Morettini on Management

General Management and Marketing Advice for Software and Tech Companies

Category: B2C

The Future of Wireless Communications

Land Lines are going away, right? Everyone says so. We hire young women, generally in their twenties, to help take care of my son. I can’t remember the last time one of their phones had an Area Code associated with the place they are currently living.

That’s because they don’t use landlines–many people in their twenties and thirties move around a lot, and rely strictly on a cell phone as their sole or primary telephone. If they have a couple of roommates, occasionally they will also have a landline. But the number usually isn’t given out, and doesn’t appear to be used much.

So does this mean that we are rapidly heading toward the wireless society that pundits have been predicting for a number of years? Or is wireless growth slowing and about to settle into mature market mode, with modest incremental growth in the future? There are a number of factors on both sides of this discussion–let’s explore a few.

Factors Pointing Towards Acceleration Of Wireless

Mobility
Society is becoming more and more mobile as time goes on, and everyone is getting used to being able to do things on the go, that used to be done only at home or the office. This trend appears to be one that will only continue–and is a positive thing to most people’s thinking. I do think there may be a bit of a backlash in this area–”too much of a good thing”–I’ll address this later on.

New Services
The addition of many new services should drive users to utilize wireless as an increasingly greater percentage of their total computing/communications device usage. Trends such as the merging of consumer cameras and music into smartphones create the types of new services that are driving increased wireless usage in the near term. Location-based services could provide another nice pop in growth, if they ever do reach their potential (and they’ve been “coming” for quite a while). I would note that I don’t consider these trends the type of major innovations that will cause a fundamental, “step-function” like shift and a major positive effect on wireless usage. I view these new applications as incremental, something to continue the modest growth we are currently seeing in the wireless market–in the western world, at least. Outside of the developed world, of course, there is some phenomenal growth occurring. In terms of market development, I view rapid wireless growth in developing countries as a “catch up” phenomena.

Cost
This is a bit of a two edged sword. Like any other technology-driven market, the cost of electronics and services are being continually driven down, especially as wireless has scaled into a mass market, with corresponding economies of scale. Up to this point, at least, there has been sufficient competition to drive down the price of services from the wireless carriers. There seems to be some flattening of this price deflation in the US recently, however. On the other hand, as new services have been introduced, the “total bill” that consumers end up paying for ALL of their technology services (wireless, TV, Internet Access, etc.) has been going up. There will be a point where consumers say “enough is enough”; the total tech entertainment and communications bill simply can’t rise forever.

Technology Innovation and Competition
I do believe that technological innovations, market scale, and competition will all play a factor in continuing to bring down overall costs in the long run. New technologies such as WIMAX, networked WiFi and in-home pico cell towers will provide technological alternatives for consumers, and therefore increased indirect competition. And there are certainly many exciting developments in research labs which we haven’t even heard of yet, that will lead to increased innovation and continuing industry growth. I really believe that the technological aspect of wireless is still in its infancy, and will be the major factor that leads to long growth in wireless markets.

Factors Pointing Towards Slowing Of Wireless

QOS
The biggest issue, in my opinion, that will limit the future growth of wireless, is the lack of sufficient Quality-of-Service. Current cell phone service in the US sucks. There’s no other way of putting it. Depending upon your carrier in a given metro area, service can still be spotty, with persistent dropped calls–even after all of these years, and the fact that cell phones are a ubiquitous mass market item. I still have 3 landlines in my house, two for business usage. I sure don’t want to talk to a new client on a cell phone connection–if I can help it. I know many business people that don’t feel this way, and use their cell phone exclusively–my opinion is hardly universal. But I don’t really understand it. Especially inside, in homes and offices, you just can’t trust that the call quality to be anywhere near what is demanded by an important business call. Some of this is based upon real issues–mountains in the way of radio waves, etc. But much of the problem is simply the wireless carriers jamming too many calls into too little spectrum, for cost reasons. I’m quite surprised that no one has yet come up with a “business quality” wireless service, which guarantees a higher level of call quality–much like a business or first class airline seat.

Complexity
As new features and services get added, even if they are welcomed, user interfaces and experiences almost always get more complex–at least initially. Complexity is the enemy of mass acceptance. So vendors need to be careful about adding new bells, whistles and new revenue-generating services faster than the market can become comfortable with them

Size
The size of devices, dictated by the need for mobility, works directly against a premium user experience for many functions. The new iPhone is a major step forward, for example, and sets a new standard for browsing the Internet on a truly portable device. Yet anyone that would rather surf the net on an iPhone, rather than any real computer, would have to be classified as insane. As more compelling online services are developed specifically for mobile devices, this may become less of an issue. But the size constraints required to make a good mobile device work against wireless devices for many current applications. Here is where I believe that truly breakthrough technologies–things like speech recognition, holographic displays and virtual keyboards–are needed to make a real dent in this issue.

User experience controlled by Telcos
The wireless carriers have held a stranglehold on the user experience thus far in the life of cell service. Because of this, you have large, conservative telephone companies basically deciding on what users want and should have, in an otherwise technology-driven space. Most of their decisions are driven by their own short term revenue concerns, with little vision on what can grow the market exponentially in the long run. At the most basic level, you can’t even take your cell phone and use it on a new carrier network. A few major technology vendors are pushing to open things up, such as Apple and the open browsing experience with the iPhone, and Google’s recent attempts to make new wireless spectrum open. But the wireless telcos still have a stranglehold on the market and will keep things as proprietary as possible for as long as possible. They’re terrified a being left as just commodity bandwidth providers, like their wired counterparts were in the dialup Internet market. No one on the carrier side wants to see THAT happen again. Because of this, innovation in user experience will continue to be stunted.

It’s Just “Too Much”
As I mentioned earlier in this article, we’re all becoming instantly accessible no matter where we are. I am an early adopter of many types of gadgets
–a real tech guy. I am also an email junkie. I always expected that I’d be one of the first users of a smartphone that provided the proper balance between a cell phone and a computer/data communications device. Certainly these devices have been refined, and exist today. But by the time it happened, I decided that I really didn’t need to be quite that accessible. I’m not an emergency room doctor, nor a high level commodities trader that needs instant access to everything. It’s rare that I’m not in front of a computer to get email access within a couple of hours. And I can always be reached with a regular call on my cell phone, office phone, or home phone. Do I really need a device that provides instant email, instant messaging and cell phone access? With the convenience of that device comes the penalty of never having a moment’s peace that is totally within your control. It’s my opinion that as modern life has accelerated to warp speed on a normal basis, more and more folks are going to be rejecting the notion that 24/7, instant access is a necessity–let alone a convenience.

