formo.bio/https://formo.bio/ Raffa - https://www.linkedin.com/in/raffael-wohlgensinger/ Connect with Marina - https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/ Check out R2G Media - https://www.r2g.media/ Turtle Tree - https://www.turtletree.com/ Flora Ventures - https://www.floravc.com/ Foodlabs - https://www.foodlabs.com/ 00:00 Introduction to Micro Fermentation 04:11 Product Launches 05:32 Deep Dive Micro Fermentation 17:31 Product Development and Consumer Testing 20:56 PF vs. MF in detail 27:24 Benefits of Koji 29:23 Regulatory Landscape 31:47 Fundraising Perks 34:44 Sustainability Impact 42:50 Partnering with Traditional Dairy Manufacturers 46:06 Go to market 47:08 Future Innovations

- An old episode from the Red to Green Podcast on Food Tech & Bio Tech. Listen if you are interested in the future of food, but this isn’t Scaling Nerds.Red to Green was a podcast that investigated how to transition the food industry from harmful to healthy, from polluting to sustainable, from Red to Green. Each season had a different topicSeason: Cultivated MeatSeason: Plastic AlternativesSeason: Food HistorySeason: Food WasteSeason: Biotech in FoodSeason: Book Reviews on the future of foodLet’s finish discussing our book “Meals to Come- The History of the Future of Food.”  You will hear about  - how modern solutions of cornucopias, Malthusian, and egalitarians look like - why it can be useful to add an ecological perspective - a tapestry of some of my favorite quotes from the book discussing how belief systems and rhetoric have shaped the future of food predictions. Super, super interesting. And after about 10 minutes of that, we will get into the summary of the entire season.I am joined by my cohost if Frank Alexander Kuehne, the Chief of the Advisory Board of the herb and spice producer RAPS and the Managing director of the Adalbert Raps Foundation, funding research on sustainable food science. More on that laterHere is a quick reminder from last episode describing the three types of food futurists - cornucopias, Malthusians and Egalitarians.1. Cornocopians believe "innovation will fix anything" and throw tech at any problem. We need to go better, faster, and stronger with new approaches.Main theme -> Innovate (biotech in food, cell ag, novel fertilizers, etc.)2. Modern Malthusians believe we need to reduce our consumption, respect the earth's limits and find ways to reduce, reuse and recycle.Main theme -> Save (AI to reduce food waste, CSR)3. Egalitarians believe we would have enough if we would share it better. Environmental issues are a reflection of social inequality. Local is beautiful.Main theme -> Share (Local markets, local food production, foreign development)4. Ecologists (a category I added) believe we must live in line with nature again. Get off the chemical, agricultural treadmill and think in ecosystems.Main theme -> Restore (agroforests, regenerative agriculture)Ultimately, the solution is not an either-or but an "and." It helps to be aware of one "default" view and recognize which other perspectives may be good to develop.Get funding for your food science research: ⁠⁠https://en.raps-stiftung.de/foerderbereiche/lebensmittelforschung⁠⁠Seeds of Science ⁠https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Science-Why-Wrong-GMOs/dp/1472946987⁠Connect with the host, Marina ⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/⁠⁠Connect with the host, Frank ⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/⁠⁠Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes! <3DISCLAIMER - The podcast and article represent the personal opinions and interpretations of the participants). The statements may be exaggerated for entertainment and/or comedic purposes. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented per the cited sources. However, the participants do not guarantee the completeness or timeliness of the information. Readers are encouraged to verify the information presented and conduct their own research independently. The participants acknowledge that mentioned parties may have the right to an alternative interpretation of matters discussed.

