Morettini on Management

General Management and Marketing Advice for Software and Tech Companies

Category: B2C

Pros and Cons of the Freemium Software Business Model

One of the hottest trends in the software business over last several years has been the rise of the “Freemium” business model. For those unfamiliar with the term, a Freemium model is characterized by an entry level version of your software which is totally free to users–forever.

This business model has actually been around in the software industry since the 80’s and was originally referred to as “crippleware” or “lite” entry level versions of software. The term “Freemium” apparently entered the software industry lexicon when used by Jarid Lukin of Alacra in 2006. But enough history. Regardless what you call it, the model on the surface is well suited to the software business due to no (or very low) cost of goods sold.

Whatever term you use, the model is predicated on creating a large “free” user base quickly, usually by using viral marketing methods such as referrals and word of mouth along with other very low cost methods such as SEO. The large free base is then “monetized” by selling advertising to their eyeballs and/or upselling them on premium software features or services. The Freemium model today is widely used in the software biz across a number of form factors including Open Source, SaaS and traditionally licensed software.

What’s most interesting to me about the model is the trendiness of it the last few years since the term Freemium came into use. I see many companies that appear to be adopting it because they feel like so many others are using it — that it must be the right thing to do. But is it the right thing to do in all cases? In my opinion–it is not. Let’s take a closer look.

Freemium Model PROS

  1. Fundamentally viral: he more users you get–the more users you get. Free users will refer other users who could turn out to be paying users.
  2. Allows you to upsell your own (free)customers–upselling a customer that’s already incorporated your tool into his workflow is generally easier than selling a new customer from “scratch”.
  3. Keeps prospects in your target market away from being locked in by the competition.
  4. The barriers to entry to your product line are at the minimum possible (even less friction than free trials and money back guarantees)
  5. Great for startups to say be able to say  ”we have XXXXX gazillion users”.
  6. Enables Free Beta testing of new products with a large number of users.
  7. “Free” traffic and user bases can sometimes be converted to advertising revenue.

Freemium Model CONS

  1. Usually has low conversions rates to paid version, average is about 1%–although this obviously varies widely.
  2. If you do offer customer/technical support to free users, it’s potentially a large expense unsupported by little if any revenue.
  3. If you don’t offer support or only offer poor/reduced support to free users (such as forum-only support), what does that do to your conversion rates to paid users–as well as your overall reputation?
  4. If you do offer reduced or no support to free users, lots of time can be wasted trying to figure out who “qualifies” for what level of support .
  5. 99% will never pay you a dime–are they REALLY customers?
  6. In addition to customer technical support costs, if you’re SaaS-based the cost of data/bandwidth/hosting for free users can be significant.
  7. Requires EXTREME application ease-of-use to work well.
  8. There is some evidence that having a free version reduces your conversion rates on free trials of your paid product.

The main reasons I don’t like Freemium  models, except when circumstances clearly call for it:

  • Having a free version conditions the market that “free” is the appropriate price.
  • A free version can reduce the overall value perception of your product
  • It’s critical to the success of a Freemium model and difficult to get the free/paid feature set split “just right”. If you don’t get this split just right, you either won’t be able to attract enough free users (too little value in Freemium product) or you won’t be able to convert you Freemium users to paid versions (too much value in the Freemium product).
  • “Free” is a mentality that’s hard to overcome in a user; it’s much harder from convert a free user to a paid user than it is from an entry level (cheap) paid user to a premium paid user. An example of this is the difficulty of online newspapers in converting readers to paid models after years of “training” them that their content should be “free”.
  • I’d prefer to use available profits on professional marketing programs rather than starving the marketing budget due to excessive support/hosting costs.

Even taking my biases above into consideration, there is definitely a place for a Freemium business model in some situations:

The Best Circumstances to use a Freemium Model

  • Although the Freemium model has worked in B2B markets, in general I believe it’s better suited to consumer mass markets where viral is possible, price points are already low and free user bases and traffic can be high–making it possible to monetize the traffic via advertising
  • Entering a market with a very strong, embedded competitor.
  • When attacking a market with very limited resources or lacking in marketing skills.
  • With a product has a great “social pull” which lends itself well to viral marketing.
  • Freemium has already become the standard in your market segment, so you’re almost forced to follow suit.
  • As an act of desperation when nothing else has worked.

I’m sure there are others circumstances where a Freemium model makes sense–the list above is what comes to mind quickly.

So that’s what I think about Freemium–many will not agree. What’s been your experience with it?  Leave a comment below with your own thoughts, lessons or best practices.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
1 Comment by admin on May 11, 2013
filed in B2C, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Online Marketing, Product Marketing/Management, Promotion
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How Important is a Strong Rolodex in the Software and Hardware Business?

I get this comment all the time: “We’re looking for a VP-Sales/VP-Business Development/Sales Manager/Sales Rep with a strong Rolodex in the (pick your market segment) market”. But how important is a rolodex in the IT business? In my opinion, not as important as many people seem to think…..

I realize that this is a contrarian viewpoint among those of us in the technology business.  Some may even view it as “stupid”. However, it’s not in any way a spontaneous comment, but an opinion I’ve developed over a long period of time. I’m sure I’ll get a lot of push back on this opinion, since it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Here’s my argument:

What a rolodex does for you

First of all, of course a strong rolodex in a specific market segment is a good thing. To say otherwise is silly. But what does it really do for you? It may get a phone call returned or a meeting set up faster that it otherwise would. This is of course helpful, but far from critical in my mind, especially compared to other factors I’ll explore below. I should point out there are some market segments that are so closed that they appear almost tribal in nature. In those cases, including one example which is mentioned later in this article, a strong rolodex can move to near the top of the list of critical success factors. But in my experience these situations are rare and far from normal.

Many other things have to line up first

I’ve always maintained that sales reps get too much blame when they fail, and too much credit (and often outsized monetary rewards) when they’re successful. SO many things have to be done well in a company for a rep to have a chance. The executive managers must first capitalize the company adequately, or usually nothing works very well. Product Marketing must properly define a market opportunity that matches well with the company’s intellectual property and technical capabilities. The R&D folks must create a product which makes a contribution to the marketplace, offering a differential advantage over competitive offerings. Maybe all of this seems obvious; but none of it is easy. A lot can go wrong, and I believe every one of these activities is more difficult and important than having a pre-existing rolodex in the market. Even it this wasn’t true, it’s really difficult to attract the right sales reps (with or without an strong rolodex in your segment) without evidence that the above activities are going well.