Summary
It is always difficult to forecast how such a huge, important market will develop over time. In many ways wireless communications has already commoditized, and in other ways one can hypothesize that these technologies are in their infancy. If they are truly n their infancy–then forecasting the future is a dangerous game. My own feeling is that we are at a very early stage–a plateau of sorts, which appears much like the steady-state commoditization of mature markets. But I expect that there will be a number of disruptive technological changes coming, separated by a period of years where the negative factors slow growth, over the next couple of decades. Wireless communications will hit plateaus where it appears the market has matured and growth has slowed. Then a breakthrough new technology will appear, changing the game and re-igniting robust growth. What will those technological innovations be–holograms, speech recognition, or large increases in data throughput capacity in the wireless spectrum? That’s where the guessing game begins. How do you see this market? What breakthroughs do you see in the coming years? Post a comment and enrich our discussion on this interesting topic.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

No Comments by admin on September 4, 2007
filed in B2C, Business Models, Corporate Strategy
tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Steve Jobs, the iPhone and Apple Strategy – have we seen this story before?

Apple computer and its red-hot iPhone have dominated the business news recently. By all accounts, with good reason. I haven’t had the opportunity to play around with an iPhone yet, but the early reviews have been very positive. Initial interest demand has been high, especially given the usual amount of mystery and intrigue woven by Mr. Jobs and the folks at Apple.

For a first-time entry in to a large, competitive business such as cell phones–you’ve got to be impressed. Yet I’ve got this vague feeling of familiarity when it comes to this story–I somehow feel that I’ve seen it and heard it all before….

THE RETURN OF JOBS

Apple Computer since the return of Steve Jobs from the hinterlands has felt a lot like the Apple from Jobs initial run at Apple. He’s restored the company’s attitude, and dominates publicity, product direction and what feels like nearly every little detail about the company. Not bad for what is roughly a $20B company. It speaks to how strong and impressive Mr. Jobs’ personality and skill set really is. He has done a tremendous job bringing Apple back from the brink, and it appears that they may be headed to heights that weren’t even approach in his first tenure at the company.

There are many reasons that Apple and Steve Jobs, over a long period of time, have proved to be an interesting story. There are the breakthrough products, invention of new categories, tremendous highs and lows in financial results, strong, eccentric personalities, and boardroom intrigue–all multiplied when Jobs is factored in.

But the thing that I’ve always found most interesting about Apple has been its corporate strategy.

APPLE CORPORATE STRATEGY

Lets first give Steve Jobs and his strategies their due; he’s done a whole bunch of things right. It’s hard to imagine where this company would be if they hadn’t brought him back for his second tour. But like most strong personalities, along with his myriad strengths–he’s got a few quirks as well. Some might argue these quirks are actually weaknesses. I’ve always thought that his biggest weakness was being a “control freak”. Some might argue that this is actually reflective of strength, indicative of a strong leader who is forcing a change in the status quo to his vision. At times it appears so.

For example, the original Mac was a great triumph at first. It set a new standard for PC usability and industrial design, and was a huge seller in the beginning. But in creating the Mac, Apple also:

1) Didn’t use standard (Intel) chips, but more expensive ones from weaker competitors
2) Was a relatively “closed” system
3) Couldn’t be upgraded much at all
4) Kept Prices and margins high, unsustainably so with hindsight

A SUSPECT BUSINESS MODEL?

Maybe most interesting of all from a strategic perspective, is Apple’s choice of a business model. Apple has always been an innovator in software, with most of its differentiation coming in this area. (At least this is true since the Mac was introduced–the original Apple hit product, the Apple II, was pure hardward innovation.) Yet the company has always tried to make its margin selling hardware devices, bundling in its software with its hardware, mostly for free. I believe that this closed, single vendor, hardware/software bundled system approach can be the right strategy in creating a new market. It allows a pioneer to control the user experience, while realizing larger margins and profits in the short run to support innovation. But as markets grow big, that approach which works so well in the beginning often becomes an albatross as other players enter a larger market, and figure out how to take cost out of the system. These strategic choices (flaws?) were some of reasons that ultimately led the Mac platform to be a distant also-ran in the PC races (although one with a rabid core following), even though it had a large advantage in technology and a healthy market share initially.

iTUNES AND THE iPOD

Interestingly, Jobs followed a similar basic strategy with iTunes and the iPod. He innovated with cool, hip industrial design, a classically simple but elegant user interface, and (maybe most importantly) broke the logjam with the Record labels on downloadable songs–for the first time creating a site with a truly wide selection of mainstream songs, downloadable without hassle. He once again has kept this a pretty closed system, not allowing other devices to download to iTunes, or other music sites to feed the iPod–although he has shown signs of opening this up recently. Once again, pricing is pretty high, relative to competitive “systems”. Apple has so far been able to keep a comfortable lead in the online music space–but using a timeline which is required to measure markets of this scope–one must remember, it is still very early in the game.

My feeling about this “closed system approach” that Jobs favors, is that in consumer electronics and computing, it often works very well for a while–but then backfires as the market grows and matures. Technology commoditizes, and markets eventually lean toward openness–which provides greater choice and lower costs to users. Jobs waited way too long with the Mac, and retreated on the strategy when Apple belately tried to open up the platform, just as he returned for his second run with the company. Apple may be headed toward open PC computing again with the new MacTel platform, but in my opinion, that ship has likely sailed long ago. It would be a long hard pull for the Mac to once again compete as a mainstream PC platform. Of course Steve Jobs is nothing if not audacious, so I wouldn’t put it past him to try.

iPHONE STRATEGY – GOOD & BAD

This brings us to the iPhone. Apple has been up and down during it’s corporate life, more often than a cat with nine lives. Right now, Apple is definitely riding on a high. When you take a look at this iPhone recent introduction, there is a whole bunch of familiar Apple/Jobs strategy going on. You see the innovation pointed at a major market that is populated by major players, but a relatively poor user experience. In this case it’s the poor user experience of the cell phone industry, just like PCs and downloadable music, which were frustrating to consumers when Apple innovated in those markets. The innovation is out of the old Apple playbook: led by cool industrial design, and a breakthrough, simple but elegant user interface. All of this, along with typically brilliant Apple PR, has led to the iPhone “mania” that is reminiscent of past Apple introductions. The iPhone sure looks like a big hit at this point, and no doubt will be in the short run.

