Anatomy of a CCMF Application: How to Prepare a Pitch Deck That Holds the Whole Submission Together
Most founders researching the Cyberport Creative Micro Fund (CCMF) begin with the official website, FAQs, and programme guidelines. On the surface, the submission requirements look simple: an online application form, a pitch deck upload, an optional one-minute introduction video link, and optional supporting documents.
What is less obvious at the outset is how central the pitch deck is to the entire submission. In practice, reviewers use the deck to scan quickly for alignment to CCMF expectations and assess whether the project is credible, structured, and executable. The application form then needs to reinforce the same logic, using consistent details and supporting documents.
When FundFluent prepared our CCMF application in 2020, we finalized a comprehensive, deliberately structured pitch deck first and treated it as the source of truth for completing every other component. This ensured consistency across the entire application submission.
Access FundFluent's Successful CCMF Pitch Deck
Review the full pitch deck FundFluent submitted as part of a successful CCMF application, shared as a reference artefact to help founders understand the structure, depth, and level of detail expected in a real submission.
→ Access FundFluent's 2020 CCMF application pitch deck
What you'll see:
A full 43-slide CCMF submission deck · End-to-end structure across the pitch, build plan, vision, team, and appendix · How execution ability is shown without over-claiming · Realistic early-stage B2B milestones · What supporting detail lives beyond the core story
1. Understanding CCMF Before You Start
CCMF, or the Cyberport Creative Micro Fund, provides HK$100,000 over six months for digital technology projects at the ideation or early development stage. The programme is designed for early-stage companies, including those without a fully built product or existing revenue.
When FundFluent applied in 2020, we were pre-product and pre-revenue. At that time, true idea-stage applications were commonly accepted. The competitive bar today is higher. With the widespread availability of AI and no-code tools, many shortlisted or funded applications now demonstrate elements such as customer waitlists, early validation signals, working prototypes, or initial traction or revenue. While idea-stage projects remain eligible under official guidelines, competitive applications increasingly show clear evidence that the team can execute and make progress within the six-month funding period.
Before preparing materials, it is important to understand the assessment framework. Cyberport evaluates CCMF applications using four weighted criteria:
- Project Management Team: 30%
- Business Model and Time to Market: 30%
- Creativity and Innovation: 30%
- Social Responsibility: 10%
These weightings should directly inform how the pitch deck is structured. Each major section of the deck should support one or more of these criteria in a clear and traceable way.
2. What You Actually Submit
A CCMF application consists of several components, but they do not carry equal weight. In practice, reviewers form their first and strongest impression from the pitch deck, then use the application form and supporting documents to validate what they see.
Pitch Deck (Core Document)
The pitch deck is the primary artefact that holds the entire submission together. CCMF pitch decks are not lightweight investor decks. They function as evidence documents designed to demonstrate alignment, execution ability, and internal clarity and consistency across the project.
FundFluent's CCMF submission was built around a single, comprehensive 43-slide deck. It was deliberately structured into clear sections, including the investment pitch, build and launch plan, vision and social impact, team, and a detailed appendix. This allowed reviewers to scan quickly for overall fit while still having access to depth when needed.
Reviewers should be able to understand what you are building, who it is for, why your team can execute, and what will realistically be delivered within six months, all within a short initial review window. The depth exists to support credibility, not to overwhelm.
Application Form Responses
The Cyberport Entrepreneurship Management System (EMS) application form requires written responses across multiple sections, including the project abstract, team background, business model, innovation, milestones, budget, and social responsibility.
For FundFluent's application, the pitch deck was treated as the source of truth. Application form responses were written to be concise and consistent, reinforcing the same logic, assumptions, and structure already laid out in the deck. Where appropriate, responses implicitly pointed back to specific sections of the deck rather than introducing new narratives.
This approach ensured that reviewers encountered one coherent story, expressed in both visual and written form, rather than fragmented or repetitive explanations.
One-Minute Introduction Video
The introduction video is officially optional within the application system, submitted as a link rather than an upload. In practice, it materially improves clarity and reviewer confidence.
Based on our experience, applications that include a concise, founder-led video tend to perform better. The most effective approach is not a talking-head monologue or a screen-only recording, but a short, structured pitch delivered with the founder on camera while presenting selected slides from the pitch deck.
Recording with your camera on, in a small on-screen window (Loom-style), makes a meaningful difference. It allows reviewers to connect the project to a real person, assess communication clarity, and build confidence in the team's ability to execute.