Most important attributes for a technology sales rep

Smart – This may seem obvious, but all too often people looking for a “quick hit” underrate it’s importance or don’t adequately investigate intellect in their new sales hires.

Technology acumen – There are many good sales reps in the world. But regardless of whether we’re talking about hardware, semiconductors, traditional software or SaaS, there are far fewer that have the education, training and ability to quickly absorb complex and fast-moving technology that is fundamental to our business.

Work ethic – While intellect and technical competence are important, selling still isn’t brain surgery. But it’s a really difficult job that takes persistence, hard work and the self-confidence to keep going in the face of a lot of rejection. There is no substitute for a strong work ethic in a consistently high performing sales rep.

Ability to build relationships – this is key- and shouldn’t be confused with having a large rolodex of names and phone numbers. Just because someone knows a lot of people doesn’t mean those prospects necessarily wants to hear from them, or trusts them enough to buy from them. In many cases it’s just the opposite. If you have strong relationship-building skills, you can do it over and over again across any market segment. Give me a strong relationship-builder with no existing contacts in a market segment over a weaker relationship-builder who knows everyone in the segment–any day of the week.

Market segment experience and rolodex – these are beneficial qualities, there is on doubt. But I believe they are down the list in importance relative to those listed above.

An example of where your Rolodex IS CRITICAL

Now just because I don’t think a strong rolodex generally leads the list of important attributes in the software or hardware business, that doesn’t mean I feel that way in every case. The best example of when it’s VERY important is when raising capital from institutional sources, such as venture capitalists. Not only is it important to personally know them (or get an introduction from someone who knows them well) before a fund-raising approach, it’s critical to a bizarre degree. It’s not universal, but if you approach many VCs without leveraging an existing relationship you may in fact have blown any chance with them in the future, no matter how impressive the value proposition of your business. So this is a case where having a strong rolodex in place is paramount–but the details of this is better left for another article.

That’s what I think about the importance of a rolodex in the technology marketplace. I’ve personally moved among many different market segments in my career and don’t consider it all that difficult. The most difficult part is often convincing someone it isn’t all that difficult! While it can be helpful to have a strong rolodex, I believe it is placed way too high in many folks priorities in most cases.  If you disagree–post a comment below and tell us why, or just provide us with the wisdom of your own rolodex-related experiences.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
No Comments by admin on December 2, 2012
filed in B2C, Business Development, Corporate Strategy, General Management, Product Marketing/Management, SaaS, Startup/Early Stage, enterprise software, hardware, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Does Pay Per Click (PPC) Advertising Still Work?

Modern PPC advertising was pioneered in 1998 by Overture who was later bought by Yahoo. It really hit it’s stride in 2000 when Google introduced the AdWords platform. I’ve been managing PPC campaigns for myself and my clients since 2003.  So while I haven’t been involved since the  very beginning, I consider myself an early adopter of PPC technology.

The Early Days

In the early days PPC was great–using it to your advantage was like putting a knife through butter. Almost independent of individual product or market, it was very effective when I first started managing PPC campaigns. Things stayed that way for several years, even as Google (as the primary PPC platform) made constant changes to their platform. I remember soon after I started using AdWords Google made one particular change to their platform: for keywords you were bidding on that fell below a certain click-thru threshold, AdWords henceforth prevented you from bidding on that keyword-FOREVER! Needless to say, they fairly quickly decided that wasn’t in their best interest and changed things yet again. But mostly it was all good for quite a while–easy to start, easy to use and with an excellent ROI in most cases. One of the reasons it worked so well was that even many sophisticated Internet users didn’t realize that “Sponsored Links” were really Ads, leading to excellent click-thru rates and a steady stream of inexpensive visitors to your website.

PPC Enters the Mainstream

As Pay-Per-Click grew rapidly due to it’s outstanding value proposition, it entered the mainstream as an important marketing method for companies large and small. This of course drove Google to prominence as one of the top tech companies in the world and created a lot of millionaires and billionaires in the process. For a while AdWords worked so well it was like printing money, not only for Google but it’s customers, the users of AdWords. For some small companies PPC not only became a mainstream marketing method but consumed the MAJORITY of their marketing budgets. But as I’ve stated many other times, once a marketing method goes mainstream it begins to falter in effectiveness. There was a long slow decline over a period of years in terms of ROI, but for many years it was still effective–so the golden goose kept growing in size.

It’s more difficult today

As I write this article, however, I believe that we may be at a point of inflection. I’ve found that in many market segments it’s become very hard to extract even a positive ROI, let alone be highly profitable . Unless you’re a large company where PPC expenses are a tiny segment of your marketing budget, or are focused on brand-building (a dubious use of PPC, imo) rather than sales–this will give you serious pause. The quality of visitor traffic has deteriorated, with time spent on site by PPC-generated traffic a fraction of Social Media or other Organically-generated traffic. Cost per click is now very high in for high-traffic keywords. Cost per conversions have risen steadily. I design campaigns using a fairly labor-intensive long-tail approach–but I have a hard time getting a positive ROI in some (but not all) market segments. I’m far from alone in this analysis, as this  New York Times article illustrates. While there are people who spend more time managing PPC campaigns than I, as I stated above I have been at it for a while and am far from a newbie, leaving me pretty comfortable with my viewpoint.

Unfortunately, I believe much of this is due to Google greed. AdWords has never been a transparent bidding system, but a “Black Box” that Google can manipulate as they please. In the past they have shown some understanding that their advertisers need to make money for Google’s own AdWords business to remain viable. But I think that the short-term quarterly profit pressures of being a public company, along with the lack of significant new revenue streams past PPC have come to bear. These factors combined with the inevitable maturing and slowdown in the growth of the Search marketplace have led the company to make changes to their platform and the black box which they may regret in the long run.  Here are a couple of examples:

  1. I’ve always utilized a best practice of rotating Ads evenly, with the belief that I am the best judge of which the best Ad for my purposes.  Google recommends optimizing which Ad to show based upon their automated algorithm, which quickly decides one Ad is best. Google’s interest is in maximizing clicks, which isn’t always in my client’s best interests. But after using this method for years Google eliminated it, forcing advertisers to utilize their automated algorithm and revert to a the highest click thru Ad after 3 months of even rotation. I noticed in checking recently the option to rotate Ads evenly indefinitely has returned–I’m sure it was because of Advertiser complaints.
  2. Another thinly-veiled, short-term money grab is the “fibbing” Google does when it provides “estimates” about what it takes to get your Ad listed on the first page. I’ve found them to be almost uniformly wildly overstated in almost all circumstances, even on very niche keywords where it appears there are no other advertisers bidding!

