Morettini on (High Tech) Management

Will Microsoft's BING Finally Bring Success in the Search Engine Market?

2009-06-05T16:03:00.000-07:00

Microsoft's new search service is called BING, and takes a contrarian approach to the simple Google Interface. The BING interface is kind of a cross between Google and the Yahoo Directory, with a bit of Expedia, MapQuest, Shopping.com, UTube and Flicker thrown in for good measure. Never accuse Microsoft of being modest in their ambitions--this site takes on directly just about every major category in the online world.

I've given BING a quick look. It's polished and appears pretty comprehensive. The search results don't seem to be that much different from previous Microsoft efforts, although the interface's major categories may allow the finding of information more quickly than an elegantly simple one like Google's--if you know upfront the category of information that you're looking for.

HOW LIKELY IS SUCCESS?

Will they succeed? They have many times before in similar situations. They've been laughed at and written off in quite a number of markets over the years. MS has a bad corporate habit of releasing poor products in their first one, two, and even three incarnations. Any other company would give up after so many failures in a particular segment-but not Microsoft. Don't forget that as a software company, Microsoft has always seemed to believe that it is their god-given right to sell every line of software code written in the world.

There are many examples of Microsoft rising from the dead in software market segments. In spreadsheets, Excel was at one point in time a speck on the wall compared to Lotus 123. WordPerfect had a commanding lead over MS Word in word processing back in the DOS days. And a large number of MS Network Operating System Server software offerings (beginning with LAN Manager) were considered a joke relative to Novell Netware, for the longest time back in the 90s.

In all of these situations, Microsoft had the last laugh, soundly beating their seemingly entrenched and unbeatable rivals in large market segments. As a result of this corporate history, they believe that can beat anyone and rarely give up. Occasionally, I have seen them back off, notably after several tries competing with Intuit in personal financial software. But if it's considered a strategic, core segment by MS, they will throw a huge amount of resources at the segment, take large losses, and not give up until they've broken through.

I call them the Terminator of High Tech.

TERRIBLE TRACK RECORD IN ONLINE SERVICES

Of course, this isn't a pure software market, its online services. The problem for Microsoft with Bing and the search engine market in general is that they've been floundering almost completely, for a long period of time, in online services. In fact, they've not had much success in their history online at all. This is especially noteworthy in contrast to their domination of the desktop software business, and the competitive advantage their desktop monopoly should provide them in online services. Yet they've done poorly in almost everything online, and are a distant third in search engine marketing--not even all that close to a fading Yahoo.

So as most pundits will confirm, Microsoft has been terrible in the online world. This does not bode well for the possible success of Bing. But as I alluded to earlier, there is another side to this equation.

MICROSOFT CONSIDERS ONLINE SERVICES IN GENERAL AND SEARCH ENGINE MARKETING SPECIFICALLY, TO BE ABSOLUTELY AT THE CORE OF THEIR FUTURE SUCCESS--AND EVEN THEIR SURVIVAL.

Yes, this hugely successful company has always been a bit paranoid--which may be a bit on the humorous side given their overall success. But it has worked well for them over the years. It has given the company a sense of urgency which is very hard to generate in corporations of their size and stature. So anyone with a sense of history would be foolish to rule them out.

HOW CAN MS OUTFLANK GOOGLE?

But how are they going to defeat their competitors, mostly notably Google, this time in the online world? In my quick evaluation, I didn't see anything technically revolutionary, such as demonstrably more-relevant search results. Some people may prefer the Bing category-oriented interface better than Google's, but it will be a matter of taste--I can't see an overwhelming advantage here. In past cases MS may have overwhelmed a segment with marketing, or simply given away a product, to ensure defeat of a rival they feared could grow into a broad line Software competitor (Novell, Netscape, etc.). It's unclear to me what strategy they will be able to take to defeat Google, which is a dominant, embedded brand with wild profitability in Search Engine Advertising. But I believe they fear the Google franchise and know they need to crack to code to online success if they are going to retain their position in the long run. So don't expect any throwing in the towel any time soon.

Maybe Microsoft will hit upon some innovative strategy that will enable them to win the day in this crucial market. But the one thing I can think of right now, that may work in their favor, is deep pockets, longevity and sheer persistence. Google has also been unable to achieve success outside of their domination in their core Search Engine Marketing segment. This is very analogous to Microsoft's struggles outside of desktop software. The Search Engine advertising segment will eventually mature, and there are already some early signs of slowing. Plus Google risks killing the goose that laid their golden egg by raising their "Auction" bid rates to levels that will make it hard for their customers to make money--don't get me started on that. Advertisers may eventually take their advertising budgets elsewhere. So for MS in this crucial platform it may be a matter of hanging around, making incremental improvement to their Search Engine offerings, until Google shoots itself in the foot.

Doesn't sound like much of a strategy, I know. But stranger things have happened. Let me know what you thing of Microsoft's launch of Bing. Post a message or drop me an email.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/

Cloud Computing, SaaS and Such--Have We Read This Story Before?

2009-05-04T17:01:00.000-07:00

I have this incredible feeling of déjà vu.

Cloud computing and Software as a Service is all the rage. In my practice at PJM Consulting, I am very involved in software startup activity. Nearly every new software company that I see today is being built on the Software as a Service business model. It's all the rage--so much so that it appears that any self-respecting software entrepreneur would be embarrassed to start a company using the traditional software licensing model. Even if an entrepreneur was so inclined, good luck finding a VC who would even consider funding such a company. No one wants to look like a dinosaur.

It's all well and good--there is definitely a real trend toward SaaS and Cloud Computing, with many good reasons for it. But most high technology trends are initially a bit over-hyped, and tend to get ahead of themselves. In addition, this particular story seems ever so familiar to a tech veteran that's been around for a few of these cycles.

The first bit of history this reminds me of is the old terminal/mainframe model from the early years of computing. There were some real advantages to this model, but also some big disadvantages as well--which opened the door for the golden age of PCs and networking.

The second era that the current SaaS wave reminds me of is "Web 1.0", when Web-based hosted software (then called ASP rather than the modern SaaS terminology), was first going to take over the world. The current trend seems so very similar because it was around the Web 1.0 years of the late 90s/early 2000 when the traditional software license business model was first proclaimed dead. At that time nearly every new business plan was based upon an ASP model.

So some of this fast-moving Cloud Computing or SaaS trend is new--but much of it could be viewed as recycled from past trends. Let's look at the Pros and Cons of this computing model:

ADVANTAGES

* Enables "Utility-Style" computing - variable expense instead of. capital investment
* Allows an end run around overwhelmed IT departments (like PC networking did)
* Supposedly "On-demand"--use only what you need, when you need it
* More efficient use of compute resources by time-slicing large farms of cost-efficient computing resources
* Web-based allows anywhere, anytime availability
* Off-site storage of data assists disaster recovery preparedness

DISADVANTAGES

* Immature and inherently more difficult Security
* More difficult integration with other applications
* Internet latency
* Internet reliability
* Data resides outside the company firewall
* Costs over time aren't necessarily lower for customers
* Lower margins for software vendors--aren't always accounted for in current pricing

SUMMARY

I believe that the trend toward computing in the cloud will continue, but there will be some stumbles and pullbacks along the way. Cloud Computing and SaaS has some inherent strengths--but also some under-publicized weaknesses. Many software vendors are overlooking the weaknesses at this time, as is typical of any new and hyped technology. Traditional licensed software hosted by the user still has its strengths and a definite place in the market. Like many mature technologies and business models, the death of traditional software licensing has been greatly exaggerated. Once the early hype passes, decisions on whether to computer within the firewall or in the cloud will once again be made on the individual merits, costs and user needs for a particular application within a particular company. That's how I see it--post a comment with your opinion so we can look at all viewpoints.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/

Oracle is buying Sun?

2009-04-22T17:21:00.000-07:00

Breaking News…. Oracle buys Sun!? What's wrong with this picture?

What's surprising is that a very large software company is buying a very large hardware company. You often see a hardware company buying a software company, but I can't really think of a deal that's gone the other way around. Certainly not at this level. My practice at PJM Consulting serves all kinds of technology companies--but a focus is on software. Although every situation is different, my typical advice is for software companies to stay away from hardware, if at all possible.

This news is very interesting on several levels:

Involvement of two high profile, strong personalities in the technology business
I'm talking about Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy. Of course, MCNealy no longer actively runs Sun, but he is still Chairman and a power to be dealt with. He was allegedly the force behind the killing of the potential deal with IBM. Apparently Larry and Scott are old buddies, so maybe there won't be a problem. But these are two very strong-minded, controversial and sometimes outrageous leaders. Even though they are long time friends, they have never before played together so closely in the same sandbox. It wouldn't be shocking to see a few disagreements, and some public drama as a result.

Combining the Largest Revenue Database Product with the Largest in Unit Market Share
This aspect of the deal will not get as much attention as some of the others. But Oracle is the 500 lb Gorilla at the top end of the market, and the open source MYSQL is the most popular database choice at the low end, particularly in website development. This aspect likely won't demand anti-trust scrutiny because they don't really compete directly. But potential marketplace competition from MYSQL going up market, and Oracle bringing out lower cost solutions, is eliminated by this deal.

Software Company buying a Hardware Company
As I stated above, this is highly unusual, especially for companies of this size. Most established software companies have very high margins, and wouldn't want to "pollute" their earnings with the lower margin, often commoditized hardware revenue. I can't think of another comparable deal, looking back even into the distant past. The business models are pretty different. In hardware companies manufacturing efficiency and inventory control are major factors in business success; in most software businesses these are inconsequential factors to success. Hardware businesses tend to be more capital-intensive, while software businesses are very R&D intensive. I could go on, but suffice it to say that the management of these businesses includes different functional skill sets. Why is Ellison interested in Sun? Just for the Java and the Solaris OS software, or is he really going to continue with the hardware business as well? Even though in some ways, Sun was a bargain at the price of just under $6B net. But if he's just interested in the software pieces of Sun, the price looks pretty steep--Sun's direct revenue from Java and Solaris is a pretty minimal portion of its total revenue. Ellison had a flirtation with hardware years ago with the Network Computer concept--could he really still be itching to become a fully integrated systems company?

What will Oracle Do With Sun's Software?
To me, this is by far the most intriguing question raised by the deal. Solaris is a nice OS, and has a good installed base. But it's never really had the same impact in the market since open source Linux came around. Java is pervasive in the computing arena, and in embedded systems as well. It has a huge impact on the Internet. It's literally everywhere. But after trying to charge big money for Java in the early days, Sun decided to give it away. I was intimately involved in the embedded Java market in those early days. Sun initially looked like they had created a technology that could allow them to challenge Microsoft for computing dominance. I believe Microsoft was very worried at the time. But to say that Sun fumbled the ball would be way too kind. Frankly, their effort to commercialize Java was like something out of the Keystone Cops. I could detail their myriad missteps. To summarize, the biggest problem was that they were a hardware company attempting to commercialize a software product, which usually doesn't work very well. Sun appeared not to have a clue as to what they were doing. Finally, they quit trying to directly make money at Java; they put it into open source and basically decided to give away the technology to anyone who wanted to use it. It looked to me like a way to spite Microsoft, more than anything.

What Happens to Java?
So where does that leave Oracle once they close the deal and own Java? What is their plan to leverage Java in the marketplace? Will they start trying to charge for it somehow? I think this is doubtful; there's probably no going back on that decision at this point. I'm sure that Mr. Ellison and his team have something in mind--but I can't imagine what it is. They've been very savvy at making some acquisitions that haven't looked all that complementary, that have worked out well. So I wouldn't bet against them. But I can help wonder if they haven't stretched a bit too far in their minds to find synergy in this one. It reminds me a bit of Ebay's very expensive purchase of Skype, which is now being unraveled because it just didn't create any synergy. We shall see what happens--it should be interesting to watch this unfold.

SUMMARY
The prospective Sun-Oracle deal is one of the more interesting we've seen for a while. There shouldn't be any major anti-trust issues with this deal, and it doesn't appear that a higher bidder is likely to emerge. Watching the organizational integration (and possible divestment), as well as the interaction of the outsized personalities, should be entertaining at the very least. But most of all look for what Ellison does with Java--that's where the real intrigue lays. Post a comment to give me your view of this deal.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

White Papers in the High Tech and Software Marketing Mix

2009-04-15T16:44:00.000-07:00

There are many marketing methods in Software and IT marketing that can be appropriate in some, but not all situations. I'd put White Papers in that category. The term "white paper" is a broadly used term, and can mean different things to different people. I define a white paper as a document written to provide insight or expertise specific to a market, process or product category.

PRODUCT & MARKET APPLICABILITY

White Papers are used far more often in B2B marketing than in B2C marketing. I have seen them used in a B2C environment, but only infrequently. A White Paper is most often useful when there is complex technology or work processes involved. In a B2C environment, they would usually only be used in an "early adopter" market where a product concept is new, and prices and sales cycles are still long.

MARKETING RATIONALE FOR WHITE PAPERS

Why use a White Paper at all? The best reason is to build credibility for your company or product. White papers are most frequently accessed by prospects early in the sales cycle, when a prospect is just beginning research on a product category. These documents allow company personnel to show off domain or technology expertise, which should reflect well on the product you eventually want to sell the prospect. The white paper shows off your company as thought leader in your category. It also allows you to subtly and gently position your company and product in the prospects mind, very early in the sales process. It is often helpful to designate one (or a few) people in the company as the author of the white paper and as an expert in the field.

THE "RIGHT WAY" TO DO WHITE PAPERS

So what are the key factors to creating a successful white paper? Here's a few:

* Written by a domain or technical expert
* Succinct-no fluff or overt marketing, to the point
* Aimed directly at your target prospects
* Provides valuable information to your target
* Mostly solution-agnostic, any product or company promotion must be subtle

WHAT NOT TO DO IN A WHITE PAPER

And what are the things to avoid a wasted effort? Keep these points in mind:

* Can't be a product brochure -no relentless promotion
* Don't make it the length of a book
* Never stretch the truth
* If it's too general, so that no one will invest time to read it

BEST USES FOR WHITE PAPER

What can you do with your white paper, once you've put in the time, money and effort to create one? There are many good uses--here's a few to consider:

* It will contribute positively to Search Engine Optimization on your website
* An excellent item to use in a PPC campaign offer
* A great email marketing campaign offer
*An important intermediate step in the sales process; often useful just after a website visit, but prior to a webinar or product trial
* Versatile as "lead bait"; regardless of the medium or campaign, you should require contact info from the prospect prior to a white paper download
*Assists in moving a prospect along without "high touch" interactions--helping automate the sales process and shorten the sales cycle

SUMMARY

White papers can be very valuable tools in a number of market segments. These documents should be used to differentiate your company as a progressive thought-leader in your market category. The optimal goal for a successful white paper is to position your company as a preferred vendor or serious alternative for prospects in your market segment. This is accomplished by demonstrating expertise and providing credible, valuable and unbiased information which is valued by the target prospect. It is NOT accomplished by "tooting your own horn", playing fast and loose with facts, or duplicating your company brochure. If you want to be a successful white paper marketer, it's important to restrain yourself from tactics in the latter category. That's what I think about making white papers an important part of your marketing mix. Please post a comment and add your experience and thoughts on this topic.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

The Future of Venture Capital Funding in High Tech

2009-03-02T16:37:00.000-08:00

Like almost every aspect of the current economy, Venture Capital Fundings of High Tech and Software startups are way down.