The video should reinforce what reviewers have already seen in the deck. It should not introduce new information or expand scope. Think of it as a guided, 60-second walkthrough of the core story.
Recommended 60-Second Structure
Opening (2 seconds)
Visual: Title slide
Script: Project name only. No speaking required.
The Problem (15 seconds)
Visual: Problem slide(s)
Script: In one to two sentences, explain the core problem, who it affects, and why it matters.
The Solution (25 seconds)
Visual: Solution slide(s) or selected product visuals
Script: A one-line pitch followed by two to three concrete features or capabilities. Emphasise what is novel and why it works.
The Team (15 seconds)
Visual: Team slide
Script: Two sentences explaining why this team is well positioned to execute the project.
Closing (3 seconds)
Visual: Closing or tagline slideScript: Project name and a clear closing line.
Supporting Documents
In addition to the pitch deck, FundFluent submitted supporting documents to reinforce execution credibility rather than replace it.
These included:
- Financial projections and assumptions provided in excel format
- Organisation chart and company governance structure
Supporting documents are most effective when they deepen confidence in the plan already presented in the deck. They should provide detail where necessary, without contradicting or complicating the core story.
3. Why the Pitch Deck Is the Organising Artefact
During the four to five week preparation window, the pitch deck acts as the structural anchor for the entire CCMF application.
When the deck is mapped directly to the assessment criteria, it forces clarity across the core questions reviewers are trying to answer:
- What problem is being addressed
- Who the target users or customers are
- What is being built and why it works
- Why this team can execute
- What can realistically be delivered within six months
- How funding will be used
- How the project fits within the Cyberport ecosystem
Once the deck is structured this way, the rest of the submission naturally follows. Application form responses become summarisation and reinforcement exercises. The one-minute video mirrors the same storyline. Supporting documents deepen specific areas without introducing new narratives.
Investor decks are designed to tell a compelling growth story and highlight upside. CCMF decks are designed to be evaluated against a fixed assessment framework. Applications that reuse investor or sales decks often struggle because the structure does not map cleanly to how reviewers assess credibility, feasibility, and fit.
4. Realistic Preparation Timeline
First-time CCMF applicants should plan for a four to five week preparation cycle. In practice, this usually translates to around 40 to 60 hours of focused work spread across the team. Most teams underestimate the effort required not because the work is complex, but because it needs coordination, iteration, and alignment across multiple contributors.
Week 1: Research and System Setup
Review programme guidelines, attend Cyberport briefings, register for the Entrepreneurship Management System, complete the company profile, and assess the project against the evaluation criteria. This phase sets direction and prevents rework later.
Week 2 to 3: Pitch Deck Development
Define the deck structure, map content to the assessment criteria, draft and iterate core slides, develop appendix materials, and conduct internal reviews. This is where the majority of time is spent and where cross-team communication matters most.
Week 4: Application Form and Supporting Materials
Complete written application responses using the pitch deck as the reference point. Finalise financial projections, record the one-minute introduction video, and prepare supporting documents.
Week 5: Buffer and Submission
Address gaps, sanity-check consistency across all materials, and submit ahead of the deadline. Do not leave submission to the final hours before the midnight cutoff. We have seen teams encounter upload errors or system issues and miss the deadline. CCMF deadlines are hard cutoffs and late submissions are not accepted.
Teams juggling CCMF alongside day-to-day operations should plan deliberately for these hours, rather than assuming the work can be done ad hoc or in short bursts.
5. What Makes a CCMF Pitch Deck Structurally Sound
A structurally sound CCMF pitch deck allows reviewers to assess credibility, feasibility, and fit quickly, while still providing enough depth to build confidence when they look closer.
Strong CCMF decks share a few consistent traits.
Visual Clarity and Scanability
Reviewers typically scan the deck before they read anything in detail. The structure, sectioning, and visual hierarchy need to make sense within the first 30 to 60 seconds.
A sound deck uses:
- Clear section breaks and progression
- Slides that answer one core question at a time
- Visuals that support the point rather than decorate it
- Language that is precise rather than promotional
If reviewers cannot quickly understand what the project is, who it is for, and why it fits CCMF, they are unlikely to spend time validating the details later.
Execution Credibility on Paper
CCMF reviewers are assessing whether the team can execute, not just whether the idea is interesting.
Execution credibility is demonstrated through:
- Clear ownership of the problem and solution
- Evidence of prior thinking, validation, or testing
- Assumptions that reflect the team’s current context
- Plans that show progression rather than wishful outcomes
Over-ambitious claims, especially around user growth, partnerships, or revenue within the first six months, tend to weaken credibility rather than strengthen it.