But will Apple and Jobs be able to sustain the iPhone momentum, like they have with the iPod/iTunes to date, or will the initial success fade like it did with the Mac? While Jobs is now a more seasoned, and even more successful electronics industry icon, I would argue that there still may be a few of the old flaws in his game. The price point Apple introduced the iPhone at is very high, relative to most cell phones with a similar level of capabilities. The phone was introduced with a battery that can’t be upgraded by the user, something that has been standard in the cell phone market (and most portable consumer electronics) for many years. iPhone owners will have to send the product away to get the battery changed–who can go days without their phone? This is an incomprehensible mistake in strategy, in my opinion.

And finally, and most importantly, Apple chose the most “closed system” approach of all–the iPhone with only be available on one Cell Phone network, AT&T;, for at least 5 years. I find this part of the strategy astounding. First of all, it seems to me to be completely unnecessary and yielding few benefits to the company. It appears that Apple did this to have leverage in their cell phone partner negotiations, all
owing them to retain control on some items, and keeping their prices high. I think Apple is being penny-wise and pound foolish here. The have a hot product; now is the time to establish the Apple brand as the preferred high end supplier of smart phones. But they can now accomplish this in only a segment of the huge cellular audience, for completely artificial reasons. Shutting out the bulk of the market in this fleeting time of major advantage, for bit higher margins and control on a few areas that most cell phone manufacturers do without? It’s hardly worth in my opinion.

Also, the Cellular Network Operator partner they have chosen is very suspect. While AT&T; is the biggest wireless operator in the US market and a fine company, they are behind in the game technologically in the wireless Internet part of the cellular market–the very aspect in which the iPhone shines as a mobile device. So the wonderful new features brought to wireless web access by the iPhone will slow to a crawl on the inferior AT&T; data network. It may be like running a great graphical user interface over a dial up modem–frustrating. If all you do is sit and wait for the network, it won’t matter much how slick or intuitive the device UI is.

FLAWS IN APPLE’S iPHONE GAMEPLAN?

My feeling is that there may again be some major flaws in this most recent Apple strategy. This may again cause the company to give up an early lead, in a market in which they’ve contributed true innovation. I’m not privy to all of the information that Apple management is, of course. And it’s always easy to second-guess from a distance, after the fact. So it’s quite possible that I’m just missing something, and dead wrong in my take. Plus, the whole picture of Apple’s market entry hasn’t been revealed yet. For example, I haven’t seen or heard anything about Apple’s partnering strategy with Cellular operators outside the US, but I am very interested to see how this compares to the US strategy. Will the strategy be similar or very different internationally?

Steve Jobs has contributed greatly to the development of the worldwide computer and electronics business. He has had many great successes, and also fallen a few times. He is an iconic figure who isn’t afraid to take a stand. Apple has ridden Job’s strategies to great heights several times; and also to great depths a time or two as well. Along the way Steve Jobs has provided a wealth of controversial material for columnists, writers, commentators and anyone else with an opinion. I am fascinated to watch as his strategy for this latest chapter, the iPhone, plays out in the marketplace.

So there you have it–that’s my take. Post a comment and let me know what your own thoughts are on Mr. Jobs, Apple and the iPhone.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

4 Comments by admin on July 23, 2007
filed in B2C, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, General Management, Software/Product Development, hardware
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Mechanics of Email Marketing

There are many different possibilities for technology and software companies, when it comes to formulating a marketing mix. I’ve written before about some of my favorites. One method that can be a big winner, if done well, can also be a big loser if done poorly. I’m referring to email marketing. If you want to be successful, you need to do it very well, as a result of SPAM and the general bursting of everyone’s email inbox these days.

Why Email Marketing?
Email marketing can be so productive for a company, because unlike more passive forms of online marketing (ex: PPC advertising, Banner Ads), you can usually target you audience very effectively. This is especially true if you are using an in house list; by definition, these are prospects that have some reason to have an interest in your products. In B2B marketing, there is an abundance of excellent niche lists available for rental, to use in a targeted campaign. In B2C they aren’t quite as good overall, but there may be very good lists available for a particular category.

Like all other forms of online marketing, another primary benefit to this method is the ability to measure results with great accuracy, granularity and speed. Lastly, you can make a very big impact quite quickly, unlike other online methods which may fit more into the “steady as you go” category.

The Elements of a Successful Email Campaign
So if “doing it right” is so important, just what are the important things to concentrate on, to achieve success in email marketing? Let’s take a look at some of the most important elements:

Relevancy
First and foremost, your email must be relevant to the people who are receiving it. This is the great problem with the email marketing universe today, especially when considering the Spammers. Scattershot emails to every name that you can get your hands on not only won’t raise your sales; it will ruin your online reputation, and prevent you from effectively marketing online in the future. It’s been said by others that the difference between SPAM and legitimate commercial email is RELEVANCY. I firmly believe this. If your offer resonates with the list that you send it to, you will receive very few complaints.

The List
After relevancy, the next most important thing is the list. Absolutely do send your message to a list of folks that you have good reason to believe will be interested in what you have to offer. This is called target marketing; it is good practice across ALL marketing media. In email marketing–IT’S ESSENTIAL.

The Offer
Next comes the offer; often this is the most critical thing that you have a lot of control over. You need to remember that in email marketing, you are “going to the people”. They aren’t coming to you–actively looking for your product or service. As a result, your offer needs to be very aggressive to get their interest, and to compel them to act in the manner you desire. I always say that in direct marketing you want to make your very best offer. In email direct marketing, make them an offer that is so aggressive, it actually makes you wince a bit!

Creative
The above categories are the most critical to success. If you don’t get them right, nothing else will matter. However, it’s still very important to properly execute your relevant offer to the proper list. Even if you’ve got these elements formulate properly, poor creative execution can still lead to failure. My advice here is to make the email look like an email–not a web page. People’s expectations in an email message are very different from visiting a website (and attention spans are short enough in web-viewing!). I recommend that you keep your message simple, direct and relatively short. Feel free to include some attractive, eye-catching graphics. But remember, this is direct marketing–not an art project. The most recent research suggests that email graphics has no effect whatsoever on response rates. It’s all about the copywriting. Make your copy compelling, and get to the point very quickly–there isn’t much time before the “delete key” get punched.