There is pressure on virtually every segment of our economy, and the worldwide financial system is in by far the greatest disarray of our lifetime. The preferred exit strategy for Venture Capitalists, the IPO, pretty much shut down quite a while back. Financial returns at Venture funds have taken a hit like everything else financial, and VCs are definitely not in good position to attract new capital in the near term--given the current frantic flight to quality by investors. Things look dire in the VC business. There are even suggestions by many people, including some prominent VCs, that the long running and revered Venture Capital business model is "broken", and that it will cease to exist as we now know it.

So what really is going to happen? Is the end of the world near? (well…maybe, based on the news headlines every day). Will a software or technology entrepreneur be able to fund their company via the VC route in the future? Let's take a look at some of the things I expect to see happen.

SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS
First of all, I don't believe the end of the world is near. Nor do I think that the Venture Capital business is going away. There is a fair bit of pain left to go in this very down economic cycle, and the VC business will be no exception. So in the short term, new VC funds will have a difficult time raising money, startup capital will remain very tight, valuations will be lower and the whole experience of raising money will be even more painful than normal (and it's always painful). Many VC-backed startups which haven't gotten sufficient traction have been told if they don't have 12-18 months of cash in the bank, additional funds won't be forthcoming. But make no mistake, there are software and tech companies closing funding rounds every day. VCs still have not deployed a very large amount funds they raised in better times--that money needs to be put to work. There is still money out there in the short term for deserving business plans. And in the long run, the economy will rebound and things will go back to "normal". I do believe that the Venture Capital business needs to make some adjustments, however--so it will probably be a "new normal".

HOME RUNS VS. SOLID SINGLES AND DOUBLES
One of the staples of the VC business model has been finding "home runs", meaning those companies that can grow large enough for an IPO. These are few and far between. VCs have always said they would gladly invest in 5 to 10 failures to find that one big hit. The IPO market has essentially gone away for the time being, which puts a lot of pressure on the basic premise of how to make money as a VC. I've always thought the "big hit" model was lunacy, and akin to throwing darts at a board--it's so hard trying to pick out who the huge winners are going to be a startup stage. There's a lot of luck involved in a company getting to an IPO, and even more luck involved in picking them out at birth. This strategy seemed to work fine when the markets were consistently heading up and to the right, and quite a few companies could do an IPO and get a billion dollar market cap. But I've always thought the very basis of investing and company building is in finding those companies that can give you a return on your money, skillfully balancing risk and reward. Considering those companies that have truly developed a strategic advantage and a sound business plan, some of them may get very big, others not so much--depending upon the specifics of their target market and business. But VCs for years have been basing investment decisions almost solely upon huge markets and the potential for the big hit. I think it was lazy investing, and that part of the VC business model may need some adjustment.

VC COMPENSATION MODELS
As VC fund size and limited partner returns increased during this golden era of VC funds, so too did the compensation to the General Partners of the fund. When funds and returns were outsized, limited partners swallowed hard or looked the other way. It's analgous to a mutual fund with a hefty management fee--when the returns are great, it's no problem. But in times like today, the small fees associated with an index fund look pretty good compared to that underperform mutual fund with active, expensive management. VC fund Annual Management Fees which have typically been in the 2-3% range will likely be reduced, or maybe even go away entirely. The 20% carry standard will probably hold, and may even go up and bit if there is heavy pressure to reduce the management fees. LPs won't mind the carry if they are realizing good returns. What does this mean for the software/tech entrepreneur? It may not mean much, on the surface. But I do think it will require VCs to do more homework on their potential investments, which possibly gives an edge to those entrepreneurs will less dramatic, smaller business plans, but better risk profiles.

THE OXYMORON OF "LATE STAGE VENTURE CAPITAL"
I've always thought that the idea of "late stage" venture capital was kind of a joke. However, the Venture Capital business has been moving this direction for quite a while. Part of the reason is that VC funds have gotten so big that it's hard to deploy all of the money with "real" startup investing. And also it's a less risky way to get to that big IPO payoff. But really, these late stage funds have gotten pretty similar to Private Equity firms, except their time horizon may be shorter. So maybe these investors should really just be re-classified--in many ways they don't look anything like their early stage brethren. At this stage, there are usually many other potential sources of capital. I believe that this late stage segment of the venture capital business is one that is due to shrink the most in the near term.

CAPITAL-EFFICIENT BUSINESSES VS. KISSING FROGS TO FIND THE "BIG ONE"
I think that the Venture business will trend back to true startup investing, and will reduce it's reliance on the long home run as its basic method of making money. This is where they really add value to the "business-creation value chain". What I expect to see is a renewed search for businesses which are "capital efficient". What I mean by this are companies that will turn an invested dollar into a high multiple of that investment, in terms of revenue, profits and valuation. You might say this has always been true. But the key difference, I believe, is that that venture funds will be smaller, and as a result will feel less pressure to fund high risk, high ceiling businesses where a lot of capital needs to be deployed. As I stated earlier, VCs with large funds have previously felt that the economics of their business demanded this approach. With smaller funds, I believe that capital efficient businesses in smaller markets will no longer be ignored. Solid singles and doubles may come back in vogue (for those of you that understand baseball analogies!).

IS MONEY REALLY "SMART'? OPERATIONAL EXPERTISE VS. FINANCIAL GUYS
I've always felt that the idea of "smart money" has always been a fallacy, or least one that was greatly overblown in the Venture Capital business. I know that there are A LOT of people that will disagree with me on this point. A lot of startup advisors will tell you that it's imperative to raise money from investors who will provide much more than cash. I think it's a bunch of malarkey. No doubt that there are some experienced, skilled and very well-connected VCs that can provide a strategic advantage to entrepreneurs, who are fortunate enough to attract them as investors. But with money being a commodity, this is mostly about a VC firm trying to differentiate and provide a value-add. Fundamentally, the need for capital and the need for advice and other business assistance aren't tied at the hip. Both are often needed, but they don't need to come from the same place--they are important, but separate ingredients to the successful startup recipe. If you can get both in one package, that's great. But too many VCs present themselves as experts in areas where they've really just been investors. This is especially true for those many VCs that come from a financial background, rather than from a high tech startup management background. Frankly, entrepreneurs need to be careful of utilizing faulty advice, regardless of whether it comes from someone who has put money in their company or not. Having money in a pocket should not be confused with operational knowledge or expertise. I'm not sure whether it will happen or not, but I'd like to see the Venture Capital business present a more realistic view of the value that they are adding--it's not the same in all cases.

SUMMARY: WILL VC FUNDING GO AWAY?
The short answer is "definitely not". I do think that the bubble excesses have highlighted some weaknesses in the Venture Capital model. There will be adjustments to it--just like there will be adjustments in many other businesses, as a result of our economic duress. I've offered some ideas to get everyone thinking--please feel free to disagree, or otherwise add to the discussion. I'd welcome everyone to post a comment, if you have an additional take on this always interesting topic.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

Inside TeleSales versus Outside Sales in Software and High Tech Companies

2009-02-05T17:06:00.000-08:00

There are many ways to deliver your software and technology products to the market. For example, one and two step distribution through third party channels, direct marketing/sales over the Internet, OEM relationships and many variations of these, as well as other methods.

One classic method of delivering products to the marketplace is by using a direct sales force. Within the direct sales methodology, two of the most popular variations are an outside sales force and an inside telesales group.

Inside sales forces utilizing telesales are cheaper per rep, so your cost of sales is reduced, and you can potentially afford more reps. Outside sales forces can provide additional credibility and stronger relationship with the account. How do you choose between the two methods? Does it sometimes make sense to use both? Let's take a look at some of the key aspects to consider when making this decision:

PRODUCT COMPLEXITY AND LENGTH OF SALES CYCLE
Probably the most important consideration in this discussion is the complexity of your product offerings, and the corresponding typical length of your sales cycle. Simple products with shorter sales cycles obviously lend themselves to the less expensive telesales approach. If you have a complex product that requires more in the way of hands-on demos, application engineering and other high-touch sales support, an outside sales force may be warranted.

BRAND STRENGTH AND STAGE OF COMPANY LIFECYCLE
Another important factor is the position of your company in the marketplace. Take an example of two companies selling the same product, to the same market. The newer company with less market presence and a weaker brand may require an outside sales force to maximize its market penetration. The more established brand and company might be able to get by with a lower cost inside telesales approach in similar circumstances.

PRODUCT PRICING
Product price is another important element in this discussion. All things being equal, higher priced products are more likely to require outside sales, while more modestly priced ones may be able to be sold effectively with only an inside sales force. Low price products, unless sold in high volumes, may just not profitably support the use of an outside sales organization.

TARGET CUSTOMER PROFILE
Is the target company large or small, is the prospect themselves young or old, progressive or traditional? It's important to understand your customer profile and buying style in deciding how best it will be to sell to them. This is of course often decided on a case-by-case basis for individual customers. But in making this decision on how to structure your direct sales force, it's important to characterize your target market in aggregate. For example, if the bulk of your target market is older, traditional companies and you are trying to sell to their IT departments, you'd better strongly consider building an outside sales force. Many of these customers come from the old "Glass House" era that was dominated by IBM, and are used to having sales people physically call on them. On the other hand, your prime prospects may be in a newer, SMB market segment that has prospects who are more comfortable with remote communications methods. These folks also have less staff, and less corresponding time to meet with outside reps. These targets may be well-served by a competent inside sales force.

HYBRID SALES STRUCTURE
In some cases a mix of inside telesales and outside reps works best. Here are two examples of when this might be optimal: 1) Outside reps for Major Accounts, Inside reps for the rest of the territory and 2) a product with a low sales price that lends itself to an inside sales force, but the product is something that major accounts can use in great quantities, justifying an outside sales force to call specifically on these accounts.

COMPANY CAPITALIZATION
How much money does the company have? Sometimes, there just isn't enough capital to initially invest in an outside sales force, even if the situation ideally calls for it. In these cases, it makes sense to start with an inside sales force, and do the best you can. There are many ways to compensate in this situation, even if it's not ideal. We'll cover the details of this scenario in another article. Suffice it to say that it's preferable to get by with a sales structure that may not be optimal, rather than bankrupt the company with an outside sales force that it can't yet afford. I've seen this occur more than once in my practice at PJM Consulting.

SUMMARY
Like any other key structural decision that senior management faces in developing a software or technology company, it's important to carefully consider the details of your particular circumstances. Many times managers will quickly settle on replicating what they know, and are comfortable with from their past experience, or simply attempt to copy what the market leader does. Both of these approaches leave you vulnerable to a potential critical strategic mistake. Be thoughtful upfront in your approach to how to structure your direct sales force, and you are likely to be rewarded with optimal push in your chosen market segment.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

Effective Management During an Economic Crisis

2009-01-21T15:56:00.000-08:00

This month we're doing something a bit different--we have a guest post from Holly McCarthy. Please be aware that Ms. McCarthy is not affiliated with PJM Consulting, and the views expressed in this post are her own.

In the current economic climate, there is much that can still be done to turn business around. Certainly, technology has come a long way in helping businesses to maximize productivity with a minimum amount of manpower. While this is a great advantage over the economic crises of years past, the fact remains that effective management and leadership is still a key factor in maintaining the integrity of any business that wants to stick around after the dust has settled.

Leading by Example

Management will need to take the reins of companies and lead by example for the best results as the economy continues to waver in the coming months. Being able to roll up one’s sleeves and get down to business will show employees just what it takes to get the job done right. Unemployment is at its highest in nearly sixteen years, so many people may be in fear of losing their jobs. Showing that you are ready and willing to help out in the trenches will help boost morale and bring your team together in the process.

Ask for Input

Crowdsourcing is becoming increasingly more popular among businesses. While you may not wish to go outside the scope of your company for ideas, asking those who work for you for suggestions and ideas helps bring employees together and builds a stronger office culture in the process. Getting ideas from those within the company and giving credit where credit is due is a very effective way to turn things around and get your business back on track.

Trim the Fat

Unfortunately, there comes a time when a company must make the decision to let go of some employees. Take time to carefully evaluate your staff and find out where the weak links are. Some duties may need to be consolidated into other positions and this should be done within reason. The employees who are left will more than likely be happy to take on a few extra duties to secure their jobs. Although this is not the best possible solution, it may be the only way to help keep a business afloat.

Be Proactive

It is very important in these times to refrain from being reactionary. While things may continue to change from day to day, create a plan of action for keeping your doors open beyond the crisis. What changes can be made? Where can money be saved? Look at all of your options and leave no stone unturned; figuring out a way to stay afloat and ahead of the curve should be your number one objective until things turn back around.

This post was contributed by Holly McCarthy, who writes on the subject of the job search. She invites your feedback at hollymccarthy12 at gmail dot com

What Happens to Apple after Steve Jobs?

2009-01-09T14:28:00.000-08:00

I've written several times on Steve Jobs and Apple, one of the most fascinating companies and executives that we've seen in the history of high technology.

I don't mean to make this a morbid article; the current speculation on Steve Job's health has been well-documented. I hope that Mr. Jobs is fine, and that he has many more years of good health, with a continued long reign at Apple.

But it does raise a slightly different question that is interesting to ponder. There has always be a "cult of personality" surrounding Apple and Steve Jobs. In fact, when Jobs recently announced that his recent weight loss was do to a minor hormone imbalance rather than a reoccurrence of cancer, the stock was up 4% that day. Mr. Jobs is joined at the hip with Apple in the investment community and public's eyes. Jobs will leave Apple at some point, hopefully to go into a happy retirement, as I stated above. Regardless of the circumstances of his leaving, what will become of the company once he is gone?

I can think of no tech company more closely associated with a founder/CEO than Apple and Jobs. Gates and Microsoft certainly are in that league, and I'm sure that you can think of others. But I doubt if you can think of any combination that is clearly more high profile and closely-linked.