These are just two examples of many things I’ve seen Google do within the AdWords platform and especially in their bidding “black box” that indicate Google is acting in its own (short-term) self-interest, to the detriment of their advertiser/customers. I believe this will prove to be very short-sighted in the long run.

Combine all this with the increased competition in the PPC marketplace since it has gone mainstream as discussed above and I believe AdWords may have seen it’s best days–an ominous development for Google as a growth company. By squeezing its advertisers, the company is definitely risking killing the golden goose.

I haven’t used the Microsoft PPC platform recently so I can’t say for sure that the experience there is the same, but in the past I’ve found it to be similar.

Where does PPC fit today in the Marketing Mix

I’ve been relatively critical of PPC as a current marketing method in this article–which is a turnaround for me–I’ve always held this method in high esteem. I still believe it fits in some shape or form in most marketing budgets, but I feel the need to temper how big a role it should play. PPC retains some big advantages–there is no better way to very quickly launch a marketing campaign than PPC. You can be promoting new products, testing messaging & value propositions and exploring new market segments almost instantaneously. It’s also very measurable and therefore objective–there’s no need to throw money around with PPC, based on a measure of faith like some other marketing approaches.

But in many market segments, the ROI has degraded severely over time. As a result, it shouldn’t take up a large segment of your marketing budget unless your objective measurements indicate that it justifies such a large investment. I’ve shifted emphasis in online marketing budget recommendations to social media and behavioral/retargeting advertising (standard PPC’s close cousin). Unless you see strong ROI justification in traditional PPC investments, I’d limit my PPC exposure to  two areas:

Long term: long tail keywords that may not generate big dollars but show a reasonable ROI

Short term: new products, new market segments and messaging/value/price testing which have a limited term

That’s a quick summary of how I view Pay Per Click today.   What’s been your own experience with PPC lately? Is it a big part of your promotional budget? Do you also see it declining in performance in your market segment? Give us a heads up on your experience and post a comment below.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
2 Comments by admin on November 9, 2012
filed in B2C, Business Models, Marcom, Online Marketing, Product Marketing/Management, Promotion, SaaS, Social media
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Musings on Software Market Segmentation and TV Morning Shows

I like to check out one of the morning TV shows on one of the major US-based networks for a few minutes, as I’m eating my breakfast cereal. There are 3 major programs on at the start of the day: NBC’s Today Show (the traditional market leader), ABC’s Good Morning America (the perennial runner-up) and the recently re-branded CBS This Morning in (last place for many years).

So what the heck does this have to do with software market segmentation, you ask?

I’ve been struck by how much the morning show race reminded me of the software industry has become more vertical over time. In particular, there are some strong parallels between the software business and the morning shows with respect to the product being “soft enough” to make relatively easy product changes as part of a new segmentation strategy.

Recent changes in strategy on the TV morning shows

The Today Show has been the “10,000 lb Gorilla” of the morning shows since the beginning of the category. They’ve had a large lead over their competitors across multiple changes in on-air personnel and even societal cultural changes over the years. The Today Show’s format has been aimed at a “horizontal” audience–a little bit of something for everyone. They start with hard news at the beginning of the show and it gradually becomes “lighter”, transitioning to Pop culture, celebrities and gossip as the show progresses through its marathon 4 hour time slot.

The other two major shows have taken a real beating at the hands of NBC in the ratings, with many tweaks to their formats and even more turnover in personnel over those many years. Fundamentally they have tried to compete by “building a better Today Show”, essentially competing head on with the market leader in a horizontal fashion. But over the last couple of years, ABC and more recently CBS have changed their strategy, utilizing a much sharper segmentation than at any point previously. ABC has essentially gone “younger and lighter” over the last couple of years. The show has the least serious tone and is the most “fun” of the three, focusing a lot of time on pop culture and other topics skewed toward younger viewers. It’s paid off. Good Morning America has taken a clear lead over the Today Show due primarily to this new segmentation and to a lesser extent some personnel missteps at NBC.

After many years in last place, CBS has segmented sharply in the other direction with a shorter 2 hour program focused almost entirely on hard news and staffed by serious, credible news people. It’s too early to say how successful this will ultimately be for CBS, but they have won over this writer and have picked up some market share overall-I’m watching consistently CBS in the morning for the first time. The Today Show has been struggling to remix it formula and regain its clear lead, looking much like a complacent large company that has grown fat, dumb and happy as a result of years of unchallenged success.

Software Market Equivalents

Ok, enough about TV morning shows! How does this relate to segmentation in the software market? A very similar situation albeit in a B2B rather than B2C market, is the ERP software market. The ERP market is also a very large, horizontal market–a mass B2B software market, if you will. Just about every company in the world needs some type of ERP software to run its business, from an entry-level, basic accounting application like Intuit’s Quickbooks all the way up to very expensive, complex enterprise suites such as offered by Oracle, Microsoft, SAP and Sage.

This of course is one form of verticalization–segmentation by target customer size and sophistication. Intuit and Oracle aren’t targeting the same segments. But the ERP market is so large that over time it has also segmented by industry; nearly every industry group of any significance now has ERP software vendors with specialized applications aimed at a narrow industrial segment.

Another similar example is Medical Practice Management Software. The last time I looked, there were over ONE THOUSAND software vendors with products targeting this very large market. You would think the software requirements of most medical practices would be pretty standard across the board. But because the market is so large and lucrative, nearly every market segment (Surgeons, Gynecologists, Dentists, Chiropractors, etc.) has it’s own sub-market of competitors, with applications that speak that particular medical practice’s lingo and strictly models its business processes.

I have a personal example from earlier in my career that illustrates how important segmentation can be as part of a software company’s overall strategy. I took over as CEO of an early stage mapping software company with excellent technology but an unsophisticated business strategy. While the company had a neat technical advantage over its larger competitors, the product otherwise was positioned directly against the market leaders in that space. The primary distribution channel for the mainstream mapping products of the time was computer and electronics retailers, a notoriously tough and expensive channel. I was able to make some headway in penetrating this channel. But even with our technical feature advantage it was already too late in the game and we lacked the resources to compete and win head-to-head with the larger market leaders of that time.