Legal
The legal aspects of marketing via email are important, and quite a bit more restrictive, relative to any other form of direct marketing. So make sure you are aware of the laws which apply to your message–they vary from country to country. In the US, for example, the CAN-SPAM act requires an honest subject line, “remove requests” instruction, and a listing of the sender’s physical address–among other things. In some cases there are also state laws that apply. In Europe and other countries, the requirements can be far more restrictive, sometimes going so far as to require “opt-in” permission before any message can be sent. So be sure to research the local laws and comply with them at all times. To do otherwise risks ruining your online reputation–or worse.

Deliverability
This is one of the most difficult aspects to this particular direct marketing method. The advent of SPAM has created many barriers to delivering even the most welcomed messages to email inboxes. This was necessary, of course, for the preservation of the ability to use email at all. But deliverability is a very challenging, every changing scenario that has morphed into a marketing specialty of its own. There are many good places on the Web to assist you in getting your email delivered to your prospects. Return Path and Habeas are two of the more well known new companies that specialize in this area. I have used a free tool called SpamCheck to great effect over the last year, in screening my messages for deliverability problems. Contactology also has a great free Spam checking tool, as well as a turnkey service which enables you to easily create highly-deliverable email messages. EmailReach is another company that has some deliverability great tools. They aren’t free, but they do offer a 24 hour free trial for their service.

Continuous Measurement & Testing
The last thing I want to mention, which should be part and parcel to any successful email program, is measurement and testing. Since email is an online medium, it’s easy and cheap (or free) to measure your results. Frankly, doing any form of direct marketing without measurement is dumb. Online direct marketing with measurement is criminally dumb. There is just no excuse for it, other than laziness. Direct email marketing works best when it isn’t considered a “single-shot” campaign. Each drop should be part of an overall campaign aimed at continuous improvement. Multiple elements of your message should be tested and measured with each drop. If you do this, you WILL improve your results as you go–and likely will end up with a highly successful, and repeatable, marketing method to help drive your company’s growth.

Wrap Up
That’s my review of the nuts and bolts of good email marketing. Let’s hear from some of the other experts out there, on your best email practices. Post a comment so we can discuss this important marketing method in depth.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

No Comments by admin on April 7, 2007
filed in B2C, Marcom, Online Marketing, Pricing, Promotion, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Selling Through OEMS

I’ve recently discussed selling through VARs as a distribution channel strongly favored (maybe a bit too much!) by many early stage technology and software companies. In this article I’m going to look at another channel that is often misunderstood and misused: The OEM channel.

No Leverage
If you approach potential partners with a brand and existing sales, there is no leverage in negotiating with the larger, more established OEM prospective partner. In addition, it’s a much harder sale, because your company and product don’t have a track record.

Important–but secondary–revenue source
Treat OEM business as an important, but secondary revenue source relative to your own brand. This will keep things in perspective and prevent you from putting your company’s future in someone else’s control.

Bundle rather than integrate
Once way to take advantage of large OEMs without the downside of losing your own identity is to seek bundling deals, rather than private label deals. By doing this you are essentially co-branding, building the power of the partner brand through affinity with the bigger company. This leaves you with greater marketing, selling and support requirements, but may lead to a larger, more profitable company in the long run.

Address a vertical out of your reach
A good way to utilize OEMs is to fill a key vertical where your technology has a market. This occurs when you decide that you can’t address this vertical well with your own brand, because you don’t have a presence, and have decided that it doesn’t make sense strategically to expend resources to develop one.

Leverage your IP into a new market
There are also cases where you main technology base can be easily used to create an entirely different type of product, which is intended to serve an entirely different market, relative to what you are selling under your own brand. In these cases it may make sense to team with an OEM in this disparate segment, to market this spin-off product from your main technology.

When a company goes about it the right way, OEM business can be an excellent additional revenue source for startups–and any high tech company, for that matter. Where I want to throw out a caution flag, is when a company decides they are going to rely on OEMs as its primary–or only–channel.

Now this can work, you might say. And you would be right. But in most cases, I believe, it isn’t the best way to proceed. It can work, if you have the right type of product, and you’ve thought your strategy through very thoroughly. The problem is with most companies, this the usual scenario. What I find more prevalent is the old “let’s make it, and we’ll get someone else to sell it for us” approach. As I’ve discussed before, ‘let someone else sell it’ almost never works. This sentiment often occurs with a technology-driven senior team, without a good feel for marketing or sales. The natural tendency in these situations is to avoid the current weaknesses in this organization, and “let somebody else do it”.

The problem here is that sales and marketing needs to be a core competency, in most situations, if a technology company to become as successful as possible.

So what are the “bad effects”, when an early stage technology company pursues OEM relationships as their sole distribution strategy–or at least “too early” in their company development?

EFFECTS OF “BAD” OEM STRATEGY

No development of internal sales & Marketing
Companies with OEM-only business models tend to have weak (or nonexistent!) sales and marketing departments. My belief is that sales and marketing is a core competency–making this a bad idea. While you can run a company this way, in most cases, the ultimate size and profitability will likely be a fraction of what your technology could have otherwise supported.

All push, no pull
Every sales and marketing activity works better if there are “pull” elements, in addition to “push”. If selling to the OEM is almost solely a “push” activity, with no brand or your own market share to help pull–the process is much harder.

All the eggs in one basket
Even if you do well and gain OEM deals with premier partners–success is far from guaranteed. It isn’t unusual for OEM deals, especially early ones, to yield actual revenues in the 10-15% range of forecasts. If this happens to you and you’ve built your company around these projections–you’re basically screwed. You risk “crib death” or at least a difficult restart with your own brand, due to the disappointing sales from the OEM relationship(s).

Your OEMs swallow you whole
A very common scenario is a much larger OEM that starts treating its small, entrepreneurial partner like another department in its bureaucracy. The OEM stunts your overall company development by “tying up” the scarce resources of your smaller company in meetings, special projects, ever-changing product development requirements–and yes–more meetings.

Given the potential pitfalls, how do I recommend using OEMs?