Jobs has obviously been a major driver of Apple's current success, and has enriched its many shareholders and other stakeholders. While it may be blasphemy to the Apple faithful, especially in recent times, in my opinion he has also been responsible for some of the company's periodic downturns. Whether viewed strictly as the company's savoir, or also an unstable dictator that has wrought big swings in the company's performance over a long period of time--it's undeniable that an unusual amount of responsibility has laid in Job's hands--especially for a company of Apple's enormous size. He is known to be detailed-oriented and involved (from a positive perspective), and a micro-manager and poor delegator assuming a more negative viewpoint. The basic premise of this article is that once he leaves Apple, there will be a leadership vacuum. This isn't necessarily a prescription for catastrophe--but it is rarely a good thing for a company, at least in the short term. So what are the broader lessons we can glean from this fascinating situation with respect to managing high tech businesses? Apple really isn't a rare case--tech companies cultures are built around their founder/CEO quite often, as I see often in my practice at PJM Consulting. This is a case study that can be instructive for many managers. Let's take a look at a few potential lessons:

Difficult or Odd Corporate Culture
There is obviously much to be admired about Apple's corporate culture, since it is a very successful company. Yet by many it is considered to be somewhat dysfunctional from a management standpoint. Much of this can be attributed to having a leader with a very strong and quirky style. Cultures tend to develop haphazardly as companies grow, even if its leaders have given some thought to the issue. In a corporation, everyone has a boss and other constraints put on them by the company's social structure. This tends to dampen the effects of dysfunctional behavior by people up and down the organizational chart. The exception to this is the Founder/CEO who is the head of the organization. Much like the old story about the "Emperor who has no Clothes", no one in an official capacity will call out the person at the top of the org chart on their bad behavior, decisions and eccentricities. This is dangerous and can lead to a culture and company policies becoming embedded with inappropriate ideas for no good reason, sometimes based on what lower level people BELIEVE the CEO would want. The takeaway is that leaders (especially strong ones) must take care not to have TOO GREAT an influence on the culture of the company simply because of their personal style.

Corporate Succession
Strong leader such as Jobs often tend to run companies in a dictatorial manner. They also have a tendency to have a "self-centric" view of the world, and don't give sufficient thought to planning for the company's future after their tenure. This may work well while they are in charge, but can lead to a company in disarray when they leave. It's not clear that there is a clear successor, or strong group of potential successors, in place to follow Jobs at Apple. For a company of the size and stature of Apple, most people would think that this isn't a good idea. Founding CEOs and Senior Executives with a similar organizational impact need to force themselves to step back from the present, and plan for a future without themselves. This isn't a comfortable thing for many people, but is critically important for the full potential of their legacy to be fulfilled.

Dangerous Concentration of Responsibility in a Single Person
In a startup, the founders often wear many hats, and make all of the important decisions themselves. No doubt that Jobs and Wozniak personally handled nearly everything when Apple was formed. This is a very proper operating model for a startup. As a company grows, at some point it becomes a VERY INAPPROPRIATE model, and can put the company in great jeopardy. What if that leader has a heart attack or is in some other way unable to fulfill their critical role? Chaos can occur, and the company's decision-making can be paralyzed, especially in the short term. In addition, I believe that the old saying of "two heads are better than one" usually holds true. I'm not one to endorse decisions-by-committee, but many corporate situations are complex and inherently risky, and the decision-making in these circumstances can benefit by having several strong viewpoints. CEOs should ensure that important decisions include at least some level of peer discussion and review, to avoid blind spots and major mistakes.

Micro-Management
Strong leaders, especially those who are able to create a company from the ground up like Steve Jobs, are often "type A" personalities and micro-managers. This may be highly efficient when a company is in startup mode. Later on, however, it can lead to a lack of development of people down in the organization, as well as paralyze the organization's ability to make quick decisions. The most effective leaders are those who are able to "let go" much of the decision-making as the company grows, while keeping their fingers on the pulse of what's truly important. This is a very fine line to walk, no doubt, but it imo being able to successfully pull this off is one of the more important attributes of the very best corporate leaders.

Bench Strength - Can Worthy Managers Survive Under A Strong Leader?
Along the same lines as the Succession discussion above, attracting and retaining talented managers lower in the organization is usually critical to a company's current success. If the leadership of the company tends to be dictatorial, micro-managers who hold on to most of the responsibility, lower-level managers may become demoralized. The management team needs to be developed, and feel like they have real responsibility and some control of their own destiny. When the guy at the top is holding on to all the power, strong leaders further down in the organization have a tendency to move on to other companies, where they feel like they are making an impact and have an opportunity to progress. The best leaders ensure that the conditions are in place attract, nurture, develop and retain the management talent required for a company's continued growth and success.

SUMMARY
Apple is a great tech company, and Steve Jobs is one of our industry's legendary entrepreneurs and managers. Yet every company, even highly successful ones like Apple, has holes in its game. There are many strong leaders much like Jobs at the head of software and tech companies. Too often their strength is manifested with a very short term view of the organization. Although difficult to do, the strongest leaders operate with a view on not just optimizing the immediate issues facing them, but also plan ahead so that the company can function well even without their personal involvement. Often this means suppressing some of their own natural tendencies so that the overall organization can more fully develop. The resulting decentralization of power reduces a number of risks that are inherent when too much depends on a single individual. That's my own view--post a comment if you have additional views to add to this discussion.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

Integrating Sales and Marketing at Software and Technology Companies

2008-12-11T14:36:00.000-08:00

In some, but not all tech companies, the Sales and Marketing functions are managed separately. They are separate, but closely related functions that some people (especially technical folks) have a tendency to confuse. Normally, there is a VP or Director heading up the Marketing department, and another VP or Director leading the Sales staff. But it is also not unusual to see a VP or Director of Sales & Marketing who leads both functions at once.

This all seems benign enough, so what's the issue? The issue comes when actual revenue fails to meet the forecast--that's when the finger-pointing usually begins. Unfortunately, not meeting forecasts is a common event in technology businesses, where forecasting of new software and tech products can be particularly challenging. When that finger-pointing starts, it often breaks out first between the Marketing and Sales departments--here's how the ensuing "discussion" might go:

SALES: "You haven't planned products that our customers want to by. You've priced them too high. And those leads that you've spent SO MUCH money on that you are giving us aren't qualified, and are essentially worthless to us."

MARKETING: "You're not selling the right products as we directed, or presenting the positioning of our product line properly. All you do is try to sell on price, constantly discounting and hurting our margins. If you'd follow up on all the leads we gave you, get off of the golf course and work more than 4 hours a day, you'd be well over quota and the company would be doing fine."

Sales folks and Marketers are different types of people, and tend to view the world differently and from their own selfish perspectives. This often nasty "discussion" as simulated above is far from uncommon, and can get pretty ugly--which can really hurt a company in trying to reach its goals. So what's the right way to get the Sales and Marketing departments to work together as a team, avoiding all of this counter-productive ugliness?

SOLUTIONS TO REDUCE POTENTIAL CONFLICT

The VP of Sales & Marketing
One way to greatly reduce this conflict is to have a common leadership for the Sales and Marketing functions. This usually means having a VP-Sales & Marketing in your organization. If you can find the right person to fill this role, this can actually be a very good solution. Having a single leader can go a long way toward eliminating or at least greatly reducing this conflict, assuming he has a balanced background and perspective, and is fair, not favoring one department over the other. Good people to fill this role are out there--but are very rare, in my opinion. There are far more managers who have been put in the position of VP-Sales & Marketing than there are those who were suited for the role. Most of the time you end up with a manager that understands one function well, and gives short shrift to or completely screws up the other function. . You will often find this combined VP position in companies that are not "marketing-intensive", where the sales function is the dominant aspect of the job. If the Marketing function is truly less important, a company can get by with this structure, although it usually isn't ideal. You can read more about the issues with a VP-Sales & Marketing role in a previous article that I've written entitled "Big S, little m".

CEO Demands Communication and Cooperation
If care isn't taken, the very different personality types in sales and marketing can lead to some pretty intense conflicts. I've been a soldier, captain and general in this war--and let me tell you, it isn't pretty. I've also (effectively) filled the role of VP-Sales & Marketing, which is a story for another day. Much like the battles between Marketing and Engineering that I've previously written about, I have seen this battle play out regularly in the companies that I have worked for as an employee, as well as at many of my clients in eight years as a consultant at PJM Consulting. Things can get out of hand very quickly, and paralyze a company. In many cases, the key is how the CEO handles the situation. He must go well out of his way to be a fair arbitrator in these discussions. Even the most benign comment can appear to show favor to one side, in the eyes of the other. Don't ignore or deny the problem, or assume it will be handled at the VP level. It is the CEO's responsibility to prevent, recognize and fix this problem. Be careful that you don't inadvertently make decisions or set up policies that reward or tolerate company politics.

Departmental Social Integration
I recommend planning activities which allow sales and marketing counterparts to get to know each other as "people" outside of their project activities. In many ways a successful outcome is all about relationships, so closely monitor the personal relationship between VP-Marketing and VP-Sales. Also, make sure that the VPs are monitoring the relationships below them. Ensure both VPs are open and honest with about the relationship between departments. Also watch for arrogance (especially from "experienced veterans") when screening potential new hires for either department that will interface with the other --arrogance often usually the trigger which starts the battle rolling

Integration of Departmental Functions
Encourage the sales department to get marketers in front of their customers. Hire marketing people that have had some sales or business development experience, who understand dealing directly with customers--and know what's it like when your living depends upon making your quota. Insist that the marketing department include the sales folks in determining what a "qualified lead" looks like. If you can get agreement on this up front on this important issue, much of the finger pointing goes away when things don't go as planned.

Joint Goals and Compensation Structure
It currently isn't common to design department or individual goals which cross marketing and sales functions, but if you can find a way to do this, you are structurally setting up the desire and need for close cooperation. Design goals and MBOs to reward the two departments for working together. Also, don't ever allow one department to "get ahead" by blaming the other--tie them together as much as possible in your goal setting.

SUMMARY

To limit issues between sales and marketing functions and ensure that they "sing from the same sheet', make sure to pay close attention to the individual departmental activities, which can nevertheless greatly effect the perceived performance of the other department. Optimizing the cooperation between sales and marketing demands an up front look at things such as the corporate structure at the highest levels, the social fabric of the company, compensation structure and use of MBOs, and formal cross-departmental reviews so each department can influence the other department's approaches. All too often in my practice at PJM Consulting, these things aren't taken into consideration until after the fact--when things have already blown up and there is a mess to clean up.

That's my view on this all too common conflict. What has been your experience in this area? Post a comment and begin a discussion.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

Structuring a High Tech Sales Force

2008-11-05T16:23:00.000-08:00

There are many ways to organize a sales force. In my opinion, there is no one "right" way. There is only the BEST way for unique circumstances of your current company.

Like most aspects of developing a software or technology company, there are guidelines, but no exact roadmap to building a successful sales force. In my practice at PJM Consulting, I often suggest that a management exercise like structuring a sales force should begin with a series of questions:

What stage of development is your company in?
This important, because an early stage company may not have the resources to fully fund the outside sales force that may be ideal for its situation. Or the company may want to sell primarily via an inside sales force, but hasn't had enough early success or nailed down the sales process sufficiently, to sell effectively through this less "high touch" method. Stage of development can be as important as what the ideal "steady state" organization would look like--don't over shoot your development stage in designing your sales organization.

What are you asking your sales force to do?
Are you using your sales force primarily as closers, supported by strong marketing, etc -- or will your sales force be doing a lot of cold calling, handling the customer "cradle to grave"? In general the more you are asking your sales force to do, the more "high touch" the structure needs to be.

What markets are you targeting?
In some markets (such as many enterprise IT market segments) an outside rep knocking on the customer's door is absolutely expected, and essential. In other markets (like many SMB markets), this type of attention would be considered a nuisance, not a service. It's important to understand what the target customers want and are expecting in a sales interface.

What are your product price points?
The implications of this question are usually well understood. High priced products can support a more expensive outside sales force, and may require one to make the sale. Lower priced products can't usually be sold profitably this way, and an inbound or outbound telesales operation is often the optimal structure.

Is your product more of a commodity sale, or is there a longer, more complex sales cycle?
Commodities lend themselves to lower cost inside sales, as well as a higher mix of channels. The more complex your sales cycle, the more likely your company will need a captive, outside direct sales force.

This is just a sample of key questions to ask yourself as you design your sales function. There are many more relevant questions that should be asked, depending upon the specific situation. I won't attempt to cover them all, or this article will become a book. Once you've done a good job of asking and answering the relevant questions, it's time to actually start designing your organization. Below are some of the personnel types and organizational structure that a software or tech company would typically consider as part of its sales organization:

SALES REP TYPES

Outside Reps
This is the classic sales rep style that has been around since the beginning of time. In the "old days" even consumer products were often sold this way (those of a certain age can remember the "door to door" Fuller Brush Salesmen). But this is the most expensive form of sales person, and depending upon the market, products and other factors, is not always the most efficient or even effective. There are still a lot of companies that sell almost exclusively through outside direct sales forces. But in companies where they direct outside sales reps do exist, they are often used more sparingly, in combination with other types of reps and channels.

Inside Reps
This is a favorite form of rep for commodity products, companies that sell heavily through third party channels, and inexpensive, higher volume products. Inside reps can also be used effectively in a "teamed" approach with outside reps, helping to optimize a territory. They may source or qualify leads for the outside reps, handle smaller accounts in the territory or generally act as a "junior sales rep" to the more senior outside reps.

Hybrid Reps
This rep type is own invention (the term is at least). This rep is part outside rep, part inside rep. A rep of this type would be appropriate for those "tweener" products and markets, which don't fit neatly into a pure inside or outside model. For example, software products with an average sales price of $5-10,000--too low cost to be sold strictly through an outside sales force, but maybe too complex or expensive for a pure phone sale. Hybrid reps spend most of their time in the office on the phone, but also travel modestly, approximately one trip/month. Example trips might be to staff trade shows, visit channel partners and call on major accounts. This type of rep may be very appropriate for early stage companies that can't yet afford to build out full inside and outside sales organizations.

Sales Managers
This is pretty self-explanatory, but not every tech company can afford a classical, full-time sales manager. Often you will see individual reps reporting to a manager of another function in startups, and occasionally you will see the concept of a "producing manager", who has line sales responsibilities in addition to management. This personnel type is very important to setting the tone for your sales organization, and is applicable to managing all rep types within any organizational structure.

Sales Administrator
A specialist that you tend to see in larger sales organizations, or at least those that have a lot of complexity (a lot of return activity, inventory management, repairs, rep splits, etc.)

SALE ORGANIZATION TYPES

All of the organizational types listed below can be commonly found as the dominant sales organizational type in many companies, as well as in combination with each other in larger, more complex companies:

Region-specific organizations
This is probably the most common organizational structure, which may include any of the sales reps types, who are assigned to specific territories. In many cases I favor this arrangement, as it tends to be the most unambiguous to measure and manage. The downside is that certain regions can prove to be much more naturally fertile than others, which can make the management process more difficult to do fairly. You also may lose the advantages that certain reps may have in terms of contacts or vertical market knowledge which lies outside of their geographic region.

Channel-Specific organizations
This is the second most common sale organizational type, which of course tends to be found in companies which make strong use of third-party sales channels. There may be a direct sales force, a VAR or retail sales force, an OEM sales force, and so on. Sometime there is an "intermixing of these organizations, for example, an "overlay" VAR channel rep as part of a direct sales force.

Industry-specific organizations
Likely the least common of organization types, but one which is very appropriate in certain circumstances. For example, a tech company which has very different value propositions in a number of vertical industries, where "insider status" in important to selling into a particular vertical market, or the product offerings are arranged by vertical market.

SUMMARY
There are many possible sales organization types and styles for software and tech companies. Many different ways of organizing can work--and the people you have are always more important than organizational structure to your ultimate success. But by carefully considering your company's specific situation, and matching your organizational structure to your market, products and available resources, your company will have the best chance of achieving sales optimal results.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/

Google Chrome--a Strategic Platform or just another Browser?