- An old episode from the Red to Green Podcast on Food Tech & Bio Tech. Listen if you are interested in the future of food, but this isn’t Scaling Nerds.Red to Green was a podcast that investigated how to transition the food industry from harmful to healthy, from polluting to sustainable, from Red to Green. Each season had a different topicSeason: Cultivated MeatSeason: Plastic AlternativesSeason: Food HistorySeason: Food WasteSeason: Biotech in FoodSeason: Book Reviews on the future of foodThe worry and the question “will we run out of food?” is as old as humanity itself. And every couple of decades, this question seems to reappear in intense debates. For example, it did in the 1920s, late 1940s, 1960 and 1970s, and 1990s. These worries are usually fired up by 4 main reasons(T) sudden inflation in food prices; (z) environmental stresses, such as urban congestion, bad harvests, or a degradation of agricultural resources(3) scary demographics, such as an unexpectedly high spike in population growth; (4) cultural anxieties about sexuality, working-class unrest or a spike of immigrantsAnd just as our worries about the future of food have been around for a while so have been the ideas for solutions.Did you know that already over 100 years ago scientists and entrepreneurs believed burgers made from algae would be a thing? Looking into history can be humbling. And today we are looking into my favorite topic - the history of the future of food.Today’s book is called “Meals to come - the history of the future of food.” It’s 400 pages thick and was published in 2006 but aye, it’s history. The author Warren James Belasco was  For more than thirty years, Dr. Belasco taught, researched, at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA writing about food history and food culture.He is my favorite food historian, so I am clearly biased here. But dare I say - you are in for a treat. I am chatting about this book with my wonderful co-host Frank Alexander Kuene. Frank is the Managing director of the Adalbert Raps foundation, offering grants for food science research focused on sustainability. He is also the Chief of Advisory Board at the German herb and spice company RAPS Gmbh.Get funding for your food science research: ⁠https://en.raps-stiftung.de/foerderbereiche/lebensmittelforschung⁠Seeds of Science https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Science-Why-Wrong-GMOs/dp/1472946987Connect with the host, Marina ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/⁠Connect with the host, Frank ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/⁠Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes! <3DISCLAIMER - The podcast and article represent the personal opinions and interpretations of the participants). The statements may be exaggerated for entertainment and/or comedic purposes. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented per the cited sources. However, the participants do not guarantee the completeness or timeliness of the information. Readers are encouraged to verify the information presented and conduct their own research independently. The participants acknowledge that mentioned parties may have the right to an alternative interpretation of matters discussed.

- An old episode from the Red to Green Podcast on Food Tech & Bio Tech. Listen if you are interested in the future of food, but this isn’t Scaling Nerds.Red to Green was a podcast that investigated how to transition the food industry from harmful to healthy, from polluting to sustainable, from Red to Green. Each season had a different topicSeason: Cultivated MeatSeason: Plastic AlternativesSeason: Food HistorySeason: Food WasteSeason: Biotech in FoodSeason: Book Reviews on the future of foodIn May 2019, the husband and wife Alva and Alberta Pilliod won a federal court case against Monsanto. Both of them had developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. This cancer causes white blood cells called lymphocytes to grow abnormally throughout the body. The farmers worked decades with the herbicide, which Monsanto claimed is safe to use. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorized the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, as a “probable carcinogen.” And this was the basis for the judge's decision to decide in favour of the couple. Bayer AG had to pay a fine of $2 billion because it had acquired Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup. One year after the merger, BAYER's share price was still cut in half. The pharmaceutical giant had signed up for an ever-increasing burden of legal battles. In 2019, 18.000 lawsuits were pending in the US. Most of them due to cancer cases potentially linked to Roundup. For numerous decades, Monsanto marketed their herbicide as safe to use for farmers and individuals. Most regulatory bodies categorize glyphosate as safe, including - Health CanadaWhy does the International Agency for Research on Cancer come to a different conclusion than all the other agencies? Possibly because they only consider “publicly available and pertinent studies, by independent experts, free from vested interests.”But apparently, the amount of independent studies on glyphosate-based pesticides is rather limited. How can the world's most-used pesticide have so few independent studies? Is this really a coincidence?Get funding for your food science research: ⁠https://en.raps-stiftung.de/foerderbereiche/lebensmittelforschung⁠Seeds of Science https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Science-Why-Wrong-GMOs/dp/1472946987Connect with the host, Marina ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/⁠Connect with the host, Frank ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/⁠Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes! <3DISCLAIMER - The podcast and article represent the personal opinions and interpretations of the participants). The statements may be exaggerated for entertainment and/or comedic purposes. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented per the cited sources. However, the participants do not guarantee the completeness or timeliness of the information. Readers are encouraged to verify the information presented and conduct their own research independently. The participants acknowledge that Bayer Crop Science and/or other parties mentioned have the right to an alternative interpretation of matters discussed.