So we quickly came up with a segmentation strategy that proved quite helpful. Initially we took out some features away from our primary product and created an entry level product priced far below the mainstream mapping products. This allowed us to occupy the price leader position targeting the most price-sensitive consumers, and distribute through both consumer/gaming software stores of the time as well as mass market retailers such as drug and grocery stores. The mainstream mapping software players had almost no presence in these channels due to their higher price points. This entry level product, created with minimal development costs, allowed us to generate cash flow to fund our longer term segmentation strategy which was to target the B2B market. The mainstream mapping products were fairly generic and used by business people as well as consumers, but really designed for any consumer with no business-oriented features to speak of. We were able to create a premium, business-focused version of our product which we positioned as the mapping products for mobile workers/road warriors such as sales reps and service technicians. We included important business-specific features, such as integration with the popular CRM systems of the day, which weren’t found in any of the other mainstream mapping products of the day.

Important considerations in segmentation strategy

Hopefully we’ve established that segmentation of your software market can be a very powerful tool to compete with and outflank strong competitors and ultimately maximize the value of your business. So what are the important things to consider in formulating your segmentation strategy? Let’s look at a few:

Horizontal vs. Vertical – The first thing to consider is how horizontal your segment currently is and how vertical you think you need to be to compete effectively. There is a fine line here; the more horizontal you can remain (targeting multiple segments with the same product) the higher your product’s ultimate profit potential. But you must be realistic about your market position–go as “vertical” as you need to win–or your profit potential is likely zero!

Market Maturity – The more mature the market is when you enter, the more likely it will be important to segment smartly and attack a vertical niche. Of course this or any single factor shouldn’t be used in a vacuum to create a strategy–many factors need to be considered in your segmentation decision.

Market Size – The larger the market size, the more likely it is that it’s ALREADY segmented and will likely force you to do the same. There are several prominent potential exceptions here, listed in the bullet points below.

Market experience of the company - Do you know the market well, and just as important, are you known by the market? In cases where you’re known and understand your market well, it raises your odds of success even entering with a more horizontal approach.

Levels of funding – Big companies with massive resources or heavily funded startups may be able to successfully  use a horizontal approach, although many confident late entrants of this type have failed in a variety of software market categories.

IP/Technology & other strategic advantages – A true innovator with market changing IP may also be able to attack and win in an established market using a horizontal approach, as they are effectively changing the ground rules of the market. But again, I’ve witnessed many companies very confident in their technical advantage that have ended up with their hats handed to them when competing head on in an established market.

Important upfront decision–but never too late to change

Like any important business consideration, it’s far better to optimally segment the market for your products up front then to wait until you are FORCED to do so. But just like a morning TV show, in the software business it’s relatively easy–at least compared to other technology categories such as computer hardware or semiconductors– and almost never too late to modify your target segments.

What’s your feeling on how best to approach segmentation in the software business? Post a comment so we can all benefit from your experiences.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
No Comments by admin on October 21, 2012
filed in B2C, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, Pricing, Product Marketing/Management, Retail, Software/Product Development, Startup/Early Stage
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are There Any Software Segments The Cloud Won’t Swallow?

It’s become pretty clear in the last couple of years that we are heading irrevocably toward a cloud-dominated future in the software business. The evidence is irrefutable. To attempt to get a traditionally licensed PC or enterprise software business funded by an institutional investor would be a suicide mission these days.

Whether it’s SaaS, PaaS, IaaS, Cloud-based, web-based, Internet-based—WHATEVER, it’s all still basically the same thing. Some folks get very snippy about all the different definitions, but they are all just different segments or interpretations of the same model: Software hosted outside of the customer’s premises and available via an Internet browser. Although the technology has improved dramatically over time, it’s really the same basic idea as ASP (application service provider) model from back before the Internet stock bubble burst.

In many cases this trend is happening for good reasons, with the primary one being the simplicity the model offers end-users. But like anything, it’s not the perfect fit in all instances. For example, I’m still not convinced this model will ever be definitely cheaper than solutions that rely more on local computing power. For that to happen, I think we’re going to need to go back to the era of much cheaper dumb terminals to replace our powerful PCs. Having all that desktop power and storage (and the associated costs) sitting on your desks unused is pretty inefficient.

In addition, I also don’t believe SaaS and other cloud-based variants are necessarily the most profitable business models for every software vendor, even though institutional investors love it.  I recently had a conversation with a venture capitalist and I asked him why the VC community was so in love with software in the cloud, specifically SaaS-based models. After some discussion about the various elements of SaaS and customer premise-based software models, it really came down to something simple: traditionally licensed software companies are valued at 1-3X revenue and SaaS-based companies are valued at 5-6X revenues. Of course, it’s all about the money and this makes perfect sense. But will this valuation gap be sustainable, or is it a market inefficiency that will go away over time? But I digress, that’s a topic for a different debate….

There are some very good (and maybe not so good) reasons that certain segments won’t come completely under the spell of cloud-based computing. Let’s take a look at a few areas where I forecast the cloud won’t become dominant:

Banking

This is one of the toughest software market segments there is. Banks are notoriously difficult to penetrate, and security is paramount. I believe this will be one of the toughest segments for cloud-based solutions to penetrate, and will be even harder to dominate. Certainly they’ll be a lot of cloud-based applications in non-critical functions. But anything that gets at the core banking functions, including customer data or money will be kept private. That might be a traditional on-premises solutions or private cloud-based apps, but anything sensitive from a security viewpoint will be held tight.

Government

I believe this will be a similar situation here to the Banking market. Certainly the Cloud has already penetrated many areas of the government, and will continue to do so. But there are larges segments of government services where the data is just too sensitive. We’ve seen a lot of embarrassing breaches lately with respect to intelligence data that absolutely needs to remain secret. I think we’ll see a pullback from this data being available via the Internet, rather than moving deeper in that direction.

Open Source and Mobile

Outside of the cloud, these are the two software segments that institutional investors will still put money into. It’s true that many mobile applications have a cloud-based back-end, and a lot of Open Source platforms are used to generate cloud-based apps. But both of these areas represent code that will sit on customer-controlled assets and will slow the adoption of a centralized model where all computing is done in the publicly-accessible cloud.