2008-10-09T15:33:00.000-07:00

Google's new Chrome Browser came out a few weeks ago to quite a bit of attention. It's big news 1) because it's from Google and 2) it brings back memories of the "browser wars", and seems like it could potentially signal the next big battleground in the intense rivalry between Google and Microsoft.

I've downloaded Chrome and played with it a bit, but this isn't intended to be a technical review of Chrome's merits. It seems reasonably snappy, and has Google's typical minimalist design philosophy, including a single box for multiple functions (search, address bar, etc.). Your personal preferences will decide whether you like that or not. It has some nice features such as tabbed browsing, which theoretically should prevent one bad browser window from crashing all open browser windows--much like when Windows became multi-threaded. Nice stuff, but doesn't really fundamentally change the browser game. But technically it's still a beta anyway (of course just about everything is with Google), and it will evolve over time--so it's not really time to judge it from a technical perspective anyway.

What I want to do is to examine Chrome as a strategic move by Google with respect to the software and online worlds--what does it really mean, where will it take the market, and what are its chances for success?

Let's take a look at some of the potential ways that Chrome could affect the marketplace:

A Better Browser
Of course, PR propaganda always will say that this is the "real" reason for bringing out a new product such as this. When I was at HP we used to call this "making a contribution to the market". Google in particular often gets sanctimonious about this type of thing, with all their "do no evil" and saving the world stuff. Does the world really need another, better browser? Not sure. Firefox and Safari, to name two, are already probably technically superior to IE, and while they've made some inroads in the marketplace, they still trail Microsoft by a wide margin. But history tells us that competition is a good thing, and a step forward on major platform like a browser can certainly be thought of as a gateway to allow software innovation to develop faster. Having a company like Google enter the fray should increase rate of innovation that's possible in the online market.

An Application Development Platform
This is the position that many pundits suspect may be the major impact of Google's move. In their introduction, Google talked quite a bit about "remaking" the browser for Web 3.0, if you will. And a fresh approach does make sense, given that Internet Explorer was conceived long before serious online applications were envisioned for the Web. With SaaS and Web 2-3-4.0 currently all the rage, having a browser platform designed from the bottom up to accommodate online software applications should be a good thing. If it's all it's cracked up to be, this could conceivably be a game-changer and a real threat to Microsoft. The key here is how much of the talk about re-architecting the Browser is real, and how much is hype. This will become more apparent over time as Chrome is further developed, and application developers take a look to see if there truly are features they can take advantage of to build better online apps for users.

An Additional Way To Track User Behavior
This is one of the more cynical viewpoints as to the major motivation behind Google's introduction of Chrome. The thinking is that this is one more insidious move by Google to "big brother" your online activity. It's no secret that Google uses web activity data they collect by various means (such as Google Analytics) to fine-tune their advertising business. Certainly owning browser could be seen as the "holy grail" towards creating a complete characterization of online activity. What else might they use this data for, in addition to fine tuning their advertising platform? That's the question and concern.

A Way To Drive More Search Traffic And Adwords Revenue
Along the same lines as the bullet point directly above, owning the browser could be seen as the ultimate in terms of driving web traffic toward Google's Adwords online advertising. The first thing you see upon downloading Chrome is the opportunity to switch to Google as your default search engine. How much will they do in this regard, either subtly or in a straightforward manner? As stated above, at a minimum, it gives them the opportunity to make Google the default search engine, which is critical to their base business. Only time will tell how much of a factor this is in Google's Chrome strategy.

A "Real" Competitor Aimed At Microsoft IE To Make Them Defend Their Turf
Of all the bullet points I'm raising, this is the one I'm most sure of. Google and Microsoft are locked in one of those classic death matches for online software supremacy, and don't miss an opportunity to tweak their arch-rival and make them sweat a bit. Going back to the application development argument above, there is a feeling that Chrome could serve as the basis for a suite of online Google apps to threaten obsolescence for Microsoft's desktop software business. I don't doubt that Google may try to do this. But even if from a technical and marketing perspective Chrome is only a modest success, it almost certainly will get Microsoft's attention and cause them to expend resources and management attention on browser technology, to an extent they may not have preferred.

SUMMARY
Chrome is intriguing, but it's too early to tell for sure what the major reason is for this Google initiative. They may not even know for sure themselves at this point. But the product, and more importantly the move itself, will likely make Microsoft react. The ensuing competition should be all good for the user and developer communities, as long as it doesn't take us toward another tiresome and market-paralyzing "platform API" war. I'll be following the future development of Chrome closely to see where it takes us--how about you?

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/

Structuring Channel Discounts for Software and Technology Companies

2008-09-08T15:41:00.000-07:00

Selling through sales and distribution channels of various types is very important to many software and tech companies. Yet channel programs, and specifically discount structures, are often thrown together quickly and haphazardly, without looking at any real hard data. Let's examine some of the key items it's advisable to consider, when structuring a channel discount program:

Market Norms
The absolute first place to start when considering channel discounts is to survey the SPECIFIC market that you are entering. By this I mean look at similar products through the EXACT profile of channel partners you are considering selling through. For example for consumer software, retail margins of 15-18% are common, whereas for a specific VAR segments the discount norms may be in the 25-40% range. If your discounts fall too far below the market norm, your program will likely fail. If discounts are set much higher than the market norm (without good reason), your company will be leaving considerable profits on the table. It is very important to do upfront research on actual conditions in your segment--don't just "assume"! Preferably, you want to find out what your direct competitors are offering in terms of a channel program. This may seem obvious. But in my consulting practice at PJM Consulting, instead of using objective data, I see significant numbers of companies use their own theories about what the right discount structure SHOULD be from their perspective. This often ends up being the main reason for a painful "restart" of their channel program at a later date.

Product and Pricing Strategy (Street Price)
Channel discount structures cannot be constructed in a vacuum. They are but one component of your overall product and distribution strategy. As such, they must be consistent with the overall goals you establish for the product. If you are seeking to penetrate a new market or a new channel, it may be wise to be more aggressive than the market norms to gain market share and shelf space. If your market is more mature and you are in a harvest mode on a particular product line, it may be wise to minimize channel discounts to maximize profitability. In any event, consider channel discounts early in the product planning phase as part of your overall product pricing strategy.

Type of Channel
There are many different types of partners for software and tech companies that fall into the category of "channel resellers". Computer retail, mass market retail, Value-Added resellers (VARs), Systems Integrators (SI), Domestic Distributors, International Distributors, Manufacturers Reps--and many more. Each of these reseller types are quite different from the others, and each add different types and levels of value to your distribution systems. Yet every one that you distribute through will be competing with the others (as well as your direct sales model), at least indirectly.

Multi-Channel Pricing Equity
It's important if you are selling through more than one channel (including direct sales) to attempt to equalize, as much as possible, the street prices charged by the various channel types. The best way to do this is to consider the costs incurred by the various types of resellers in delivering your products to the target customer. For example, a VAR that provides support, pre-sales consulting and other services may need a higher level of discount to achieve an adequate profit margin than a retailer that simply is providing shelf space might. In reality, the retailer is likely to have a lower street price, but it is important to try to minimize this gap. Otherwise the VAR who may be providing important services to a segment of your customers may be driven out of the market, and refuse to sell your product--which is not in your company's interests. The most common practice which causes inequities in channel pricing is a volume-driven discount model. New entrants to the channel often use this approach--why wouldn't you want to incentivize volume sales by giving the biggest discounts to the largest volume sellers? Although this may work fine if you have a monolithic reseller channel, where all the players have the same business model and offer the same value add, it otherwise will quickly cause the problems discussed here. The resellers possessing the lowest cost structure and providing the lowest value-add will quickly dominate the market, driving the high-cost/high value-add resellers away. This may be ok with you; just make sure you explicitly consider this possibility before embarking on a volume-driven channel discount strategy.

Value Added
One of the things that I recommend considering explicitly up front is: what is the key value-add that you are seeking from the channel? Is it pre-sales consulting, installation services, post-sale support, shelf space and inventory for immediate customer access, or one of many other factors? Make sure you understand what channel value-add is most important to you, and build protections into your discount structure for the reseller type who best provides this value.

Components of Discounts
It's not always necessary (or wise) to offer a single, monolithic discount level for resellers. How you structure your discounts components should be closely tied to your product and pricing strategy--what you are trying to accomplish with your overall channel strategy. For example, if you are trying to manage your street price at a certain level, it can be dangerous to offer a large discount to certain types of resellers who may pass that discount on as a lower street price. Yet this segment of resellers (for example, retailers) may be an important, high volume channel for your product type. In this case, it may be wise to offer additional, conditional discount for activities that you value. Again as an example, to keep your street price up but incentivize a high level of activities through retail, you could offer a high level of added discount for approved co-op marketing activities. A segmented discount structure driven by costs and value-add, rather than volume, is often the most effective structure to maximize multi-channel sales. This will also limit discount-driven reductions in street price, which ultimately can severely reduce profit levels and incentives to sell for both the vendor and all channel partners--if not properly controlled.

SUMMARY
Creating a Channel Discount Strategy and structure is NOT a theoretical exercise. It should be primarily a tactical exercise based on a realistic view of market conditions, and include collection and analysis of objective market data. While what you hope to accomplish with your discount strategy is important, the overwhelmingly most important factors in creating your discount strategy should be what is happening in your segment of the channel--and what will work best for your company. Try not to create a structure based on what you'd like to see with respect to the channel. Focus on creating a pragmatic, workable strategy upfront, to avoid an unsuccessful channel entry and painful restructuring that results. If you are new to the channel game, seeking outside assistance may help you avoid experiencing one of these painful false starts that happen frequently in the channel.

That's my view of how best to create a channel discount structure. I welcome you to post a comment with your own thoughts on this important technology management decision.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

Competing with Entrenched Software & Technology Industry Giants

2008-08-15T16:52:00.000-07:00

I was reading an article in the business section of our local newspaper recently about a new Search Engine name CUIL (pronounced Cool). I already knew about CUIL, because I had noticed that it had recently indexed the PJM Consulting website. One of their claimed differentiating factors is that they've their search index is twice as large as Google's is. In addition, they believe that they have improved the ranking algorithms, and they also present the results in a different way. The results offer fewer results per page, but more comprehensive information on each site, and often include a photo or other graphic. The premise of the article was that it may have a chance to be a real competitor vs. Google, or at least Yahoo and Microsoft, for market share in the huge search business. The founders have impressive pedigrees and come from Google on the technical side.

The article gives credence to the possibility of CUIL being a potentially serious competitor to Google, Yahoo and MS, while pointing out that quite a few companies have attempted to enter this fray, creating barely a blip in search engine market share to date.

I've taken a quick peek at CUIL--the presentation is definitely different and may be superior for some tastes. But at least at this early stage, in my quick look I wasn't terribly impressed with the relevancy of the search results. No matter how you present the data, the relevancy of the results is paramount in search. I'll be sticking with Google for now, but will keep an eye on CUIL to see how it develops over time.

Will CUIL succeed? It's of course way too early to tell. They're taking on what is arguably the most powerful technology company in the world today, attempting to compete with them in their core area of strength. So you can't say that the odds of success are high, which they rarely are for any startup. But this IS the technology business, so you've got to give them at least a puncher's chance. Like it usually is, the key will likely be how well they execute.

But execution aside, what's the best way to go about competing in the software and technology industries today? Should you just steer clear of the elephants of the industry? Many believe this is prudent, but I think it is not always necessary. After all, it wasn't so very long ago that is was nearly impossible to get a venture capitalist to fund a company that was perceived to compete in a category with Microsoft (which could be viewed as MOST categories of the software business). Yet a short time later, Microsoft is considered in many ways a dinosaur, one that is quite beatable (don't get the impression that I'm writing MS off--I'm not. Redmond may yet rise to dominate again).

If it isn't insane to compete with the giants, what are some best strategic practices that an early stage tech company can adopt to give it the best chance to survive and thrive, when entering market categories with large, entrenched competitors?. Let's take a look at a few ideas:

Make Sure that you can Differentiate - This would seem obvious for any business, but when you are going up against a huge company with a good brand--well, don't even try it without significant differentiating factors. They don't need to be product related, necessarily--it could be free and outstanding support, better price points, exceptional ease-of-use, or many other things. But don't kid yourself--you will need REAL differentiation.

Pick a Niche, any Niche--at least to start - It is important to pick a small enough niche so that you can provide that true differentiation discussed above. Your investors may want you to attack a huge market, but if you don't have that influence pushing you in that direction, pick a small area that you can have a higher chance of dominating when you're new. If you are successful in your initial niche, you can then broaden out into adjacent segments. Down the road, maybe you take on the giant "head-on"; but starting out is NOT the time for this.

Raise more money than you think you will need - Every once in a while a new company will "hit on all cylinders" from the very beginning. But in my consulting practice at PJM Consulting, I rarely see this. In fact, a good part of my practice is helping companies "pick up the pieces" after their initial business plan or execution has gone awry. No one likes to give up more equity than they need to, but things usually take longer to start working than you initially project. There are usually too many things that you don't know, until you really get into the marketplace. Plus, it's generally easier (and cheaper!) to raise a bit more money at first, than it is after that first misstep. A little extra funding in the bank can be a good insurance policy against a capital crisis early on.

DON'T try to be like them - A common mistake that I often see early stage companies make is trying to "be like the giant competitor". Sometimes this comes from an inferiority complex, and sometimes because the founders come from one of the giant companies themselves. The last thing you want to do is create a big company bureaucracy. In most ways, you want to operate VERY DIFFERENTLY from you huge, slow-moving competitor. Resist the urge to create huge amounts of process before your company size dictates it as necessary. Be very careful about hiring away senior executives from you giant competitors, unless you are certain that they also have successfully operated in an early stage company before. Stay as fast and nimble for as long as you can--that is a primary advantage at this stage of a company's development.

Recognize the giant's execution weaknesses and beat them there - Analyze the large competitor's business, and try to create your differentiation where they are weakest. It could be faster customer service, better channel relations, better ease-of-use, etc. If you concentrate your differentiation where they are doing the poorest job, it will accentuate the difference to the marketplace, and you will have a better chance of your advantage being recognized.

Focus, Focus, and Focus - This advice can be viewed as the culmination of the points above. Make sure that you don't try to do any more than you can do EXCEPTIONALLY WELL at this stage. You can always expand your focus later. Remember, there is a good chance we would all be speaking German, if Hitler hadn't prematurely opened up a second front with Russia in World War II. The tech landscape is littered with companies that followed an analogous strategy, with similar disastrous results (Novell and Netscape are two former high-flyers that immediately come to mind).

SUMMARY

As an early stage company entering a market where a major company or two are the known leaders, make sure that you don't "bite off more than you can chew". You can always expand your focus after initial success. Contracting your focus is usually quite a bit more painful, and many companies don't make it through that transition. That's my advice on how to attack a large, entrenched competitor. As usual, I'd be interested in seeing your comments.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com
pm@pjmconsult.com

Integrating the Marketing and Engineering Functions at Technology Companies

2008-07-08T16:04:00.000-07:00

In most tech companies, Product Marketing and Product Development/Engineering are managed separately. There is usually a VP over the Product Development function and another over the overall marketing function, which usually includes future product marketing/planning.