- An old episode from the Red to Green Podcast on Food Tech & Bio Tech. Listen if you are interested in the future of food, but this isn’t Scaling Nerds.Red to Green was a podcast that investigated how to transition the food industry from harmful to healthy, from polluting to sustainable, from Red to Green. Each season had a different topicSeason: Cultivated MeatSeason: Plastic AlternativesSeason: Food HistorySeason: Food WasteSeason: Biotech in FoodSeason: Book Reviews on the future of foodIn early 2012  scientists at Rothamsted Research in England started an airfield trial of genetically modified wheat ( the first in the UK for many years ). THe research was publicly funded by a plant science centre based in the south of England. The genetically engineered wheat was sown behind a high fence and protected by 24-hour security. You will find out why all this security was needed in a second. The aim of the research was to test and check whether an added gene would repel aphids.  The small sucking insects are commonly called greenflies and blackflies. The wheat would exude a pheromone that repels them. A pheromone is a chemical produced by an organism that influences other individuals of the same species. We also have pheromones, which are pretty useful for dating. The theory was that if wheat could exude these unattractive pheromones, the insects would stop attacking it. And this way, we could save lots of pesticides. Actually, this is a great approach. The stakes were high because a group of anti - GMO protesters had vowed to destroy the test site before the experiment could offer any results. In response, the scientists released a passionate YouTube video appeal. They talked to the media and pleaded that their effort was >actually< to reduce pesticide use. One of the scientists, Toby Bruce, addressed the camera directly; he said: We have developed this new variety of wheat which doesn’t require treatment with an insecticide, and it uses a natural aphid repellent which already widely occurs in nature and is produced by more than 400 different plant species. We have engineered this into the wheat genome so that the wheat can do the same thing and defend itself. Are you really against this? Because it could have a lot of environmental benefits. Or is it simply you distrust it because it’s a GMO? Another Rothamsted scientist in the video was Janet Martin, who asked quite reasonably: ‘ You seem to think, even before we’ve had a chance to test the trial, that our GM wheat variety is bad. But how can you know this? ’ She paused and uttered a weary, unscripted sigh before continuing. ‘ It’s clearly not through scientific investigation because we’ve not even had a chance to do any tests yet. Get funding for your food science research: ⁠⁠https://en.raps-stiftung.de/foerderbereiche/lebensmittelforschung⁠⁠Seeds of Science ⁠https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Science-Why-Wrong-GMOs/dp/1472946987⁠Connect with the host, Marina ⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/⁠⁠Connect with the host, Frank ⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/⁠⁠Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes! <3DISCLAIMER - The podcast and article represent the personal opinions and interpretations of the participants). The statements may be exaggerated for entertainment and/or comedic purposes. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented per the cited sources. However, the participants do not guarantee the completeness or timeliness of the information. Readers are encouraged to verify the information presented and conduct their own research independently. The participants acknowledge that Bayer Crop Science and/or other parties mentioned have the right to an alternative interpretation of matters discussed.

- An old episode from the Red to Green Podcast on Food Tech & Bio Tech. Listen if you are interested in the future of food, but this isn’t Scaling Nerds.Red to Green was a podcast that investigated how to transition the food industry from harmful to healthy, from polluting to sustainable, from Red to Green. Each season had a different topicSeason: Cultivated MeatSeason: Plastic AlternativesSeason: Food HistorySeason: Food WasteSeason: Biotech in FoodSeason: Book Reviews on the future of foodSo how are the politics of the food system rigged? This is the second part of our book talk on "Food Politics- How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health, " Find out how lobbying is different in the US vus Europe; you will learn about a bunch of concepts like soft and hard balling, the revolving door and commerciogenic malnutrition and Frank also shares an insider story of working or maybe more fitting - not working - with food safety authorities. LINKThe book Food Politics by Marion Nestle https://www.foodpolitics.com/Connect with the host, Marina https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/Connect with the host, Frank https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes! <3HashtagsNanotechnology in Food, Food Safety regulation, food safety Europe, EFSA, European food safety, food regulation, food legislation, food security, food additives, food industry, future of food, food innovation, food technology

- An old episode from the Red to Green Podcast on Food Tech & Bio Tech. Listen if you are interested in the future of food, but this isn’t Scaling Nerds.Red to Green was a podcast that investigated how to transition the food industry from harmful to healthy, from polluting to sustainable, from Red to Green. Each season had a different topicSeason: Cultivated MeatSeason: Plastic AlternativesSeason: Food HistorySeason: Food WasteSeason: Biotech in FoodSeason: Book Reviews on the future of foodWhy nutrition guidelines have become too much about single nutrients, the struggle of the food pyramid and Frank’s experience with lobbyism.Avoid saturated fat intake, increase your potassium intake, and Avoid transfats.  this Eating more fruits and veggies and less animal products and processed food is better for human health AND the environment. This episode discusses the food industry's influence on nutrition guidelines. Inspired by a book by Marion Nestle - American molecular biologist, nutritionist, and public health advocate.“Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health” The book is from 2007 and focuses on the American nutrition system but it is still super relevant. LINKConnect with the host, Marina https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/Connect with the host, Frank https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes! <3HashtagsNanotechnology in Food, Food Safety regulation, food safety Europe, EFSA, European food safety, food regulation, food legislation, food security, food additives, food industry, future of food, food innovation, food technologyEpisode analytics