THE “RIGHT WAY” TO INCORPORATE AN OEM STRATEGY

Develop your own brand/channel first
Pursue OEM business only AFTER you’ve established products under your own brand. It not only will provide you with a product that will be more attractive and stable to potential OEM partners, but you’ve got your own branded business to sustain you

Final harvest
Another smart way to use OEMs is to “harvest” a volume product which is now in decline, and is a product which you don’t intend to continue major investments. If you can get such a deal, it can be great way to maximize end-of-life revenue with minimum incremental investment.

Offer another price point
A strategy that can be used successfully in some cases (but is a bit dangerous) is to use an OEM to offer another price point in the market, one that you choose not to address with your own brand. More often you would do this with your own alternative brand or sub-brand. But there are instances where this investment might not make sense. Special care should be taken if the OEM is to fill a lower price point–care needs to be taken so that your own brands share isn’t eroded significantly.

Integration with complementary products
There are some instances in the marketplace where 1+1 does indeed equal 3. In these cases it may make sense to team with an OEM, to gain the advantages of product integration with a key product in your market, offering them as a single, integrated solution.

Summary
The bottom line is that OEM marketing is very important in the software and technology business. I strongly recommend that most everyone pursue this type of business; however, do it as part of a balanced, overall revenue strategy. Tread carefully and wisely and this may be the distribution channel that makes a break-even, or modestly-profitable business, into a profitable winner. It’s easy to say you want OEM revenue, but like most things in business, doing it right is hard–the devil’s in the details.

That’s my thoughts about how OEM strategy best fits into a typical high tech business. Post a comment and let us know how YOU approach OEM relationships–I look forward to your opinions.

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

No Comments by admin on March 13, 2007
filed in B2C, Business Development, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, Startup/Early Stage, VARs
tagged , , , , , , ,

Pay Per Click (PPC) Online Advertising

It’s known by several names: PPC or Pay Per Click advertising, CPC or Cost Per Click advertising, or sometimes by the best known PPC advertising engine, Google Adwords.

Pay Per Click advertising is no longer new; as a result, much of the “easy” money has already been made. But I’m struck by how many companies I run across that are still NOT using this method to attract prospects or make sales on the web. While it is now a competitive channel unlike in the early days of this medium, it can still be very effective and cost-effective in many markets.

PPC should be a staple of the promotion budget of nearly every company (although not a major portion of the overall budget, in most cases). It should also be one of the first promotional methods utilized on behalf of a new product, service or company. Here’s why:

Complex to Optimize–But Simple to Start
PPC advertising campaigns can be very complex and extensive, and will be once you get them optimized. Many companies are spending tens of thousands of dollars/month on PPC. At that point they should be making a lot of money for you–so it’s worth the investment and the trouble!

But getting started is quite easy–anyone can do it. You simply open an account with one of the major advertising engines, which will take you all of five minutes or so. You can put together a basic test campaign in less than an hour’s time. I always recommend starting with Google Adwords first. Once you are successful and understand what you are doing on Adwords, it is pretty easy to move your functioning campaigns to the other major system (Microsoft Adcenter) and the tertiary players. There are differences, but they are fundamentally the same.

Adwords is the most powerful and has by far the greatest reach, yet it is still very easy to set up your initial trial campaigns. There is an excellent set of online Help and tutorials to walk you through the basics. When you set up your initial campaigns, you WILL make mistakes. But don’t worry. Just set your budget limits to a low number that you can easily afford, and you will quickly climb the learning curve. Once you’ve learned the basics of what you are doing, you can then seek assistance to do the final optimizations to your campaigns, which will lead to the greatest success. You may decide to “do it yourself”; if so, there are a lot of different experts out there with modestly priced guides and services to bring you to the top of your PPC game. Or at this point, you may wish to outsource your PPC advertising activity. I always recommend opening an account on your own first, even if you plan to outsource. The knowledge that you gain will help you in hiring a third party who will best optimize your PPC activity, if you decide a third party PPC firm is the way to go for you.

Easy on the Budget
If you are a thinly capitalized startup company, or have a tight budget for a new product or market segment, you can start a PPC campaign that brings you results that you can continually improve, for just a few dollars/month. As usually is the case, the more money available the better. The more money you have to spend, the faster you can receive statistically significant results–which can then be used to tweak your campaigns for improvement, over and over again. But if you can only spare $50, $100 or $500 per month at first–don’t let that deter you. In most cases you can get started and move your campaign forward, at even these low budget levels. The beauty of PPC is that you really don’t need to commit to a large budget until you’re sure that you’ve got a profitable campaign. At that point, you’ll want to pour as much money into your campaign that you can muster. Once a campaign is proven profitable, pouring more money into it is like turning up a profit meter!

Precise Measurements
One of the major advantages of PPC advertising, compared to traditional offline adverting and other promotional methods, is the ability to precisely measure nearly every important aspect of your campaign. The ability to precisely track your results is much greater than any other form of promotion I’ve utilized in my career. This measurement precision turns PPC advertising into the most scientific form of marketing available. After some initial hypotheses with respect to Ad copy, keyword selection and landing page design, it is possible to systematically improve your results by tweaking these elements of your campaign  almost forever–increasing your profitability as you go.

Fast Results
The other important aspect of PPC advertising, in conjunction with measurement precision which makes this medium so systematic and scientific, is the ability to get this precise feedback in near real time. As an example, in traditional, offline advertising campaign, you need to invest tens of thousands of dollars upfront. After this large investment, you won’t even know if your campaign was successful for months. With PPC advertising, you quickly get feedback in the form of precise, quantifiable results, sometimes only minutes after you started it. As a result, you can have a fully optimized, profitable PPC campaign working, before you would even get your initial measurements with other methods.

The Ideal Platform to Test Messaging, Campaigns and Offers
The expediency and precision of PPC advertising make it a great platform to kick off any new product, market segment or company. It is very efficient way of testing messages, offers and websites. Once you’ve discovered and proven the things that work best, you can transfer this knowledge to your rollout of other promotional vehicles. This greatly reduces the risk inherent in starting up new marketing campaigns of any type, and should increase your profitability across platforms and promotional vehicles from day one.

Summary
As you can tell, I am a big proponent of PPC advertising as a staple of every marketing budget. Unless your market is so small that it consists of only a few hundred prospects, I recommend it to nearly every software and high tech company on the planet. Consumer, Enterprise or SMB–it’s very effective across many markets. In fact, the more of a niche your market is, the more cost-effective PPC becomes, due to reduced competition and lower resulting bid prices. There are a few highly competitive markets these days which are so competitive, that it’s hard to run a profitable PPC campaign. But these are still the minority. So if you aren’t active in PPC advertising today–get started! Give it a try, and let me know your questions or comments.