While this is certainly an appropriate way to organize a tech company, there is a great danger in one are when it comes to these separate operating "silos": the planning of new products.

I have a particularly strong opinion on this topic, with an extensive product marketing background and also having worked as a product developer earlier in my career (albeit in a non-tech business).

With respect to current products, the silo approach isn't much of an issue. The day-to-day activities of the marketing and engineering departments are very different, and can be managed separately quite successfully.

It's in the future product area that things can get messy. Product Marketing and Product Development both have a key role to play here, if the company is to optimize the process of planning, developing and introducing the best new product possible. The problems is that at every level, from the VP-level down to the engineering project managers and marketing product managers, the product marketing and engineering functions are often staffed by individuals with very different world outlooks when compared to their direct counterparts in the other department.

Inevitably, if care isn't taken, these very different personality types can lead to some pretty intense conflicts. I've been a soldier, captain and general in this war--and let me tell you, it isn't pretty. The battlefield often is a company's strategic plan, which ends up in a trampled mess. I have seen this battle play out regularly in the companies that I have worked for as an employee, as well as at many of my clients in eight years as a consultant at PJM Consulting. It sometimes gets so ugly it paralyzes a company, putting it at a severe disadvantage vs. competitors who have less of a conflict.

THE "WRONG" WAYS TO HANDLE THIS POTENTIAL PROBLEM

Unfortunately, most CEOs that I meet are not all that in tune to how damaging these conflicts can become.

Often they will ignore or deny the problem, thinking it is a responsibility to be handled at the VP level.

Another strategy that I have seen companies put in place is to extract the product planning function from the marketing department, and put it under engineering. This will often greatly reduce or eliminate the conflict, but it akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As I said earlier, both marketing and engineering have a key role to play in product planning. This strategy effectively removes the voice of the customer, which is a key role that the marketing department should be playing in any successful software or tech company. As much as product developers think it looks easy, they almost never have the mentality or experience to accurately read markets or customers. Almost no one is great at everything; monitoring and reading markets, and technical product development, are two very different skill sets. Having both mentalities involved in a positive way leads to far better products in the end.

Finally, if they happen to have come from one side of the battle or the other, CEOs sometimes "take sides" in the battle--predetermining the winner. The problem is there is never any real winner in this battle--and the only certain loser is the company and its shareholders.

A CEO can choose to let Marketing have the upper hand--and this may work out adequately in commodity products where there is very little engineering differentiation. In any other circumstance, results will likely be sub-optimal.

Or he can let Engineering win and dominate the planning process--which is a very common occurrence in early stage, technically-driven software and tech companies. But this generally only works well for products made by engineers, built for engineers (the early days of Hewlett Packard are an example of this strategy working successfully). For every company that has used this approach successfully, there are probably hundreds or even thousands that failed in large part because of it.

Ultimately, to make sure that this conflict and its dire consequences are to be avoided, there is one key thing that needs to happen:

IT IS THE CEO'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PREVENT, RECOGNIZE AND FIX THIS PROBLEM.

So what steps can a software or tech CEO take to be on the lookout for this problem--and more importantly, what can they do to prevent it from developing?

*It's all about relationships: closely monitor the personal relationship between VP-Marketing and VP-Engineering
*Make sure that the VPs are monitoring the relationships below them
*Make sure they are both VPs are open and honest with you about the relationship between departments
*Plan activities which allow engineering and marketing counterparts to get to know each other as "people" outside of their project activities
*Be careful that you don't inadvertently make decisions or set up policies that reward or tolerate politics
*Design goals and MBOs to reward the two departments for working together
*Don't ever allow one department to "get ahead" by blaming the other--tie them together as much as possible
*Hire marketing personnel that can talk the language of engineers
*Screen product development hires who will interact with Marketing for the not uncommon attitude that engineers are "superior" human beings
*Encourage the marketing department to get product developers in front of customers
*Watch out for arrogance when screening potential new hires for either department that will interface with the other --arrogance is usually the trigger which starts the battle rolling

SUMMARY

Marketing/Engineering conflict over the product planning process is a common problem that is often overlooked by tech company CEOs. A certain amount of creative tension can exist between the two departments, and be totally healthy. All too often, though, this tension turns into a bloody fight which is destructive to the company's prospects. It is not "fait accompli", however. It can be minimized and even prevented by a watchful and proactive CEO.

That's my take on a common issue which is rarely discussed out loud. Have you had your own issues in this area? Post a comment to add to our discussion.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

Trade Shows for Software & Technology Firms - Do They Still Make Sense?

2008-06-05T15:38:00.000-07:00

Let's talk about what, for some people, is a marketing method from a bygone era: Trade shows, or Trade Fairs, as they're referred to in most places outside of the US.

At one point in time, Trade Shows were a staple in most every tech company's marketing budget--shows like Comdex, PC Expo, Network World and a host of others were annual rites of passage. But in this Internet age, they have been greatly reduced in the marketing mix, if not taken completely out of the picture.

There are many reasons for this. First and foremost, the ROI of tradeshows was always very questionable for most exhibitors. In marketing departments everywhere there were sharp discussions during budget time, on whether to continue the expense of the major shows. They always seemed important to be at, but usually it was pretty difficult to make a direct correlation to enough actual revenue, to justify the large expense. As the Internet became more prominent, this ROI looked even worse in comparison--as it did for many other "offline" marketing methods, such as traditional direct mail and print advertising.

So are tradeshows now obsolete? Probably not, but many marketing folks might say that they are on the endangered species list. So when, if at all, do traditional trade shows still make sense today? And what should your goals be, if you do decide to invest in a show or two? Let's take a quick look at 4 points relevant to each of these two questions.

4 REASONS IT MAKE SENSE TO GO TO A TRADE SHOW

A CONTRARIAN APPROACH
One of the major enduring tactics of marketing is to "zig when your competitors zag". If you are in a market where a show is still well attended, but vendors are starting to stay home rather than pay for booths, you may have an opportunity. If your competitors aren't there, you have a larger, captive audience of prospects to strut your stuff to. One of the basic tenets of a good marketing program is to find a "communications channel" which isn't too crowded. With trade shows falling out of favor in marketing budgets, there is potential to benefit from a contrarian approach in some markets.

INTRODUCTION INTO A NEW MARKET
This is always one of the strongest reasons to attend a few shows. If you have a brand new company, or your company is entering a market space it hasn't previously participated in, a couple of well-selected shows can be a very good investment. Remember, you only get one chance to make a first impression.

INTRODUCTION OF A NEW PRODUCT
Much like a company entering a new market, a new product introduction is a very traditional reason to exhibit at a trade show. In my opinion, introducing new products at shows has historically been over-estimated as a marketing tactic. Sure, the press is there covering the show, but if 50 other vendors are also announcing new products, your new product might get lost, or at least get less press coverage then if you announced two weeks before or after the show. Remember the comment above about over-crowded communications channel?. In some cases, announcing at a show fits this description. This can still be a very sound marketing tactic--just do careful research and planning to ensure it is a net positive.

IMPORTANCE OF HIGH TOUCH
If you have a product that absolutely requires some hands-on or personal selling before prospects buy, trade shows can be an excellent investment. For example, if the product is quite expensive, or an expert demo sells far more than prospect downloads from your site. I have a software company client at PJM Consulting who is in a market where expert demos are essential; they have grown the company, to a great extent with trade shows, and almost always can demonstrate a profit on their show budgets.

4 GOALS TO ENSURE A HIGH RETURN FROM A TRADE SHOW

PRESS COVERAGE
This is always one of the most important reasons to go to many shows. If it is an important show, the press will be there in full force. You really need to plan PR tactics ahead of time, however, as all of the other exhibitors have the same goal of getting press appointments and coverage. It is CRITICAL to plan far ahead in securing appointments with target editors, and have a "tease" of substantial news to obtain the appointment. Editor's schedules fill up far in advance. Properly planned, the show can pay for itself here by eliminating the need for a dedicated press tour. But if not well planned, you will end up "wasting" your product introduction or other news, resulting in little or no press coverage.

EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRY NETWORKING
Networking with the other exhibitors is often overlooked by many vendors. The focus is generally solely on customers, and maybe distribution channels. Often many companies with complementary offerings are attending exhibiting, along with a few competitors. This can be a great arena to begin or continue discussions with potential strategic partners. At a minimum, makes sure to set aside some time to walk the show floor, and see who might have synergy with your company. Even if you're pressed for time, shake a few hands and gather some business cards--it can be an excellent setup for future discussions.

LOCAL CUSTOMER VISITS
This is also an area that holds potential to lift your show budget's ROI, which is often overlooked by many exhibitors. You are flying staff to a faraway city--why not go in a couple of days early, and call on a few potential major customers? At a minimum, make sure you get those free show tickets that often go to waste out to local prospects in your database, so they can come to the show for a meeting or demo at your booth.

LOCAL CHANNEL VISITS
In the same vein as visits to customers, it makes a lot of sense to call on current or potential channel partners, once you decide you'll be spending money going to a show in a certain region. Add a couple of days to your trip and visit a few key partners and prospective partners in the area. And make sure to invite them to the show well in advance and supply those free tickets, so you can see many more later at your booth.

SUMMARY
If you just fly to a city, set up your booth, and wait for new customers to flock by to see you--you are likely to be very disappointed in your return on investment. But if you use a tradeshow as a hub for a variety of related activity, adding a couple of key shows into your marketing mix can still bring a very nice ROI. The key is preparation and planning, to make sure your results are optimized. I've outlined a few reasons why it may make sense to exhibit at tradeshows/trade fairs even today, along with some ways to maximize your return. What's your reason for attending tradeshows in the Internet Age? And what concrete results do you hope to achieve? Post a comment to continue this discussion.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

The End of Customer Service

2008-05-06T16:04:00.000-07:00

No one answers the telephone anymore.

At least, technology companies in the US surely don't. With big companies, you are either presented with an endless phone tree--"press 1 for a company directory"--or the newest innovation in communications technology: the cheerful "automated voice attendant". In many cases these attendants, and several other "innovative" service options, can lead to a great deal of frustration for customers and prospects.

As a consumer and business buyer I've found this frustrating, not to mention an incredible productivity sink. As a High Tech industry executive and consultant with a strong marketing background, I find this practice curious at best--and insane at worst!

Think about it--how many BILLIONS of dollars companies spend trying to get the attention of potential new customers--most of who are going to need to contact the company at some point. Yet it seems that once we've got their interest, or God forbid, they've signed up as an actual customer--we are doing everything possible to keep them away. Doesn't anyone remember the old marketing adage about current customers being your best source of additional business? Management guru Peter Drucker once said "The purpose of business is not to make a sale, but to make and keep a customer." Apparently not many people agree with this, or have forgotten it, because "modern" customer service practices are doing there best to drive these folks away. Let's examine some of the new customer service approaches:

OUTSOURCED CALL CENTERS IN OTHER COUNTRIES

This may be everyone consumer's favorite new "pet peeve"--calling an American company based in Chicago, or Iowa or San Jose--only to be connected to some call center somewhere in India. Often this leads to a very, very frustrating experience. Companies are going this route for support as an expense driven decision--to obtain cheaper labor. But the reps on the end of the line are often poorly trained, probably aren't employees of the company that you are calling, and often don't speak English with an accent that is easy to understand for most Americans. Are there good reps who give great service available in these call centers? Certainly, I have spoken to more than a few. But compared to the "good old days" of local support, the average caller experience has degraded significantly. Add this to the initial frustration that the caller who is dialing has because of a problem with his or her new $1200 PC--and you don't get a prescription for a happy customer.

PHONE TREES

This one has been around a while, but the increasing complexity of the tree, and well as the difficulty of exiting it to get to a live person, has continually made the situation worse. You can literally spend 5-10 minutes just navigating the phone tree these days. Oftentimes, callers just give up--which appears to be what companies want. I'll discuss below why companies shouldn't.

AUTOMATED ATTENDANTS

As I discussed above, this is one of the more recent scourges of the besieged customer with a problem. Ironically, Automated Voice Attendants have been made possible by a really nice leap forward in voice recognition technology. And there is no doubt that these products have come a very long way from the days in which they were first implemented. But talking to a machine is at this point still inherently inferior to speaking with a real human. I endorse the use of these Automated Attendants, but they should be used judiciously. I would still utilize them only at the very beginning of calls, and not require them to take a customer too far down the line of getting their problem addressed. Also, please make it easy to get away from them to a live human. With the high market share of some of the Automated Attendant companies, I am having far too many conversations with the same perky, Stepford Wife-ish-sounding artificial female voice. It's getting a bit creepy. While we're at it, let's talk about my biggest customer support pet peeve. With all of the sophisticated software available today, why is it that I have to give my account number and god knows what else to this robot lady, and then repeat all of the same information to the first live person that I speak with, as well as everyone that they transfer my call to? I understand security concerns, but geez! Hasn't anyone heard of data sharing and company firewalls?

"INTERNET COMPANIES"

The advent of the Internet has allowed for the creation of the ultimate small company: one man or woman, behind an Internet site. These companies invariably list no contact phone number or physical address. You can only email them for support, or if you're really lucky, IM them. Unfortunately, potential customers figured out that this is likely a one man operation long ago. They will be reluctant to buy your product as a result, because they don't believe you are "for real", or at least they won't be able to get good support. If you have the capability of offering real support, I urge you not to present your company in the image of one of these "Internet companies". If you do, it will cost you business.

FEE-ONLY TECH SUPPPORT

I won't deny that is some cases tech support fees are justifiable, and necessary. Even for consumer tech products. But in most cases tech support, and least at some level and for some period of time, really needs to be bundled into the base product offering. This trend came about with the intention of making tech support a "profit center". While I believe that tech support can drive profits, in many cases it shouldn't be done by attempting to extract additional money from customers (especially upfront or on the initial call) for the right to call in to get product issues fixed. There is a standard of care that most customers believe is fair: Help them get the product installed, up and running. Take care of any bugs or product defects. If you don't meet this standard, you will likely pay for it yourself--in reduced customer satisfaction and loyalty.

I want to emphasize that I am not a racist, market protectionist, political isolationist or technophobe. I have nothing against a man or woman working in a call center India, doing their best to do their job. I'm also a tech guy, and certainly love the idea of using technology to increase labor force productivity. But as a marketer, above all else, I believe in the old axiom: THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS KING. Customer service today is not treating the customer as King, but like the lowest creature on the food chain. It's possible that we are just undergoing a period of "growing pains", implementation issues, and the new customer service methods discussed here will be the way to go in the long run. Maybe technology maturity and some additional training for the folks in those faraway call centers will correct the current painful situation.

BIG OPPORTUNITY TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE

But my guess is that those corrective measures are a long way off. In the meantime, there is a big opportunity for savvy software and tech companies to use this "gap" that has occurred in most company's customer service, to gain a strategic advantage in their market segment.