Buyers vs. Renters

Some folks just like to own stuff. While the rental model works for many due to the reduction in software and hardware investment, which saves capital for other purposes, others feel that renting is wasteful. Indeed, SaaS and other lease/rental-oriented models aren’t necessarily the cheapest in the long run. This is really a psychographic attribute that isn’t likely to change among those so-inclined.

100% Service Levels required

The Internet is a long way from the old AT&T Ma Bell monopoly when it comes to service levels. Have you ever had the power go out at a company you work at? In this day and age, when that happens, everything immediately stops. With the every-increasing reliance on Internet-based technologies (and being accelerated by cloud-based apps), the Internet connection going down can have roughly the same effect. The Amazon EC2 Cloud Services outage in April 2011 gives a sneak preview of what can happen to productivity levels if service levels are compromised on a wide scale or for a long period of time.

Security Conscious (and the Paranoid)

There are many out there among us that have their own safes rather than using a Bank’s safe-deposit box, or are building safes rooms or bomb shelters to protect against perceived threats they view as inevitable. Many others are simply very cautious and prudent, and that means holding things close to the vest and not embracing the newest technologies until they are viewed as bulletproof. The profiles vary from the prudent to the paranoid, but the common thread will be slow or no adoption of technologies that are viewed as giving up control of something important.

As we embrace cloud-based applications at an extremely fast rate, my own feeling is that we are headed toward a major, high-profile event that will slow adoption considerably. I’m not sure what form that will take, but it could easily be a major data security breach that causes real damage to a lot of people, or an Internet-based outage that brings a bunch of businesses to their knees. There are many examples already which support that these types of events are quite possible. Several times a year now I get a notice that my private data has been compromised by one vendor or another. The Amazon EC2 outage discussed above already gave a number of people pause about being held captive by this model.

So that’s my take on some areas we’ll see little (or at least slow) adoption of public cloud-based software models. Do you see other areas I left out? I’m sure this will be a bit controversial as well—some out there disagree and believe the Cloud will take over the world. I’d like to hear from all of you, regardless of your view. Post a comment to add to the debate.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
5 Comments by admin on May 29, 2012
filed in B2C, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, General Management, Operations, SaaS, Software/Product Development, enterprise software
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Extending Your Technology With Spinoff Products

Many software and hardware businesses, particularly smaller ones, are religiously focused on a specific vertical market. As well they should; focus is one of the most important attributes that can bring a business from startup to a strong growing business. This is often one of the key areas I concentrate on with many of my consulting clients. Many businesses just can’t turn down any sort of deal, no matter what the effect it has on their existing product development plans or other key corporate initiatives.

But there is another side to the focus issue. Many tech companies have developed excellent, mature technology bases at huge expense. If that basic technology has a horizontal appeal, it can be quite profitable to spend a modest amount of additional effort to bring that technology to other adjacent markets that the company is currently not serving.

Care needs to be taken, of course, to not spread your marketing efforts too thin. But if you’re smart about it your company can increase, sometimes dramatically, the return on its product development investments. Let’s take a look at a few potential tactics, all of which I’ve used successfully both at companies I’ve run and with consulting clients:

Customize your products for adjacent markets

As an example, maybe you have an ERP software package aimed at retail markets. It might be quite easy to customize the product for other inventory-oriented businesses, such as distribution or service/repair businesses. By doing this you’ve created a potentially large new revenue source, at a fraction what building that product from scratch might cost. The trick in this instance is often marketing the product–read below for a couple of ideas on how to accomplish that without doubling your marketing budget.

Private Label/OEM products

Private labeling or OEMing your product to another vendor can be an excellent way to extend your product development ROI. It might be as simple as partnering with a non-competitive vendor who takes your existing product “as is” or with minor modifications, as well as changing the product identity and labeling. The target partner would be a company very strong in a market segment that you aren’t successful in, have no interest in directly marketing in, or simply is beyond your resource level. If done well, this is a win-win for both companies. Your company gets additional revenues with little to no additional costs (“pure profit”), while your partner gains additional revenue in it’s target market–without any product development investment.

Integration & bundling with other products

One of the best things a software vendor is to create a “developer’s version” of it’s product, which essentially consists of creating APIs (application programming interface) to the software. This allows easy integration with complementary software applications and even hardware. Back when I was CEO of a mapping software company with limited resources, we created a developer’s version which enabled both integration and bundling with a number of complementary applications, notably in the real estate and CRM segments. Once again, this tactic required only modest product development investment and enabled us to draw revenue from a number of different markets. We would never have had the resources to pursue these markets if we tried to build a new product from scratch as a company would traditionally do.

Different price points

Using my favorite mapping software company example, we were often forced to think creatively to wring out as much revenue as we could out from our existing technology. One of the other tactics we used was “de-feature” our existing $99 high-end consumer application to create a $9.95 version, which we then sold through mass market retailers of all kinds. Not only did this create more revenue, but the high volume business also created a bunch of opportunities to upgrade these entry level customers to our higher-end core product. This is a strategy I’ve used many times; you almost can’t go wrong when creating a larger customer base for your technology. I use the simplistic phrase “the more you sell, the more you sell” to illustrate the advantages of this approach.

Business vs. consumer version

At that very same mapping software company we used one other great approach to extending your technology: creating a B2B version of our consumer product which was aimed at road warriors such as sales and service professionals (the converse works just as well). The B2B version had a few additional features and we sold it via different channels and strategic partners. It didn’t have the unit volume of the consumer version, but the margins were much higher.

So there are a few ideas on how to extend the use of your IP to increase your overall ROI. What are your ideas on creatively utilizing existing assets to create additional growth? Please post a comment with your own thoughts so we can all benefit.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
1 Comment by admin on December 5, 2011
filed in B2C, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, General Management, Product Marketing/Management, Software/Product Development, Startup/Early Stage, enterprise software, hardware
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What’s Up With HP?

As regular readers will know, I am a Hewlett Packard alumnus and a longtime admirer of the company. I worked at HP in the eighties, and with hindsight it was one of the finest periods of my career. It was a GREAT place to work, as documented by books and case studies written about the company. My time there definitely had a major effect in shaping my management philosophies.

The more recent -periods at HP have seen a lot of change and a fair amount of turmoil not typical in the company’s first 60 years or so.