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

1 Comment by admin on February 26, 2007
filed in B2C, Marcom, Online Marketing, Promotion, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dell Computer

Dell has been in the news recently, and like many big companies that have had a glitch in their performance, not in a good way.

Slowing revenue growth, accounting scandals and customer service issues–you’ve heard it all before. By the way, where was the seminar that all big company managements attended, encouraging them to cut corners on their financial reporting practices? It seems that the same pattern has been replicated to an astounding degree across a broad array of large corporations. There has to be some root cause of this; too much smoke in this area to be a coincidence. And of course, the “Professional CEO” relieved of his duties–and replaced by the company founder, returning on a white horse to his original role to refocus the company.

These things have been so common in corporate America. Business writers may have been able to perform an automated “search and replace” in their word processor and write a new, yet the same, story for each additional corporation unfortunate enough to make the headlines. So what’s the deal with Dell–the details always tell the real story–and what happens from here?

ENORMOUS SUCCESS OVER TIME

First off, I want to give Dell Computer and Michael Dell their just due. This is one of the great success stories in corporate history. Started in a dorm room, Mr. Dell built the company into the dominant PC maker of its time, with a long history of exceptional growth and profitability. The company used the direct model at the time when it was counter-intuitive that this would allow a long run of success–which it did. The story of Dell is much more about what has been done right–than wrong. I had some limited contact with Mr. Dell years after Dell was already a large company. He was courteous and thoughtful and very impressive. I have nothing but great respect for the company and its founder.

Probably the strongest endorsement I can make of my opinion of the company, is that the last 3 computers that I’ve purchased have been Dells–even though I am a proud alumnus of HP.

THE FATE OF ALL BIG COMPANIES

But Dell has definitely hit a major pothole, and has had its reputation tarnished on many levels. As I’ve written before, these things inevitably happen to all successful large companies. Nothing great lasts forever–and it should be pointed out that at Dell, it’s lasted a very long time.

Growth has leveled off, and they are no longer the darling of Wall Street’s growth followers. Accounting scandals always reduce a company in the eyes of the public, and firing your CEO, who you’ve been raving about for a while, doesn’t exactly induce confidence in your future. But I think the biggest issue for Dell, is that they’ve taken their eye off of the ball when it comes to quality–and even more importantly–customer service.

I’ve written about this in the past, and I think it has played a primary role in Dell’s current problems. When I bought my first Dell computer, quality was almost unquestioned, and customer service and support was a real strength. Unlimited support was bundled in with the product, and it was great. Contrast that with the situation today: Now you are buying a product which is perceived as lower quality, and you almost can’t talk to anyone about anything without a charge. If you are allowed to speak someone in support, it’s hit or miss whether they are knowledgeable, or speak your language fluently. I really believe that the root of the problems has been what I’d call “too much of a good thing”: The relentless drive to reduce costs. As the PC business matured, Dell was far and away the low cost producer, and used this fact to great advantage. I believe that they got carried away with this strategy, and took their eye off of the ball of what made the company great in the first place. Service/Support quality has become such an issue for Dell that they’ve acknowledged it publicly, and announced plans to make significant investments to fix customer service. But real damage to the Dell brand has already been done, in my opinion. I, along with many others, will be looking closely at HP and other competitors when it comes to future computer and related technology purchases.

SO WHERE DO THEY GO FROM HERE?

All great companies hit this point eventually, and with all the company has going for it, the problems are imminently fixable. Unlike most companies that hit a bump in the road at this point, it doesn’t appear that it has happened because the company has become grossly “fat, dumb and happy”, with a bloated bureaucracy. No doubt there is some bureaucracy with a company this size, but ironically, cutting in the wrong places has been the major problem. Michael Dell has announced that he will look at “new strategies” for the company in his return to the CEO role. I consider this a positive. Often founders want to “go back to the future”, and return to what they know made them successful in the first place–I don’t believe that this is the right answer here.

THE OBVIOUS ANSWERS

The first thing is to fix customer service and support, regardless of the cost. The brand will continue to suffer without this, and that would ultimately be deadly. Mr. Dell has announced that he plans to greatly reduce the number of direct reports to the CEO. If done for the right reasons, I applaud this directive.

Even in a famously lean company like Dell, a company at this size tends to become pretty bureaucratic. There tends to be a lot of people around with curious, abstract job titles, who only serve to slow down, and get in the way of progress. Personnel in companies this size often end up spending a lot of time in large internal meetings–talking to each other, instead of listening to the market. Getting ahead in a company at this mature stage often is dependent on bureaucratic skills, rather that creating actual marketplace value. It’s usually important to cull the herd of extraneous roles, and simplify and focus business processes on only those things that create revenue and profit. This looks painful in the short run, but the company actually runs much more smoothly in the long run.

THE NOT SO OBVIOUS ANSWERS

A more difficult decision is whether to remain with a largely “direct-only” business model. This is particularly difficult for Dell, because it has always been what they’ve hung their hats on. In fact, years ago when I had a few discussions with senior managers at the company, the feeling among upper management was that they didn’t know how to do other forms of distribution, and that they had failed in their few toe dips into indirect waters.

In hindsight, at that time, the decision to remain primarily direct-only was the right one. Enormous value has been created with that strategy–you can’t question it in hindsight. But at this stage of the company’s development, I believe that they really need to rethink this. There is evidence that they’ve run out of steam with a direct-only distribution model. In fact, Dell has been dealing with the channel in a very low key manner for years. But both sides have sort of looked at it like “dealing with the devil”: do it because you have to, but be careful not to get burned.

In my opinion, while it may appear risky, it is time for Dell to look at becoming a company that wants to be a real business partner with the channel. Do they want to have a real chance to stay a growth company?(which I assume they do–this is where the high stock P/Es are). If so, there are few other choices other than indirect distribution, at their current size, that will enable the kind of growth opportunities required for real growth. As they’ve looked farther from their core computer offering, to find other things to push through their direct pipe, they’ve been much less successful–as generally is the case. They’ve not become a real player in consumer electronics, and
while they were initially pretty good at giving away printers–they were not so good at selling them, or more importantly, the consumables which are the money maker in that business. The company should proceed carefully and thoughtfully in this regard. I’m sure that Mr. Dell has other initiatives that he is considering, but I’d be shocked if consideration of a major indirect distribution push isn’t high on his list of possibilities.