Unfortunately, in my Software and High Tech Practice at PJM Consulting, I find that customer service operations are usually an afterthought to senior management--especially in early stage companies. It's understandable, since it doesn't appear to be part of the strategic core that will mean the difference between success and failure for a young company. But in today's world, used properly, customer and tech support can indeed be a strategic weapon.

Not only can good support cement the relationship with the customer and build long term loyalty, but don't forget that you've got a customer on the line! Remember the old adage I mentioned above about your current customers being the best place for incremental business? Once you've satisfied the caller's concerns, you have an opportunity to educate them about new offerings, present them with a special offer, etc. The possibilities are nearly endless to profit from this customer interaction. This interaction by the way REQUIRED NO INCREMENTAL MARKETING EXPENSES TO INITIATE. Companies don't realize the opportunity that they are leaving on the table, both to increase customer loyalty, and sell incremental offers to existing customers.

DIFFERENTIATION FROM COMMODITIES

Let's talk about a specific example: HP & Dell in the PC business. I'm an old HP alumnus, and until recently, a long time Dell customer. Over a long period of time, customer support, specifically technical support-- has gone from a major strength, to a nightmare for customers of both companies. At various stages of the customer ownership lifecycle, both of these companies throw every obstacle I've discussed in this article at you--Endless phone trees, automated voice attendants, email-only or IM-only tech support, and clueless representatives in foriegn call centers. PCs are as close to a commodity as anything in the High Tech business these days. These two market leaders, along with their competitors, are pretty much slugging it out on price (and brand, which means less and less in a standards-driven market like PCs). This is certainly not the way to achieve high gross margins, let alone customer loyalty.

Personally, I'd pay 10-15% more to buy a computer from a company who guaranteed good, local tech support. I run my business on my PC; when a problem occurs that I can't fix on my own, it is often excruciatingly painful. I'm sure that these companies don't believe that I, or many others, would pay more. But if a PC company put forth a well-developed marketing message touting their emphasis on technical support and customer service--and stuck with it--they would obtain a customer for life. Now, I may not have been willing to pay such a premium 10-15 years ago, before real customer service "ended". I may have gone for the lowest price. But with personal service and support nearly gone the way of the Dodo bird (become extinct), things are different. Since good, personalized tech support has become a scarce commodity--it is therefore an opportunity that some smart company can exploit.

SUMMARY

There's a big opportunity out there for smart technology companies to go against the current trends in customer service and tech support. Make it easy for people to reach you, using whatever method they prefer. I'm suggesting short phone trees, live operators, and an adequate number of representatives to eliminate long waits. Focusing completely on expense control or technology solutions, not personal service, is a mistake for tech companies. Savvy, "forward-thinking" software and tech companies can increase market share and customer loyalty with an "old school" approach--personalized customer service and support.

That's what I have to say about the state of customer and tech support today--what's your opinion? Post a comment if you'd like to discuss this further.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/

Retail Distribution of Software Products

2008-04-11T15:44:00.000-07:00

Selling software at retail at one point in time was the "Holy Grail" for consumer, home office and small office software suppliers. That's where the volume was. Everything that a company did starting up was intended to build enough volume to get into a distributor, so they could then pursue shelf space at the major retailers of software.

But oh, how times have changed. The advent of the Internet and wide availability of broadband has made nearly every consumer and small business application downloadable with the click of a mouse, and a major credit card. In the meantime, major sellers of software have dropped like flies (CompUSA, Computer City) or have de-emphasized software in their retail assortment.

PROFITABLE retail distribution of software, which has been a major challenge for software companies dating back more than 20 years, has gotten tougher every year, as the retail distribution pipe shrinks. And even twenty years ago, it was already very tough, for small software companies, in particular. I've even seen a credible authority recently predict that distribution of software through retail outlets will CEASE TO EXIST within five years.

IS RETAIL SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION DEAD?

So should you forget about retail as a potential distribution channel for your consumer or SMB software application?

First of all, it's my opinion that the near term extinction of retail software distribution is greatly exaggerated. While it has been in decline for a very long time, and will continue to decline, it still has some life left. There is still quite a bit of software sold at retail. There are still some reasons that people buy at retail. And last but not least, nearly every thing in high technology takes more time to "go away" than the pundits predict. People just don't change their habits that quickly, no matter the technological reasons for that change to occur. Among several reasons people still buy at retail:

WHY PEOPLE STILL BUY SOFTWARE AT RETAIL

Impulse - They are in a store looking for something else, and happen upon a product that looks neat or useful. In this respect, software benefits from this "in-store effect", much like any other retail product.
Credibility - Buying software, or any other item over the Internet from some unknown company, is scary for many people. Just the fact that it's in a "touchable" package, and is "blessed" by the retailer stocking it, gives comfort to many, especially the mainstream and late adopter types.
Physical Media - Most folks want a backup copy of the application which they've put out good money for. Sure, you can burn a backup CD on your own. But to some folks that's technologically challenging--and seems like a lot of work to others.
Internet Phobia - There still are folks, more than want to admit it, that just aren't comfortable with the Internet, particularly the ecommerce aspects.

WHEN SHOULD A SOFTWARE VENDOR CONSIDER RETAIL DISTRIBUTION?

So in some cases, software vendors should still give consideration to packaging their products for retail distribution. What are the elements which may make retail still a viable distribution channel for a particular product line?

* A VERY hot product - In one of these rare instances where you've hit a product home run, it's beneficial to get your product in as many channels as possible. When you have a product "selling like hotcakes", retail can be ideal to help you maximize your return on the high demand. Make sure that you've proven that it's a brisk seller via other marketing and distribution methods BEFORE you enter the retail channel, however.
* A well-known brand - Almost nothing helps product sell through retail as much as a well-established brand. There is almost never anyone to "sell" your product in a retail store. You are relying almost soles on the box copy to be your salesman. In this situation, the credibility of a strong brand is often the difference between a customer purchasing, and leaving the box on the shelf.
* A related portfolio of products that can be sold to the same customer. It is very hard to make money on a single product being sold through retail channels. The upfront marketing programs and thin margins make breakeven a huge challenge for a single product company. However, if you can profit indirectly even if you just break even on the actual retail sale, by building your customer list and selling related products to them--that's a huge advantage.
* Add-on services to sell - Much like having a large portfolio of products, a single product vendor can also have a greater chance at profitability if the "retail product" is a front-end to other revenue generating services. Maybe the product leads to subscriptions to an add-on web-based service, or there are custom forms or other tangible supplies that can be sold to users of the software application.

These are a few of the circumstances where I would actually encourage an ISV to consider retail distribution. I want to caution that in the best of circumstances, this channel isn't for the "faint of heart". Startup costs are high, margins are generally lower than other forms of software distribution, and there are substantial inventory issues and risks. There's an old saying in the software business about retail distribution--"the only people who make money at it are the freight companies who ship the inventory back and forth among vendors, distributors and retailers". In short, it's a great place to lose money--if you aren't careful. I highly recommend that you retain an expert to help you through the process, if you are new to retail and decide that it may be appropriate for your products.

There are many more angles to cover on this topic. To name a few, the need for a relationship with a major distributor of software to retailers, what marketing programs to use, the importance of a retail package--and much more. As important as they are, we'll have to leave the detailed mechanics of getting your software into retail distribution (and making a profit!) for a later article.

SUMMARY

So don't dismiss retail distribution of your software applications completely, even in this age of Internet instant gratification. But make sure that you are doing it for the right reasons, with a solid plan for how it will benefit your company. If your company is entering retail for the first time, consider retaining an expert to reduce your risk of failure.

I'd enjoy hearing your own experiences with retail distribution, past and present, as well as your attitude about this channel today. Post a comment so we can all learn from your experience.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

High Tech Market Research for New Products

2008-03-10T16:09:00.000-07:00

One of the biggest problems in High Tech businesses is the "technology-driven" approach that tends to predominate, especially among startups. Much of this occurs due to the fact the many founders of software and technology companies tend to come from an engineering, programming or other technical background. While a strength in creating a flow of technical innovation, this can be a real problem when companies are planning new products which they hope to find a real market for.

Everyone has a tendency to focus on what they know best; that's just human nature. Folks spend more time on the issues that they enjoy, are more comfortable with, and are more confident about their ability to make good decisions on. Things that don't fit into this category tend to be put off, or given short shrift.

The result is often products are well thought out from a technical viewpoint--but much less well so from a "meeting market needs" perspective. While both are important, the market perspective is absolutely critical initially. So what's the right approach to product planning-oriented market research?

When Should The Research Should Be Conducted?
The answer to this is early, often and forever. The earlier you start prior to design or coding, the more time you will have to obtain the most accurate picture of the market that's possible. Sometimes there are practical limitations to how early you can start--Trade secrets and patent filings, for example, or the lack of a prototype which may be considered crucial to receiving realistic market feedback. Within these limitations, get out and begin interacting with the marketplace as soon as practical. And don't ever stop. Markets, especially the software and technology variety, are like living organisms. They are constantly growing and changing. What may be true in the early phases of a market could change dramatically over even a short period of time. Companies tend to develop an internal "common sense" that is used in making decisions, which is based upon past inputs. When doing Product Planning this can very dangerous in a dynamic market.

Who Should Do The Research?
The best way to do this research is what I often refer to as the "two-headed monster" approach: one marketing person, and one technical person. Not a lone wolf if you can help it, and please--no committees. Most often, this would be a Product (Marketing) Manager along with the Engineering Project Manager who will lead the actual development of the project. In the smallest startups, it might be the technical founder and the "business" founder, for example the CEO and CTO, or CEO and VP Marketing. The Business/Marketing manager should be in the lead for this task, but it's important to note that both camps have a role to play in this endeavor. There are two different perspectives on market feedback, and well as two different priorities in questions to ask. Having both parties involved (assuming there isn't a dysfunctional relationship) usually leads to the most complete and risk-reducing result. In addition, it often eliminates arguments over priorities later in the process after coding starts (and schedules inevitably begin to slip) If only one can be available, it should be the Marketing side--working closely with the Product Development/Engineering lead to make sure their input is included in the process.

How Should The Research Be Conducted?
This is a really broad question which of course depends heavily on the situation. How much do you have available to you in terms of money and other resources? If you're in a big company, you may be able to commission some objective research. If you are a startup with modest resources, it usually is an ad hoc exercise of visiting and interviewing potential customers.

What's most important to keep and open mind, and eliminate your own biases and pre-conceived notions. This exercise needs to be a search for the truth, not an attempt to validate your own theories. Also, make sure that you are talking to the right people. If you are planning a market-creating breakthrough product, you really need to be talking to Early Adopter types, not the guy or gal that only buys after everyone else they know. If you are introducing a product that is very similar to other products in an already large market--but maybe at a lower cost--by all means, talk to those mainstream buyers and even the late adopters. Use the current market phase to guide who to get input from.

It's great if you have the money to do some formal secondary research, but be careful about confusing formality with accuracy. For example, I know of large companies that spend huge amounts of money on Focus groups, while their Product Managers only reluctantly talk to actual potential customers directly. I find this very dangerous (you might say stupid!). Particularly with breakthrough technology, you tend to find a "garbage in, garbage out" phenomena with professionally managed focus groups. But there is that formal, professional looking report that appears very convincing in the aftermath. They can be great if constructed properly, but I have seen a lot of money spent for a very bad result. If the focus group wasn't run properly, or the technology is very revolutionary, the results can be total garbage covered in a beautiful wrapper. I always advise that there is a good amount of old-fashion ad hoc research--talking directly to customers--to be used as a sanity check, if not the main research technique. There are exceptions, of course. If you are doing incremental product research, where the product is well-understood and the changes are evolutionary, objective research methods such as surveys may be a great way to get a quick and definitive read on the market's reaction.

How Do You Know When You're "Done"?
This really depends on what you are doing, but my general answer is that "you will know when you are done when you get there". It's important to not put an absolute time limit on the research, if it is at all practical. In some cases in the real world, this isn't possible, of course. Sometimes you just have to go with the information that you have gathered up to a set point in time, along with your market common sense, intuition, and gut feel. With incremental product releases, waiting may not be possible or necessary. But if you can avoid it, especially if starting a new company, division, or business area, resist the temptation to "go with what you have", if it just doesn’t' feel right. In my experience, when you've "done enough" research to begin serious product planning--it's obvious. You will feel very comfortable with regards to the clarity of the current market snapshoot, and feel you've really nailed the wants and needs of the market as it relates to the new product opportunity. Try not to get "antsy" and move forward because you've reached the original market research end date on your theoretical timetable. Resist that temptation and keep working until you are CONFIDENT that you are there, unless other factors just won't allow it.

Summary And Conclusions
Make sure that you do sufficient market research before you begin building products; product development on a developer's gut feel is most often a prescription for failure. There are a few high profile companies which have entered our folklore that were lucky enough to start that way, but usually this approach will quickly empty your pockets, rather than make you rich.
Include both Marketers and Technologists in the Research if at all possible. In summary:

*Marketing should take the lead on market research for new products
*Always make sure you talk to at least some customers directly and informally
*By wary of formal market research results, if not supported by an informal research "sanity check"
*Make market research a continuous company function
*Don't stop an individual product-oriented market research project until you are comfortable that you've got the correct answer.

There you have my thoughts on market research for product planning purposes. I'd love to hear yours as well.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/

Which Online Advertising Platforms Should You Include in Your Marketing Mix?

2008-02-12T08:50:00.000-08:00

I often write about online marketing, as many of my regular readers know. A frequent topic of mine is Pay-Per-Click (PPC) advertising, also known as Cost-Per-Click (CPC). Occasionally, people will refer to this marketing vehicle as Search Engine Advertising. What you're hearing this called more and more is "Google Adwords".

HAS GOOGLE ADWORDS "BECOME" ONLINE ADVERTISING?

Of course, its kind of like asking for a "Coke" when you want a soft drink, or "Scotch Tape" when you are seeking sticky-backed tape. It's the age old story of a brand DEFINING the category itself, and usually happens when a product becomes dominant in a market segment.

The conventional wisdom these days is that Google has basically won the Online Search Engine-based advertising wars, so don't even bother with any of the other advertising platforms out there. This topic is the very reason for Microsoft's recent offer to buy Yahoo for a gazillion dollars; they are motivated to do this because Google is so far ahead that they don't appear able to catch up on their own. This raises the issue of two also-rans in a market, combining to take on the market leader--which usually ends in disaster--but we'll leave that for another discussion…

Back to the main question, should you focus your online advertising energy and budget strictly on Google Adwords, or broaden your campaign to other platforms? I have an opinion, of course, and I'd like to illustrate that opinion with my own pragmatic advertising experience, as well as some more theoretical marketing theory which has served me well across a variety of markets. Let's start with the theory, using an experience from my past to illustrate my viewpoint.