Let’s analyze some of the recent events and assess the overall strategic situation:

Firing of Leo Apotheker

What a disaster this was. To hire a new CEO with a major change in strategic direction in mind, then let him go in less than a year is not good. What isn’t known is was the new strategy totally conceived by Mr. Apotheker, or was he brought in to support a new strategy favored by the HP board. Either way, it’s an awful mess for such a major company, and the HP board has not distinguished itself in the last decade.

The new strategy itself while risky on the surface wasn’t the real problem, imo. The communication of the new direction was the real disaster, and smacked of incompetence. Don’t announce you’re “going to sell the business”–that does nothing for valuations. If you’re going to sell it, get on with it and sell it without premature public announcements. By most accounts Mr. Apotheker’s short reign was punctuated by missteps, retractions, chronically missing financial targets and general bumbling. My sources inside the company say that he had lost just about everyone’s confidence, from employees to shareholders to the board. It’s hard to say if that’s fair; new managers can be sabotaged by entrenched forces against change. And major changes were on the way. But the buck needs to stop with the CEO, and it certainly did in this case.

Planned Sale of the PC business

To be honest, I go back and forward on this one. Back in my HP days the PC business was a money-losing, also-ran business with tiny margins. The corporate line of thinking at the time was that HP HAD to be in the PC business, it was so central to everything else the company wanted to do, and the computing world revolved around PCs. I never bought it. In fact, the PC folks got in the way of many things we wanted to accomplish in the peripherals segment of the business, specifically connecting to and partnering with all the other PC makers.

The PC business remains a low margin one today, but one that HP has established a leading position in. I haven’t studied the balance sheet, but I doubt the PC business is so capital-intensive that it would prevent HP from having the money to adequately invest in a new direction. I don’t think selling it off is a stupid move, but announcing it as a first step seems extreme, and only served to make everyone involved nervous about what the future holds.

Eliminating the Tablets/WebOS

Another PR disaster and one that was totally avoidable. The problem was in buying Palm in the first place, and paying a billion dollars for a company that had almost completely failed in the marketplace. Then introducing a new line of tablet computers to great fanfare, almost immediately obsoleting them, and then announcing you’ll be making a few more because everyone love the fire-sale obsolescence pricing–it appeared that the left hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing.

By most accounts the WebOS is a nice piece of software. The problem is that this move was so very late to the game. If it had been done a few years earlier, it might have been a savvy deal, and allowed HP to make a major move into mobile devices with a differentiated product offering. But by the time of this acquisition, Palm was already discredited and Apple, Android and Blackberry had solidified the top leadership positions. And the price was completely ridiculous for as failed company. You can put this one on Mark Hurd, as it came on his watch.

Buying Autonomy

HP recently announced completion of the Autonomy acquisition, paying a dear price for this enterprise software company. Autonomy is a good acquisition if you’re intent on growing software as a share of revenue; the only issue is the price. It was very high, but one must remember that HP’s overall revenues are north of $125 BILLION. Autonomy adds less than $1B in revenue, which is a drop in the bucket relative to HP’s size. With a purchase price of over $10B, HP paid more than 11X revenues–pretty pricey even by today’s inflated SaaS valuations. Autonomy will have to be an exceptional growth in engine for this to pay off. Only time will tell.

Copying the IBM playbook

The IBM playbook was to sell off low margin, lower growth hardware business such as PCs (IBM sold its PC business to Lenovo, a shocking move at the time). Then focus on increasing software and services revenues relentlessly, for a long period of time. It’s worked extremely well for IBM, although I remember there were some tough times in the beginning. Would it work as well for HP, who appears interested in copying IBM’s strategy? I’m not a big fan of copying other company’s strategies, although on the surface the two companies are similar. The key to success or failure is usually execution in most cases of corporate strategy. Executing this strategy would also take a very long time to have an impact on HP’s financials. HP’s software share of total corporate revenue was less than 3% in 2010.  There are only so many $1B+ software companies out there. Most software acquisitions on their own will have a minimum effect on HP’s overall revenues, unless they went after one of the few industry giants–which would truly shock me.  HP has become strong in services after it’s acquisition of EDS in 2008, but is still much less prominent in services than IBM. So even with an aggressive acquisition program and strong organic growth, HP looks to be a hardware-dominated company for a long time in the future.

Meg Whitman appointed CEO

It’s hard to say what influence this will have on the corporate strategy. Ms. Whitman is a seasoned CEO who has been involved in great success, although one could argue that she was very fortunate to benefit from a snowball rolling downhill with Ebay. In addition, her background is heavily consumer products with almost nothing in the enterprise space, which is HP’s supposed new direction. HP’s business is only 25% consumer products, and if you eliminate the massive PC business, it becomes a whole lot less. I never underestimate smart people or their ability to adapt, and she definitely fits in the smart category. But experienced business people also tend to fall back on the comfort level of their past experience and what they understand best. It will be very interesting to watch as Ms. Whitman’s tenure evolves, especially how she affects the previously announced strategy.

What happens next?

I think that HP ends up keeping the PC business, while at least in the short term attempting to become more software and services intensive. You’ll see more software and services acquisitions. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see the flight away from consumer-oriented businesses to abate as long as Meg Whitman is CEO.

I also think that the original IBM-style strategy will be difficult–but not impossible–for HP to implement. For this approach to work, shareholders, employees and the board will all need to be very patient and supportive of the plan. Meg Whitman will really need to believe in it as well, and as discussed above, her background is far from a perfect fit for where they’re headed. My guess is that this strategy won’t be given enough rope for it to work and we’ll see another change of direction in the medium-term, but you never know. That’s what makes this kind of speculation so much fun!

What’s your take on the future direction of HP? Where are they headed, and does it end well or not?  I’m interested in your analysis of recent events at the company; post a comment to share your views and continue the discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
7 Comments by admin on October 17, 2011
filed in B2C, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, General Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, SaaS, enterprise software, hardware
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Strategic Implications of the Google-Motorola Mobility Deal

The big question is why is Google doing this? Media reports and analysis of the potential deal has been all over the map. Much speculation has centered on the real value being in the large Motorola patent portfolio, to help defend Android against lawsuits. There has been other commentary which points to the possibility of using the Motorola set top box business as an entrée for GoogleTV to finally penetrate the market. One pundit has even suggested that Google will eventually be giving away Motorola/Android handsets, in an effort to disrupt the marketplace and further drive mobile advertising revenue.