SUMMARY

What happens from here? Your guess is as good as mine. It should be very interesting to watch what new strategy emerges, and if this company famous for execution can return to those ways–especially if the future includes a major strategy shift. Corporations that have been as successful as Dell for as long as it has usually have 9 lives (see Apple Computer), and Dell is only on its second, by my count. So I wouldn’t bet against them.

That’s my opinion–what’s yours? Post a comment or send me an email.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

No Comments by admin on February 13, 2007
filed in B2C, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, General Management, Online Marketing, Retail, VARs, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Windows Vista – What will it mean for Microsoft?

As everyone who hasn’t been secluded in a cave for the past couple of weeks knows by now, Microsoft recently announced release of its new Windows Vista operating system to its large business clients. I’m sure that the timing of this announcement has been well thought out-and who am I to question it, really?

But on the surface at least, it’s pretty curious.

CURIOUS INTRODUCTION STRATEGY

First of all, they didn’t shipping the consumer versions first, even right before the Holiday shopping season, the period during which the bulk of the annual volume of PRACTICALLY ALL RETAIL PRODUCTS is sold. This is a huge hit to Microsoft’s sales, as well as their retail partners, system manufacturer partners, peripherals manufacturers, etc. Really, its a major hit to the whole Windows eco-system, because Windows upgrades drive upgrades of everything else.

In addition, they DID ship it to their large customers–right as the Holiday Season started. First of all, these large customers are notorious for lagging in terms of Hardware and Software upgrades of any sort. They are large, and everything takes them a while to do. But they also need to test and modify custom internal applications, and with something as fundamental as a major OS upgrade, IT shops really want to wait and make sure most of the bugs and issues are worked out, prior to undertaking massive upgrade conversions. I’ve seen estimates that this customer class won’t start upgrading until the 3RD Quarter of 2007. It seems like a delay of a few weeks wouldn’t make much of a difference.

So what was the hurry? Beats me. Again, on the surface, it seems like a case of misplaced priorities. Sure looks like I would have put every man possible on getting out the consumer versions, and saved the Enterprise versions for later. But I’m sure that there are good reasons that and outsider like me is not privy to, why this wasn’t desirable of possible. I’m guessing that Microsoft would probably say that the consumer versions have more testing/QA required, and it just wasn’t possible to get the consumer versions on the shelf by the Holidays, no matter the resource allocation. They’ve already missed several Holiday Seasons with the extreme delays on Vista, so what’s one more, anyway? So I’ll give them a pass on this one.

WILL MICROSOFT REMAIN DOMINANT?

But the bigger question here, besides the nitpicking about timing, is what will Windows Vista mean to Microsoft in the longer term? Will this launch, much hyped by the company for what seems like forever, be a point of inflection for their fortunes–refreshing their sales momentum, and restoring their dominance? Yes, I realize that the guys in Redmond aren’t exactly on the way to bankruptcy at this point. Microsoft remains a cash machine, enjoying outsized margins, generating enormous profits, and remaining a feared competitor for MOST of the software industry.

But it does seem like the company has slowly lost a bit of its edge the last few years. People in the industry retain a healthy respect for them, but it’s not quite the same. It wasn’t too long ago that VC’s were designing their portfolio’s around NOT competing with Microsoft. If you put a company together that was going to compete with them head-on, you risked being laughed at, and having your spouse nervously requesting that you see a psychiatrist. For quite of while, going out of your way trying to compete with them just WASN’T DONE.

That has all changed.

VISTA HELPS MICROSOFT, BUT WHAT IS WORKING AGAINST ITS CONTINUED DOMINANCE?

1) The OS is still important, but the Internet and Web-based application development has changed the landscape considerably. While the OS is still extremely important, instead of being a POSITIVE competitive weapon that Microsoft controlled to provide advantage for their own applications, it has come to be perceived as a high-cost security problem that has left the company on the DEFENSIVE. The application platform of choice for end user interfaces going forward appears to be the Web, for a lot of reasons that we won’t go into here.
2) Even on the OS server side Microsoft is under attack, with “free” Linux providing a much lower cost solution with greater stability and security–according to many large corporate IT shops.
3) The Web has evened the playing field for the competition. Like most large companies, Microsoft has struggled to keep up with the changing rules of the game. They have been a step or two behind for a while, but have always been able to catch up in important new markets, using the fast follower approach. But with a continuously lessening advantage from their near-monopoly platforms, it’s getting harder for them to come from behind and dominate markets. Google is currently kicking their butts in Search–the most high profile example.
4) The final major threat is the advent of advertising-driven business models, which threaten to put a large dent in the classical paid licensing model that is a huge cash cow for Microsoft. It is always hard for the large, entrenched leader to obsolete their revenue model/streams.

I believe that Microsoft is struggling greatly with these issues.

Finally, the fear of the company just isn’t there anymore. People will still tread carefully in their footsteps, but the company is definitely going to be facing increasing competition by upstarts using novel approaches in the coming years. This will stretch the company that much further, as they are required to respond to competitive threats across a much broader landscape than in the recent past.

HOW GOOD IS WINDOWS VISTA-THE PRODUCT?

What about Windows Vista the product? How good is it? I haven’t gotten my hands on a copy personally, but everything I have read to date leads me to believe that it is a solid–but fairly pedestrian at this point–step forward for the Windows OS. One major IT magazine’s analysis was that the code is solid, and it should prove to be a good platform for improving security in the long run. There is also wide belief that it will help IT shops manage their PC assets more easily and cheaply. But others have stated that everything Vista enables concerning an IT shop could today be implemented by a well-run IT department with Windows XP. This is hardly a ringing endorsement after 5 years, and many slipped intro dates. While it may be fundamentally better for security, Microsoft has a huge problem with the Windows OS, no matter how well they design and code security changes. Any system can only be “hardened” so much. With such widespread use, Windows has a big target on its back from every hacker in the world. Also, as the OS becomes more naturally complex and sophisticated in capability over time, that many more holes open up for people to attempt to exploit. I believe it is ultimately a game Microsoft cannot win.

From a consumer’s perspective, the sexiest new feature is the 3D user interface, which requires a very high end graphics subsystem. But the problem here is that for most people, this is projected to be a $500-700 upgrade. Again, systems and peripherals manufacturers will love it because it pulls hardware sales–but the new hardware requirements should slow adoption by consumers.