MARKET NICHES: HIT'EM WHERE THEY AIN'T

As markets develop, conventional wisdom usually instructs you to "get on the bandwagon" of the market leader, and don't waste your time "where the action isn't". Back in the 90s when I was running a systems & network management software business, Novell Netware had the overwhelming share of the Network Operating Systems business--roughly a 70% share. As a result, most of the companies in our general space focused on making their add-on products compatible with the Novell platform. They ignored two other competitors: Microsoft LAN Manager and Banyan VINES. There were almost no add-on systems management products available for these two platforms. We ported our applications to these two platforms, with excellent payback. Not only were we able to make easy sales to the customers of these two NOS vendors due to lack of competition, these secondary platform vendors supported our efforts to a much greater degree than Novell, where we were one of many. In addition, it turned out that while Banyan (and too a lesser extent LAN Manager) had much higher market shares in the coveted Fortune 1000 market than they did the market as a whole. Many large companies also had mixed networks containing two or more of these NOS platforms--we had a major strategic advantage in these large accounts, due to our cross platform support. The first lesson here is that sometimes it really pays to segment a market a bit differently. In some cases, in segments important to you, the market leader isn't nearly as dominant as overall market share data would lead you to believe. The second take-away is that smaller market segments are often DRAMATICALLY less competitive, allowing you to efficiently grow revenue without huge marketing outlays to "get above the noise".

MY OWN EXPERIENCE WITH THE MAJOR ONLINE ADVERTISING PLATFORMS

I run PPC advertising campaigns for several of my clients. Let me make something clear right away--there is no comparison between these three advertising platforms. Google Adwords is the clear winner, hands down. It's not close. Adwords is both by far the most robust and easiest to use, which is quite a statement. Adwords is a great piece of software, which Google is constantly evolving and improving. You can do almost everything you want and there is excellent online help if you do have a question. If you ever really do need a live person, help is available, even if you are spending a modest amount on advertising with Google. It is a pleasure to work in Adwords. Plus the fact is that by far the most volume of searches is available on this platform.

Yahoo Search Marketing (formerly Overture) comes in second place. This is the original search advertising platform. It's not nearly as robust as Adwords, but the recent major upgrade at least brought the software into the modern ages--it was pretty stagnant for a very long time, allowing Google to surge into a commanding lead. The basics are covered, and it's pretty intuitive--although if you are used to working in Adwords, the subtle differences can drive you a bit crazy. And there are a few things that are simple to do online in Adwords, that you have to call and request over the phone to make happen in Yahoo's platform--but at least they are very nice about it.

And then there is Microsoft AdCenter. What can I say about Microsoft; it is the typically excruciating experience dealing with them. They dominate most markets they are in, and have that arrogant way of dealing with you that only a monopolist has. When you have 90% of the OS or word processing market, you can get away with lousy support, vendor-centric policies and non-intuitive software. But they are a distant third in this market, and they aren't gaining on anyone. So these weaknesses stick out like a sore thumb. This is the newest platform. The software isn't all that hard to use, but in Microsoft fashion they have created some of their own conventions in opposition to market terminology, and the application doesn't always behave in a way you would expect. Add in the unbelievable support mentality, not to mention the fact that they are a distant 3rd in traffic, and you realize why they are last among the major platforms. As an example of their attitude, when I decided to look at Microsoft's offering, I wanted to import my Adwords campaigns into Adcenter to save a BUNCH of time, which the Help function stated that I could do. Makes a lot of sense for a new user, right? Well, I couldn't figure out how to do it in the software, so I called Adcenter support to ask how. I was told that I needed to be spending at least $11,000/month to have access to that feature! There's a classic catch 20--not allowed to import all your campaigns into a platform (which will enable you to spend money in that platform), until you're spending over $100,000/year. Brilliant market penetration strategy! Whoever is making decisions at Microsoft has no idea how to compete--which I guess isn't surprising for a monopolist. No wonder they are trying to buy Yahoo….

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Adwords is clearly the best platform, so why bother with the other two? Remember the discussion about niche markets above. Although Adwords is by far the best, as a result, it's also the most fiercely competitive of the three--meaning costs are high and margins are sometimes lower. It really varies by market segment, but in some segments, Yahoo Search Marketing and Microsoft Adcenter are neglected, leaving excellent bargains on important keywords. I am currently running a campaign on Adcenter for a client in a very niche, technical market, which isn't supposed to be well suited for MSN search traffic. This campaign is doing VERY well. So the moral of this story is don't pick one--use all three, as long as you're making money on each of them. This is the beauty of PPC marketing, after all. It is quite easy to test to see if it will work for you, and objectively track your results.

That's my take on the three major search marketing platforms--I'd love to hear yours. Post a comment so everyone can benefit from your own experience.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/

Strategies for a Technology Market Slowdown

2008-01-14T16:56:00.000-08:00

Is the world economy slowing down? What are the implications for technology companies?

Recently, technology stocks (along with the stock market in general) have tanked. There is a credit crunch that shows no signs of abating, and inflation is rearing its ugly head, with the continual climb in the prices of oil and other natural resources--commodities which touch every aspect of the world economy. Is the economy headed for a severe downturn--taking technology businesses down the drain with it?

I hardly think so, but we have had a very long running economic expansion, that eventually will reverse by the universal law of "what goes up, must come down". Economies are cyclical by nature, so a downturn has to happen eventually. And tech stocks are usually affected more severely than average in an economic downturn, which affects technology industry investment and ultimately tech growth rates.

So what should you do if you're the CEO of a software or hardware tech business?

Be Prudent, But Don't Panic
Now's certainly not the time to stick you head in the sand, and hope the economy doesn't get any worse. It almost certainly will; but more importantly, how will it affect your company? That's what you need to ponder. Is your product a "must have" or a "very nice to have"? Obviously the "nice-to-haves" will have a tougher time in a declining economy, and should plan accordingly. So take the time to analyze you situation, and make a forecast for your own business, based up the unique circumstances of your market and company. Remember, hope is not a strategy.

Look For Opportunities to Outflank Weaker Competitors
For strong players, declining economies can be a great time to pick up market share from weaker competitors. If you have the resources and can do it safely, now might be the time to run a promotion, or selectively increase your marketing. It's counter-intuitive to most managers' instincts. But weakening the competition during a downturn can lead to stronger growth when things turn back upward.

Slow Near-Term Expense Growth, But Don't Compromise Long-Term Initiatives
In most cases, companies will want to carefully monitor, and possibly cut back on their spending. You want to make sure that you don't put your company in jeopardy, by have expenses out of sync with flat or declining revenues. But try your best to keep intact the initiatives that are critical to long-term growth. You must continue to think long-term as well as short term, assuming you don't get in a situation where your survival is at stake. Cut back on advertising and office space if you're seeing a slowdown--but make sure you don't cut the product development project which will lead to growth 18 months hence. These can be tough decisions, but they really separate the long-term successful CEOs from the flash-in-the-pans. Almost anyone can manage when times are good.

Limit The Growth Of Your Staff
While prudent spending can be wise during a downturn, aggressively increasing the size of you staff usually isn't. There are always exceptions, of course, but adding too much staff can really bloat your fixed cost structure, in a manner that limits your management flexibility. Unfortunately, many companies are often most aggressively adding staff at the end of a growth cycle--just in time for the downturn. If this leads to layoffs, it can have a devastating effect on your company's morale.

Although layoffs are sometimes necessary, they are always painful and hurtful to the company culture--unless the company culture is already of the "Attila the Hun", cutthroat variety. The founders of one of my former employers, Bill Hewlett and David Packard, ran HP for many years with a rule of thumb that limited staff increases to 25% of revenue growth. This helped them avoid the natural inclination to hire someone new every time a new task was identified. I believe was an important factor in many years of smooth growth--without layoffs. This particular metric might not be right for your company, but something similar could prove to be a useful damper on excessive hiring.

Make Sure That You Have Money For A Rainy Day
While it's no time to panic, it IS time to make sure that you have the financial resources necessary to comfortably cruise through a downturn. VCs and Private Equity firms have been flush with cash; if you are close to a deal to bring in outside investment capital--don't wait--so it now. Availability of funds and terms will only get worse, as the stock market heads down and the credit crunch continues. Also, make sure that you have available the largest line of credit possible with your bank. It may cost you an extra few thousand dollars a year, but its excellent insurance, if you are surprised on the downside. If you're in startup mode and financing yourself on credit cards and home equity lines--maximize your future access to these as well! Whatever your sources of funds, make sure now that you're financially well prepared for whatever the future holds.

Be Poised For The Next Upturn, Whenever It Happens
I mentioned earlier that you should try your best to keep long-term initiatives alive. In that same vein, your thought processes should CONSTANTLY be focused on the next upturn, in all of your decision-making. Again, this assumes that your survival isn't in question. For example, while massive hiring isn't usually wise during a downturn, you want to always be open to unique opportunities that may not come along often. Say there is a talented executive available, only because of the downturn. If you can safely afford him or her, snap them up now, before a competitor grabs them. Downturns often present opportunities to improve your business when the next growth cycle occurs. But you need to be "looking ahead" and making good decisions now, to take full advantage of the upturn when it finally does.

Summary
Once again, now is not the time to panic. But it is an important time to plan. Anyone that can predict what will happen with an economy should go to the nearest casino--no need to waste your time with a software or technology company! So I suggest that it might be wise to do a "best-most likely--worst" 2 year forecast now, and try to plan as best you can for the two extreme cases. Post a comment and let me know your thoughts on how the economy and the tech industry will fare in the coming months.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

Negotiating and Working with Large Technology OEM Partners

2007-12-14T15:05:00.000-08:00

The Holy Grail for many software and technology companies, especially the early stage type, is the big deal. Everyone is looking for the big deal, the one that will fund the company's early activities, provide market credibility and momentum in the marketplace. Of course, if it goes well, there can be nothing better. Many times the big deal takes the form of an OEM partnership with a much larger company. But often when these deals do happen, they end up fitting in the category of "be careful what you wish for".

TARGET YOUR OEM PARTNERS CAREFULLY
This is where it all starts, good or bad. It's important to pick compatible partners. Companies looking for large OEM partners are often blinded by the potential of what the OEM can do FOR their business. They often fail to pay any attention at all to what the OEM might do TO their business!

Can the partner cause severe channel conflict? Will they tie the small company up in endless meetings, procedures and negotiations? Do they have a corporate structure and culture so foreign to your way of doing business, where you end up pulling your hair out from frustration--unable to accomplish even the most simple business objective without moving mountains? Sometimes with large companies, its difficult even figure out who you need to speak with--let alone get a prompt, unambiguous answer.

Get to know your partners well before you sign a deal. It's tempting to rush in before "they change their mind", but the actual relationship is critical to potential success. It's like dating before a marriage--no matter how attractive the partner is, you need to make sure you can live with them later on.

NEGOTIATE FROM STRENGTH
I don't like to do deals with people that are sure they have the upper hand. If they think they can push you around--they almost certainly will. Usually one partner needs the other to a greater extent, but you want to try to avoid dealing with partners where you have no leverage at all. It generally doesn’t' turn out well. Make sure that you negotiate a deal that you can live with. Above all, you need to have a "line in the sand" that you won't cross--and be prepared to walk away if the negotiations cross that line.

This can be a painful and difficult thing to do when you are seeing big "dollar signs" in your eyes--and fear if you stay strong, you might blow the deal. But remember, you have something that the other side wants as well--or they wouldn't be talking to you. If you don't know what your minimum successful deal looks like, and you aren't prepared to walk, you may sign a deal that you will regret. Not to mention tying up your time and resources, which might have been used working with a more compatible partner.

WORK ON EVEN TERMS
Once you've negotiated a deal that you can live with (and hopefully prosper with!), it's time to get to work with your partner. Try to keep things as fair and even as possible in the relationship. Of course, it's important to be accommodating to your partner, and respect the differences in operational procedures. Big OEMs will usually move slower than you, be more process-oriented and structured, and include more people in the relationship. All of this is fine, but it needs to be tempered so that the larger partner doesn't "swallow all of you available resources whole". It can easily happen if you don't guard against it. They have more resources than you (but will always think they are busier!) as well as more process-driven requirements that need to be met. But don't be afraid to draw the line at a reasonable point, and remind them that you have fewer people and resources available. Suggest a phone meeting instead of flying three people across the country--ask that they come to your place, rather than always trekking to their headquarters. Propose that one of there folks spearhead writing that joint position paper, instead of some scarce resource in your company--you get the picture. Sometimes larger companies will smother you without even knowing they are doing it--don't be afraid to remind them that you need to do business a little differently.

KNOW WHEN TO SAY "NO"
If you've tried everything you know, politely, to keep the relationship equitable and reasonable--but it just isn't--don't be afraid to say NO. I meet many smaller company executives in my consulting practice whojust don't feel they can do this with a larger partner. They'll talk tough in internal meetings, but when back in discussions with the partner, the tough talk turns to submission. They just feel like the partner is too important to their business to risk ever offending them in any way. That attitude is a prescription for servitude for your company. I'm not suggesting being unpleasant; in fact, when standing up to a larger partner, it's critical to be calm, polite and non-defensive. But by all means be firm in delivering the message of what your business can, cannot--and won't'--do. If you don't, what could be a profitable relationship can turn very sour.

HAVE REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
The last point I'd like to convey is that it's important to have reasonable expectations in partnering with large OEMs. Many companies go into these deals believing they will be "company-makers". In my experience, this rarely happens. Understand what the OEM can do for you, and build your business model around the most conservative projections of their performance that's possible.

Companies usually turn to OEM products from partners to fill niches that they don't fully understand, or don't feel would pay back--if they invested in developing it themselves. It is very rare for products licensed or resold from partners to get anywhere near the push that internally-developed products do. Be realistic about this, and you won't be disappointed. If revenue exceeds your conservative expectations, you'll be overjoyed.

SUMMARY
That's my condensed advice on working with the big software and technology OEMs of the world. This is a common activity for many companies--what's been your own experience? Post a comment and let me know your own view.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

Channel Pricing Strategy for Software and Hardware Products

2007-11-23T17:28:00.000-08:00

Pricing software products is always a difficult exercise. With high product development costs, but near zero costs of goods sold, there are many different strategies that people have followed successfully (and not so successfully!) over time. Pricing hardware products is a bit simpler because there is generally a significant cost of goods sold that acts as a governor on pricing behavior. But even with hardware, technology markets are dynamic and fast moving. And it's a complex enough topic when all sales are going direct--once you bring channels into the picture, it only gets worse.

CHANNEL CONFLICT
The biggest concern most companies have when pricing for multiple channels is channel conflict. I have seen many companies who actually AVOID selling through channels for fear of the pricing implications it brings. They are afraid of a channel undercutting their direct sales force in price, and channel conflict in general, which arises as a result of different prices being presented to customers from representatives of different channels. But this doesn’t have to be so; with a savvy understanding of the implications of pricing actions. This comes from both experience, and "paying attention to what actually HAPPENS in the marketplace. If you price properly and run your channel programs well, you can sell successfully via multiple channels--with these channels living in relative harmony.

VALUE-BASE CHANNEL PRICING
I've written about value-based pricing before, in the context of the perceived value of a product, as seen by the end-user, being the guidepost for pricing actions. A similar concept exists for channel discounts. Rather than taking a simplistic approach and give the greatest discount to the channel players that move the most product ( a destructive strategy--more on that later), it's important to measure how much "value" a particular channel provides both you and your end-user customers. Look at things like 24/7 support, inventory & product availability, technical expertise, credit services, and the like. In this case, it is helpful to let the cost of delivery of each of these attributes be your guide to the value they provide.