The only folks that really know are those inside Google, and they aren’t saying.

I’ve seen this called a “Bold” move–but it is Bold or a really bad idea? Let’s look the deal from several angles:

Deal Price

The price, $12.5B seems very rich to me for an also-ran commodity hardware maker, but I’ve of course not modeled it and done rigorous “what if” analysis like the quants at Google surely have. As mentioned above, a lot of the analysis of this deal has centered on Motorola’s 17,000 held and 7500 pending patents, supposedly to help defend Android against a recent spate of lawsuits. That’s a lot of patents, not doubt. But how many of them are actually relevant? A Motorola shareholder has recently filed suit on the basis of the deal being below fair value, so maybe my opinion on the deal price being rich is off base. Of course, anyone can file suit for anything.

Hardware vs. Software, Margins & Commoditization

This is the biggest issue to me. Google has a beautiful, high margin software business. In most cases, I am baffled when a successful software company wants to buy into or otherwise enter the hardware business, as I have written previously about Oracle. In addition to higher margins, software tends to commoditize much less quickly as well, as you can constantly tweak and go vertical with your applications to stay ahead of competitors. Motorola Mobility is in a high volume, hit-driven business which tends toward low margins pretty quickly. You can make money in this segment, but results tend to change quickly, and it really helps to be one of the big two or three market gorillas.

Android Licensees

Of all the negatives, this one baffles me the most. Google is positioning itself to compete with its customers–the Android licensees. I realize this is the age of “coopetiton” and all that. But from a strategic perspective, it’s far better NOT to compete with your customers and partners if you don’t have to. This strikes me as one of those times that it’s not really necessary. The Google pundits are spinning the story that Google can use all of those patents to defend the Android licensees against business-damaging lawsuits, so they’ve really done this FOR the licensees. Maybe this is true, but it sure smells like spin to me. I think that handset manufacturers will be much more careful about investing in Android-based systems going forward.

Apple vs. Microsoft

Google Android has been positioned as hardware-agnostic system software, which has allowed it to grow extremely fast and shoot past the Apple iPhone in volume. Think Microsoft Windows in PCs in the old days vs. the MacIntosh. Apple is the world’s darling now and Microsoft isn’t held in high regard like it used to be. Apple has always used a strategy of tightly coupling their software with only their own hardware. But Microsoft built a hugely profitable software business with 90% market share by following a software-only business model, centered on partnering with hardware vendors–and swamped Apple in the PC business. Of course, Apple has won big in some major categories recently with their favored approach. The final verdict for each of these two very divergent strategies isn’t yet clear in the smartphone segment.  How important is having the software and hardware under one umbrella in this particular market, versus the ability to propagate your technology more broadly with 3rd party hardware partners? We shall see.

Business Complexity

A software-only business is far simpler since you don’t have to deal with the complexities of hardware supply chains, obsolete equipment, and inventory forecasting. Because of this, it’s much easier to focus your resources on fewer key business drivers, and much easier to “turn the ship” when necessary. Google is getting to be a very large, complex business as it is. Adding hardware to the mix will only make it more complex, and harder to manage as a result.

What Does Google Really Do with Motorola Mobility?

I have seen a lot of speculation in this area, some of it ridiculous. As I stated earlier, One VC speculated that he expects Google to eventually give away free handsets to somehow drive advertising revenue. Although on the surface this seems to fit with the Google business model, it’s one of the silliest things I’ve heard, and a great way to lose money.  Google announced that they will run the acquisition as a separate subsidiary, implying somewhat of an arms length relationship. Like we bought it, but we’re really not going to pay that much attention to what they’re doing, let alone influence how the company is run. Right — I’ve got some really attractive swampland you might want to buy if you believe that one. They just paid $12.5B–fair price or not–it’s not exactly chump-change. I think they have some plans and will be actively involved. But what are those plans? That’s being held close to the vest–it will be interesting to see what unfolds.

There are a lot of different ways to look at this deal. So many angles to view it, and a lot of information about Google’s true intentions aren’t available to us. But remember, most acquisitions fail. My own feeling is that if the Motorola patents aren’t worth $12.5B, Google will regret this deal. And unintended market fallout could make them regret it even if the patents are that valuable. It would not surprise me to see Google jettison the hardware business in a couple of years.  I want to hear how you analyze this move, so post a comment to share your views on this deal and continue the discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
2 Comments by admin on September 5, 2011
filed in B2C, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Mergers & Acquisitions, Software/Product Development, hardware
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Should Your Sales Reps Cold Call?

In this article we’ll take a look at arguments on both sides, and recommend when and how much cold-calling makes sense.

This is an age-old question in sales. Some would say that’s what sales people should be doing. Others believe that if sales reps have to cold call, it’s an indication of poor marketing and very inefficient. I often refer to cold-calling as DOOR-TO-DOOR marketing, because you’re really combining the introductory marketing and sales functions in one phone call or visit. The question: is this a good or bad thing?

Many factors come into play when deciding how much cold-calling is appropriate for a particular rep/company/product/market combination:

Ease of Prospect Identification

This is a crucial factor when deciding whether or not to include a lot of cold-calling in your sales mix. If prospects are easily identifiable, it makes much more sense to start contacting them than if your reps have to dig for hours to find an appropriate prospect.

Commodity vs. Complex/Missionary Sale

It’s very difficult to cold-call prospects when selling technology products or services which are very new or difficult to grasp quickly. Prospects are all busy trying to do their jobs, are overwhelmed with offers via every media and contact method, and tend to tune out cold calls that aren’t of obvious use to them. In these cases, using marketing methods to educate and identify prospects first tends to work a lot better than strict cold-calling. For commodity items that people know they need, a timely cold call can lead to an immediate sale that a competitor might have otherwise gotten.

Cost Per Lead

How to divide your investments in marketing and sales is often driven by the relative costs of each. How effective are your outbound and inbound marketing programs? If your marketing cost per lead is very high, in some cases it might make sense to skip the lead gathering altogether and get right to the sales call. I caution that this usually isn’t the case, but it’s possible. Also, whether this makes sense also depends on many other factors such as those discussed here, notably the ease of prospect identification.