Team Strength That Goes Beyond Titles
The project management team accounts for 30 percent of the evaluation score. Structurally sound decks make it immediately clear why this specific team is well positioned to deliver the project.
In weaker applications, the team section is often reduced to photos, names, and titles. This does not do justice to the weighting of this category.
Strong CCMF decks use the team section to demonstrate execution capability on paper. This typically includes:
- Relevant domain, technical, or operational experience
- Complementary skill sets across the core team
- Clear roles during the six-month project period
- Academic background, professional credentials, and prior employers where relevant
- Past projects, outcomes, or responsibilities that signal delivery ability
This is not a place to be modest. Any experience, credential, or signal that has a halo effect on execution should be clearly stated and evidenced here. Reviewer confidence comes from seeing how the team's background maps directly to what needs to be built and delivered within the programme timeframe.
Six-Month Milestones That Demonstrate Execution Ability
The six-month milestone plan is one of the clearest signals of whether a team can execute. Reviewers are not looking for aggressive outcomes. They are assessing whether the plan makes sense given the team's current context, resources, and stage.
Structurally sound decks use milestones to show:
- A clear understanding of what needs to be built first
- Logical sequencing of work across the six months
- Deliverables that are achievable rather than aspirational
- Progress that compounds rather than jumps unrealistically
Claims that are obviously unachievable, such as acquiring hundreds of B2B customers in the first month, tend to weaken credibility. What matters more is whether the plan reflects good judgment and an ability to execute thoughtfully within the programme timeframe.
Depth Where It Matters, Not Everywhere
Depth is important, but it needs to be placed intentionally. Strong decks keep the core narrative focused, then use later slides to support areas that require more explanation.
This allows reviewers to:
- Understand the project quickly
- Validate assumptions when needed
- Dive deeper without losing the main thread
A sound deck feels complete without feeling dense.
6. Social Responsibility and Cyberport Ecosystem Fit
Social responsibility accounts for 10 percent of the evaluation score and is often underestimated. Reviewers are not looking for grand impact statements. They are assessing whether the project creates clear social, economic, or community value that makes sense given its stage and scope.
Strong applications articulate this simply and concretely. This may include:
- How the project improves efficiency, access, or outcomes for a specific group
- Broader economic or ecosystem benefits created by the product
- Responsible use of technology, data, or automation
- Alignment with policy or societal priorities relevant to Hong Kong
Cyberport ecosystem fit is assessed in a similar way. Reviewers look for evidence that the team understands Cyberport's focus areas and has a realistic plan to engage with the community.
Well-structured decks typically show:
- Awareness of relevant Cyberport clusters or programmes
- How the team plans to leverage Cyberport resources, networks, or facilities
- How the project contributes back to the ecosystem through collaboration, knowledge sharing, or participation
This section does not need to be long. What matters is that the social and ecosystem narrative is credible, proportionate, and consistent with the rest of the application.
7. Learning From One Real Application
Studying a real approved CCMF application is one of the fastest ways to understand what a complete and credible submission looks like.
A real deck shows:
- How the overall structure hangs together from start to finish
- The level of visual clarity expected in a submission-grade deck
- How team credentials are presented to support execution confidence
- What realistic six-month milestones look like in practice
- How plans and assumptions are framed to persuade reviewers that the team can execute within the programme timeframe
- The types of supporting detail included later in the deck’s appendix to allow deeper review without weighing down the core story
FundFluent makes our 2020 CCMF application deck available as a structural reference. It is shared to illustrate how one complete submission was put together, not as a template to copy.
→ Access FundFluent's 2020 CCMF application pitch deck
8. Before You Start Preparing
Before committing to an application cycle, consider the following questions:
- Does your project genuinely fit the CCMF stage, meaning an ideation or early development project that can show meaningful progress within a six-month programme?
- Can you realistically set aside 40 to 60 working hours over four to five weeks, with clear communication across the team to allow for iteration, review, and finalisation?
- Do you have sufficient documentation and clarity to demonstrate credibility on paper?
If the answer to any of these is unclear, additional preparation time is often better spent strengthening the foundation before applying rather than rushing into a weak submission.
9. The Preparation Mindset
FundFluent's CCMF application succeeded because the preparation process was tightly structured. The pitch deck acted as the source of truth, and all other materials were built around it.
The deck is more than a submission requirement. It provides the backbone that holds the entire CCMF application together throughout the preparation phase.
.jpg)