VALUE-BASED CHANNEL DISCOUNT STRUCTURE
For example, you may figure that the cost of a VAR providing 24/7 support to end users (meaning YOUR company doesn't have to) is equal to 5% of the list price of the product. And the inventory held by a retailer (again, meaning YOUR company doesn't have to hold it, at a cost) is equal to 2% of the list price. And so on and so forth. Using this value-based method, you can calculate the actual costs borne by your partners in delivering marketplace value, and use this as a guidepost in building your channel discount schedules for various types of channel partners. This value-based channel pricing approach is not well-known, and seldom considered; most people seem to figure the only value worth extra discount is sales volume. If you use a value pricing approach, you actually have a chance to build a multi-channel strategy that "clicks on all cylinders" by providing discount structures that are equitable based upon cost and value associated with each channel.

LIMIT VOLUME DISCOUNTS
If you choose the "more volume=greater discount approach, your multi-channel strategy is a house of cards which will soon collapse around you. One channel will quickly grow to dominate, and the other channel types will soon quit selling on your behalf, and wither away.

THE GOAL IS TO MAXIMIZE SALES THROUGH ALL CHANNELS
Again, the key is to not let one channel dominate. Ideally, you would like all channels to be presenting prices to the end customer that are equal. In reality, that pretty much can't happen without price fixing (which some folks may be able to get away with, but that's another story….). But you should strive as much as possible to have end user pricing equity for all channels. But this is where the counter-intuitive part of this discussion comes in to play. Most people pricing high tech products have a tendency to price based upon the volume of product a particular channel player can move. It seems logical--why wouldn't you want to incent and reward a partner with better margins if they are selling more products?

While this appears logical, it is actually penny-wise and pound-foolish. In fact, it is usually catastrophic to your plans to maximize sales through multiple channels. Let's look at a simple case of how this often "breaks" a multi-channel strategy for a common case: a vendor selling through both retailers and VARs.

A SIMPLE EXAMPLE
Retailers provide a vendor with a point of purchase holding inventory, where their customers can go to immediately purchase a product. VARs often don't hold inventory, but provide other services important to the vendor and some customers, such as tech support, training and integration with other software and hardware products. Each may have an important role to play in the overall strategy to maximize vendor sales.

But the retailer will usually be a high volume partner, with the VAR less likely to be a volume outlet (although the VAR CHANNEL, in total, may hold great promise to move volume). If you structure your pricing by volume, the retailer will get better discounts. Because individual VARs generally have higher costs spread over lower product volumes, they actually need HIGHER discounts to stay even in pricing potential to the Retailer. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that retailers tend to be volume-oriented, usually accepting a relatively small, fixed margin on everything they sell. If you provide discounts based upon the volume that a partner moves, what will happen is inevitable: The retailer will take over your channel business, because the VARs will be "squeezed out" by the relatively low prices charged by the retailer. They won't be able to make a profit on your products, so they will ignore the business, and you will lose the opportunity to realize significant sales through the large (in aggregate) VAR channel, especially those customers that desire the service and support they supply. I am oversimplifying this situation, of course, because VARs are more interested in the service revenue that a product can pull, than they are in product margins. But I have seen this scenario play out many times and kill product sales through VARs channel that might otherwise generate health sales through that channel. This can be a heavy penalty for naïve technology product managers who are charged with pricing their products and moving them through multiple channels, but who don't fully realize the consequences of their actions.

SUMMARY
Pricing seems pretty simple on the surface--when channels are involved, it's anything but. It's important to fully think through the downstream effects of your pricing policies when multiple distribution channel are involved. Let me know if you have questions, or you own channel pricing stories that you'd like to share.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/

Forecasting New Technology Products

2007-10-17T17:12:00.000-07:00

Forecasting is a thankless job. It's a lot like being a referee or umpire in your favorite sport; the only time a game official is noticed is when they do something wrong! Similarly, a forecaster's primary aim is too stay out of the "news".

Make no mistake; forecasting is a very important function in any business. In the software business, your whole business plan could be riding on meeting the forecast to fund growth and product development. In a hardware business, it's even worse--you have to worry about creating too much or too little inventory--either of which can be a huge problem for your business.

HARD IN THE BEST OF CIRCUMSTANCES

It's bad enough when you are trying to forecast an existing, mature product, in a mature industry. This is a difficult and complex task, using well known techniques such as smoothing, trending and seasonality to fine tune the next month or annual forecast.

Early in my career, at Hewlett Packard, I spend 4 months in a special assignment dedicated solely to improving forecast accuracy. The marketing department was engaged in an ongoing argument with manufacturing over inventory levels. Not surprisingly, manufacturing wanted the inventory levels to be lean, while marketing favored a more robust number. This was because manufacturing was being graded on their costs and at that time "owned" the inventory; while Marketing was graded on revenue--and low inventory levels usually lead to missed sales opportunities.

I became a Lotus spreadsheet guru, and we used everything we could find to try to improve our forecast accuracy. Keep in mind that these were high tech products (computer printers), but successful product lines with significant historical data available. Try as we might, the best we could ever do was to get within 25% of the eventual unit sales number.

NEW TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT ARE THE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO FOR FORECASTERS

The main message here is that forecasting in any product in high tech industries is almost impossible, from an accuracy perspective. Forecasting accurately the performance of NEW PRODUCTS in technology markets is TRULY impossible to do accurately. With brutal competition, a tight market research budget, vague notions of market size, an early stage on the user acceptance curve, and often the reality of an unknown brand, forecasters of new technology products needs to make sure they don't end up in substance abuse clinics. But of course, even though it's hard-- it's still VERY important. So what's a forecaster to do?

There are two basic methodologies that I typically utilize when attempting to forecast sales for a new technology product:

TOP DOWN FORECASTING METHOD

The first approach that I usually engage is what I like to call the "top down" method. You might also call this the "Macro" approach. This is an exercise of defining the size of your total addressable market using market research or number of potential users, and also estimating what a reasonable share will be for your product, given the various attributes of your market position. Consider everything you can in your analysis: your marketing budget, brand strength, an unbiased view of how your product stacks up vs. the competition, etc. It may be helpful to put it all in a spreadsheet, and quantify the various important attributes of your company/product vs. your competition. Be careful about assigning too much precision to these numbers; remember that garbage in equals' garbage out. But if you go through this exercise thoughtfully, it can be very helpful in analyzing your relative market position. In this case, obtaining your top down forecast is then as easy as multiplying the share you think you can obtain, times the market size that you came up via research.

BOTTOM UP FORECASTING METHOD

After I've done the top down or Macro forecast, I like to use what I call a bottoms up or "Micro" approach as a sanity check. To do this, you want to gather information on what you think you can sell from individual stakeholders in the sales area: direct field sales reps, Online/Web store, dealers, international distributors, etc. It's helpful to gather info from any channel that will be a significant contributor to sales for this new product. Usually it's impractical to do a complete survey of everyone that may be involved in the sales effort. What's important is to obtain a representative sample that is both broad enough and deep enough that the data you gather has some significance. At that point, you can "normalize" the data. For example, say you were able to gather data from a broad cross-section of sales points, totaling approximately 10% of the total sales infrastructure. You would then multiply the total number of units/dollars you obtained from your sales entities times 10, to reach a bottoms up forecast totaling 100%.

DO YOU HAVE CONVERGENCE?

The key to this exercise is to discover whether your two views of the market are close enough that they appear to be focusing on the same topic! If they do, you may be in pretty good shape with your forecast. If they are off by an order of magnitude, it's probably time to reconsider some of your assumptions.

SUMMARY

So there's my advice on how to approach the unenviable task of forecasting a brand new technology product. It's a high risk, high return activity under the best of circumstances--and ideal conditions are seldom found in this activity in the technology space. But if you are able to construct both a top down and a bottoms up forecast, and the two numbers at least fall in the same ballpark, you're probably on the right track.

Give it a shot yourself next time you're faced with this forecasting daunting task. Feel free to shoot me an email with your questions, or leave a comment for discussion.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

More SEO Tools

2007-09-28T16:56:00.000-07:00

From time to time, I let you know about some of the more useful (out of the abundant crop available on the Internet!) online tools for Search Engine Optimization (SEO) that I have come across. So here's the latest batch of valuable, and free, widgets that I've found:

The first is a site that checks on all of your back links, with a twist: it actually details not only the back link itself, but the anchor text associated with the link. For those of you sophisticated about SEO for your website, you'll know that this is very important information. There are a couple of reasons why this is important. First of all, the search engines use anchor text to associate your site with keywords that might be searched on in that engine, and uses this information in it's search rankings. So it's very important to have your most important keywords show up as anchor text on as many back links as you can manage. Secondly, if the search engines find that the anchor text on your back links is too repetitive, the engines will penalize you from a ranking perspective. The reason is that if the anchor text on all of your back links reads the same, Google and the other engines assume that the links are "manufactured" by the owner of the site--rather than generated naturally as a result of your site being interesting to others. So I highly recommend that you check out and use this tool:

Backlink Anchor Text Checker

A similar tool is the "C Class Back Link Analyzer". Once again, this is a tool for those sophisticated about SEO. The "C" Class Back Link Analyzer investigates the links pointing to a website, and then groups them according to the IP addresses they result from. If one back link comes from 54.37.14.5 and another comes from 54.37.14.6, the tool would group together. Links which come from the same C-Class IP are likely to be hosted by the same company, often lowering the site's search engine ranking.

"C" Class Back Link Analyzer

One last esoteric tool for the true SEO fanatics out there. It's called Deep Link Ratio Calculator. This tool measure the number of links to pages on your site other than the Index/Home Page, divided by the total number linked to your site. This is important because the Search Engines consider these "Deep Links" to be more "natural", more likely the result of someone creating a link to some great content in your site (as opposed to you listing your own site in a directory, for example). So this neat tool can give you another view of how "natural" the Search Engines are viewing the links to your site.

Deep Link Ratio Calculator

Finally, I present "yet another" Keyword Suggestion tool. I know, there are lots of them out there, but I find that when you're looking to generate keywords for SEO on a site, or when starting a PPC campaign, there are never enough good tools. This Suggestion tool claims to accumulate and report Keyword variations from the six most major search engines. Give it a shot and report back how it goes.

Keyword Suggestion Tool

I hope that you find these online SEO tools useful--post a comment and let me know!

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

System Integration vs. Product Development

2007-09-21T17:03:00.000-07:00

I've recently engaged on assignments with two new clients. Both of them have businesses selling to large, blue chip customers. Customers of the size that are used to "having it their way"; as a result, getting a deal with them often includes the need for a lot of customization.

The interesting thing about these two clients is how they perceive and approach that need to customize.

A Tale of Two Companies

Company A views customization somewhat as a pain and distraction, something to be controlled--I am assisting them with creating a standard solution offering menu outlining the "Base" offering, with a list of options available at an added cost. They really want to discourage certain customizations, absolutely won't do some things that will be asked, and want to make sure that they charge dearly for items that they find painful. They have the classic mentality of a product company; they want to do the amount of customization necessary to make a large sale to this important customer--but NO more than they have to.

Company B, which also considers itself a product company, has a very different mentality about customization. They welcome it, pride themselves on it, and position themselves to these potential large clients as someone that can quickly bring solutions to the client, customized to their desires. They want their big account reps to be scouring the big accounts for unique pain points or opportunities, which might fall within the company's core capabilities, enabling them to propose a customized solution. In fact, up till now, their product development approach has really been to find out what individual accounts want--and build it for them.

So which of these two business models is the best way for technology companies to go?

System Integration Business Models

Advantages:
*More flexible and able to change with shifts in the marketplace
*Not as capital-intensive due to less "betting" on upfront product development
*Easier to grow business organically with internally-generated capital than in a product business

Disadvantages:
*Less risk due to lower upfront investments
*More competition; System Integration is an "easier-entry" business
*Generally lower operating margins
*Growth is less scalable than a product-oriented company

Product-Focused Business Models

Advantages:
*Provides greater opportunity for strategic advantage and resulting fast growth
*Less competition if a product/brand/technology differential advantage is created
*Can scale much quicker if a hit product is developed
*Higher operating margins if product is successful
*Usually more marketing-driven and less labor-intensive
*If creating a very large company is the goal, much easier to raise outside capital

Disadvantages:
*Much more risk of "crib death", resulting in complete capital loss if first product has problems in development or marketing
*Harder to "get over the hump"; success is harder to come by, and success often happens as a step function after a difficult startup period

First of all, I want to emphasize that there isn't necessarily a "wrong" approach with either of these business models. You can make a lot of money pursuing either model. Both of the companies I have used as models have managed to attract blue chip customer which would be the envy of any company. What we are really talking about here is the difference between a classic product-driven company and a system integrator.

Company A is that classic product-driven company. They customize when they have to, but also have a point where they will say "no".

Company B also self-identifies itself as a product company, and in fact they have built their business around a small number of standard offerings. But as their core strategic advantage they really are utilizing relationships, the ability to customize beyond what standard product companies (especially larger ones) are willing to do, as well as to react very quickly to customer requests. They've built a very nice business doing this, but have some frustrations as well. They are highly dependent upon a small number of major accounts for virtually all of their revenue, and have the major revenue/profit swings that are associated with this type of business--up one year, back down the next. They also are in constant fear that a larger company will come along and "take away" their marketplace, because they've continuously failed to create new products which build upon a core offering which is very dated technologically. The core offering appears long-in-tooth and vulnerable. This company is very account-focused, and the lack of a market focus has kept them from being able to create additional, broadly marketable products which provide them with a strong proprietary advantage (and causes a lack of sleep at night!)

Company A understands who they are and what they want. That doesn't guarantee success, but it makes it much easier to build a plan that everyone agrees on. At that point success or failure usually depends upon execution, unless the plan is awful. If failure ensues in this scenario, more times than not, the problem is in execution. Company B's biggest problem is that they are floating right in the middle between the two business models. They are trying to leverage both of these business models, and struggling with execution, in some ways with both.

SUMMARY
It isn't impossible to combine these two business models successfully. I'm sure that many of you can't point to several examples of such a very successful compromise. In fact, many technology companies combine both of these models to some extent, with good success. But I find that usually, a company identifies itself primarily as a product company first, or a systems integrator. That identification is their strategic focus, and takes precedence when prioritizing the use of always scarce assets.

The secondary business model is usually utilized on an opportunistic basis. Product companies integrate and customize as needed to get a big deal. Integrators create "products" to fill the needs of a big account, and sometimes happily find they are saleable to other accounts. Occasionally, these "products" prove so widely saleable that they are spun off into a separate product company, or the integrator changes its focus into becoming a full-blown product company.

The most important thing, in my opinion, is to understand who you are, and what you are trying to accomplish strategically. It's the company's that are trying to leverage both business models at once, without one model taking the lead, that gets itself in a heap of trouble. That's my opinion--what's yours?

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com