Market Size

This factor is most relevant with respect to cold-calling for tiny niche markets. For example, if you have a software product with a multi-million dollar price tag aimed at 100 or less total prospects. In this case, it doesn’t make sense to put much money into outbound or inbound marketing programs if these prospects are easily identifiable. Time to call them up or pay them a visit, as soon as possible!

Time of the Day/Week/Month/Quarter

If it’s the end of the day (literally or figuratively) and all the leads have been followed up on, it’s DEFINITELY time to cold-call. Every sales organization or individual rep should have a game plan on how to prospect on their own, when all the warm leads have been exhausted. It’s either that or it’s time to head to the golf course (which happens too often, and tends to not raise sales much!).

Big Ticket vs. Low Price

In general, sales forces are costly. If you have a product with low revenue per sale, it’s suicidal to rely strictly on cold-calling. Unless your reps are working on a commission-only basis (not recommend, for reasons outlined in other articles), it’s a prescription for a low or even negative margin sale. Low-priced products absolutely require an efficient marketing engine to generate a large amount of low cost leads which lead to easy sales. With a big ticket product, the economics work better and more easily allow a sales-intensive approach.

So what’s my summary view of cold-calling? It’s hard to generalize, as I’ve outlined with some of the factors discussed above. But I believe that there is a place for it in the overall sales plan. I also believe, however, that in most cases if reps are doing 100% cold-calling–or even the majority of their time–then the company is operating at far less than peak efficiency. A 100% cold-calling sales force is usually indicative of an institutional lack of marketing expertise. This usually means less revenue and profits generated for the company than would be with a more balanced sales/marketing approach. Integrated sales and marketing is what works best in the great majority of situations.

With respect to individual reps, if they are forced to cold-call often, you’re probably underutilizing them. But if a particular rep is reluctant or completely unwilling to cold-call when the situation demands it, you may have a rep to consider replacing. There are always exceptions to such generalizations for specific companies and market, but with cold-calling I believe they are few and far between.

I’ve outlined some ideas about when, where and how much cold-calling is appropriate in sales. This is a topic that is much debated–what’s been your experience? Post a comment below so we can have the benefit of your view.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
No Comments by admin on April 11, 2011
filed in B2C, Business Models, Startup/Early Stage, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Is SEO a Legitimate Marketing Technique?

I have definite ideas on this question. But what got my attention recently was a reference to SEO in a prime time television show (one of the legal dramas) on one of the major US networks. It went something like this:

Lawyer: “What are you concerned about?”

Client: “I’m concerned that the jury will have a negative reaction to my profession; a lot of people don’t like what I do”.

Lawyer: “What is it that you do?”

Client: “I perform search engine optimization.”

When it hits primetime TV, you know the topic has entered the consciousness of the masses. And in this case, not in a good way!

For the uninitiated, SEO is an acronym for “Search Engine Optimization.” Wikipedia defines SEO as “the process of improving the visibility of a website or a web page in search engines via the “natural” or un-paid (“organic” or “algorithmic”) search results”. This is done by various methods, but the two most important aspects are creating relevant content on your website, and gaining links to your site from outside websites.

How can this be so bad? Well, like any other form of marketing it can be taken to extremes. Because it’s so valuable to appear near the top of a search results page in a search engine like Google, some will do practically anything to make that happen. And that’s what causes the problems. Techniques that the Search Engines consider inappropriate are called “Black Hat”; the page results that are listed inappropriately are referred to as “search spam” or “SEO spam”.

All this simply means that when you type in a search phrase into Google, for instance, you are presented with a bunch of websites that aren’t appropriate for what you were looking for. I’m sure you’ve all done a search, and the top sites that pop up have absolutely no value. The results might show a poorly constructed “Directory” aimed at a particular vertical topic, but really isn’t useful except to its owner trying to get Ad clicks. Or a site stuffed with a huge number of articles–none original or written by the site owner, and sometimes even modified by computer program to make it look “original”, but in actuality making it practically unreadable to humans.

Arguments for SEO

  • It’s just a marketing technique like any other, just like Press Relations in the “real” world. Why can’t you use all the tools at your disposal to make sure that your website is visible to your target audience?
  • “White Hat” SEO techniques are above board and available to everyone. What’s wrong with writing appropriate content for your site, and requesting backlinks from other compatible sites on the web? If you do a better job than your competitors, or they don’t choose to use these methods, that’s simply you beating them in the marketplace.
  • White Hat SEO is really just an acceleration of and a focus on the very things that happen naturally for a successful company on the web: Attractive onsite and offsite content, with a large number of links to your site from other sites with a compatible focus.
  • The “Black Hats” will always be around–the only way to avoid being left in the dust by these scoundrels is to use (legitimate) SEO techniques to compete for position in the search results–or they win by default.

Arguments against SEO

  • Any technique designed ONLY to move a website up in the search engine results pages (SERPS) is by definition cheating and not legitimate.
  • SEO is a slippery slope; there really is not sharp dividing line between “white hat” and “black hat” techniques.
  • Search Engines work best without any efforts to circumvent the “natural” results; any manual intervention to change them is a distortion of the real world, and therefore inefficient for the market.
  • Buying or otherwise obtaining links that you wouldn’t get naturally is deceptive, and therefore of no value and even immoral.
  • Content stuffed with keywords simply to rank high–rather than inform–is also of no value and is ruinous to the beautiful Internet.

The irony of this controversy is that inbound marketing techniques like SEO originally held the promise to marketers of largely avoiding the negative stigma associated with more direct methods. Now, it appears that the term “SEO” has gotten a negative connation in the web marketing world, much like all direct email marketing is considered by many to be SPAM. It’s apparently gotten bad enough that the term “SEO” has completely fallen out of favor with some; “Content Marketing” and “Inbound Marketing” are two new code phrases for what really is just SEO in a repackaged form.

My view is that this is a real shame. In the email world, there are legitimate direct email marketers, offering real products and doing their best to target their offerings to interested prospects. These companies shouldn’t be lumped in with Spammers who are nearly breaking our email systems with endless numbers of fake Viagra ads. In the same way, companies using standard SEO methods to ensure their target prospects can find them, shouldn’t be thrown together with the black hats who distort search engine results while trying to make a quick buck. I realize many folks don’t make this distinction. What’s your view? Post a comment to let us know where you come down in this argument.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Save on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on Tumblr
7 Comments by admin on February 15, 2011
filed in B2C, Corporate Strategy, Marcom, Online Marketing, Promotion
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts