We built Presango: an AI that presents your deck live in Teams/Meet/Zoom and answers questions
Decks were never the bottleneck for the teams we talked to — delivering them was. Someone builds a deck, then a human performs it. Again at the Tuesday standup. Again for every new-hire onboarding. Again for the 40th demo.
So we built Hannah.
What she does:
- Give her a short brief (or upload your own .pptx/.pdf, up to 40 slides) — she drafts the deck, studies it, and presents it live.
- She joins Teams, Meet, or Zoom as a participant, presents on camera, and responds when addressed by name ("Hannah, next slide", "Hannah, go deeper on pricing").
- She answers audience questions from your material in real time — voice and chat.
Two principles we won't bend:
- Every session opens with an explicit "I'm an AI" disclosure. No pretending to be human, ever.
- She only speaks from the material you gave her — no improvised claims.
Here's a 30-second clip of her pitching herself, in her own voice: https://clips.presango.com/hannah-round1.mp4
Business model: freemium — 30 live presentation minutes/month free, no card required; paid tiers for more minutes and workspaces. Site: https://presango.com?utm_source=indiehackers&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=round1-hannah-pitch
Honest bits: we're a tiny team on a $0 marketing budget (this post included). The thing we're most unsure about — will people actually delegate delivery? Internal trainings feel like an obvious yes; client pitches feel like a trust line most people won't cross yet. Where would you draw it? Genuinely curious what this community thinks.
Your internal-first wedge makes sense because it lowers the trust cost while you learn where delegation breaks. I’d define the boundary with a simple ladder: first let Hannah handle rehearsed, source-bounded training sessions; then add human approval for client-facing demos; only later allow her to answer open-ended buyer questions. The product signal I’d watch isn’t minutes delivered but repeat usage and the percentage of sessions ending without a human takeover. For positioning, reliable presenter for repeatable material” feels more credible than “AI that presents anything,” and each successful internal workflow can become a concrete case study.
Small update: Hannah is now on YouTube. The 30-sec pitch (her own voice): https://youtu.be/mUxk_w0nAyE — and a second one on the live Q&A ("Hannah, go deeper on pricing"): https://youtu.be/y7xdLSsOirs. Same clips, easier to watch/share than the raw mp4.
Honest answer from the little real-world exposure we have so far: yes, internal wins first, and it isn't close. Everything people have actually let Hannah run has been internal, repeatable content — a training course, onboarding-style walkthroughs, the "present the same deck again" category — where the tedium of re-delivery is high and the cost of an imperfect answer is low.
Client-facing interest exists, but it's narrower than you'd think: not the pitch itself, more the standard demo or the follow-up Q&A session, with a human still owning the relationship.
Our working theory is that disclosure placement drives the boundary: when the audience hears "I'm an AI" up front, expectations reset, and "good enough to teach" arrives much sooner than "good enough to sell." Curious where you'd put the line for your own work — would you delegate a training tomorrow, or does even that feel early?
The trust boundary is the interesting part.
Do internal trainings convert more easily than client-facing presentations?