Of course, much of the fancier improvements to the Longhorn project had to be dropped as the coding slipped. So I’m sure there are many incremental improvements that will occur in Vista in the coming years. But remember, this was billed by Microsoft as a great leap forward, for many years. It looks at this point like an incremental upgrade–not a revolutionary one.

THE BOTTOM LINE

So what’s the bottom line for Microsoft with its new Windows Vista OS? It’s always very dangerous trying to predict the future in high tech. The law of unintended consequences looms large, and those consequences usually aren’t readily appare
nt until much later. But if I had to project today, I’d say that Vista will provide Microsoft with a nice short and medium term sales boost. But I also believe that it will do nothing to slow down the powerful forces already in motion, that are slowly eroding the Microsoft near-monopoly, and may eventually make it simply a “mortal” company again.

That’s how I see it–post a comment and let us know your view.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

3 Comments by admin on December 16, 2006
filed in B2C, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Product Marketing/Management, Software/Product Development
tagged , , , ,

Should you Copy-Protect your Software Products?

How’s this for an age-old discussion? This topic was very hot back in the 80s and 90s when I was first getting started in the software business. It was a topic that was hotly contested for quite a while, and then largely went away (at least as a topic of discussion!) for quite a while.

WHY SOFTWARE PROTECTION WENT AWAY THE FIRST TIME

The reason copy protection largely went away is that previous generations of license/copy protection schemes were so bad, that the marketplace demanded their removal–at least in mass market and mainstream business applications. The worst of these technologies, of course, were the hardware dongles. They consistently created unhappy, irate users. I know of companies which almost went out of business because of them. Although hardware dongles never completely went away, they ceased being an important factor in the business long ago.

That doesn’t mean that everyone stopped copy-protecting their software–a number of hardcore holdouts continued on. This has always been an emotional issue. Software developers work long and hard, at great expense and not without risk, to produce a product that will be accepted commercially, and provide a meaningful financial return for their effort. As a result, some developers never stopped copy-protecting, regardless of the problems that these technologies presented for their end users. These approaches caused all sorts of problems, from creating license control issues, to locking up machines or causing the software to not function properly. Again, this is an emotional issue for many developers, the thought of someone stealing their work. And of course, this is quite understandable. No one likes to work hard, only to see someone else commandeer their work for free, against their wishes.

But copy protection for some time now has been largely limited to niche categories with little competition, as well as a few stubborn companies in more mainstream market. This happened for two major reasons:

  1. Competition–with most copy protection going away, keeping your copy protection in your product became a competitive disadvantage in most markets.
  2. There’s another adage that developed in the software business after copy protection largely went away: “It’s not about how much they steal, its how much you sell.”

People in the industry decided that a certain amount of theft was inevitable in the software business. So the thinking went, you should focus on selling to those who will actually pay for it, rather than worrying about those that will steal it. The belief became that anyone of consequence who was using your software, they weren’t going to steal it anyway. Especially in business markets, with the need for support, given the productivity lost if someone was actually using the software seriously–making theft an activity only for stupid people. Not to mention the fact that if you worked for someone else, there is really no upside to not paying for software. Now, of course in consumer markets things are a bit different, because the money comes out of the user’s wallet, and usage may be more casual, making support not as critical. But in the end, the same rule applied. It’s more important to focus your efforts on selling, rather than preventing theft.

WHAT’S CHANGED?

So what has changed over the last couple of years, prompting me to write this article? As it happens to occur frequently in our business, technology has improved. The new technology is known by a number of different names: License Management, Licensing Servers, Registration Servers, to name a few–I’m sure there are more. Along with that improvement in technology, a number of larger software companies have embraced some form of this technology in at least some of their products. Microsoft and Macromedia (now Adobe) happen to be a couple of companies that come to mind, that I’ve encountered some form of license management in their products. When these companies embrace something, it causes you to at least step back and take another look.

These license servers have taken advantage of the pervasive connectivity of the Internet in today’s world. Essentially, they require you to “check in” with the server online, before you can use the software. In this way, they can keep a master record of who’s purchased what software, and check it against your registration. If for example, too many people are attempting to use the same registration number, it can prevent unauthorized users from enabling the software. In addition, most of these products have flexibility built in, so that you can trade off usability vs. enforcing the license strictly. For example, you could choose to allow two registrations per purchaser, enabling people to use one copy on their desktop computer and one on their laptop, as some license agreements allow. This type of flexibility, if used properly, may allow you to increase your revenue while limiting irate tech support calls from your legitimate, paying customers.

SHOULD YOU DIP YOUR TOE IN THE WATER?

So where do I stand on this issue, given all the reasons stated above including the all important “it’s how much you sell, not how much they steal.” Well, I still believe in that old adage, but I will admit the new licensing products do have me intrigued. It’s still most important to focus on selling, not preventing theft, if you want to grow your software business. But the complete ease of installing software without having to pay for it has always been a problem for developers. It’s so easy to steal that it has become a bit of a habit for some, and accepted behavior from a societal perspective. It became almost a “don’t ask, don’t tell” kind of cultural phenomena to use pirated software.

Of course, theft rates have been decreasing for a long time, even in emerging markets where the problem is the worst. But theft rates are still really high compared to just about any other business that you can think of. If even of few of those freeloaders can be convinced to pay what they should, it may make a meaningful impact on a software companies top and bottom lines. So if it can be done without significantly inconveniencing legitimate buyers, it would certainly be helpful to have a way to remind otherwise honest people that they should stay honest, when it comes to software. As a result, this is an area where I’m advising my client to slowly dip their toe in the water–conduct a controlled test with License Technology, and evaluate the results.

This is a topic which I’d really like to hear your feedback on. Do you use, or have you at least evaluated using a License Management product, or some other form of protection? What are your conclusions? This could be a very valuable discussion for many in the software industry. Post a comment on the Morettini on Management Blog, or send me an email.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

3 Comments by admin on November 8, 2006
filed in B2C, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Software/Product Development, enterprise software

Will Web 2.0 Lead to a New Bubble?

So there’s a new “next big thing” happening in the high tech world–that’s feels very, very familiar. In fact, it seems a lot like “déjà vu all over again”, to quote one of my all time favorite philosophers–Yogi Berra. I’m talking about the Web 2.0 phenomenon. The question I present is–what’s the difference between Web 2.0 and 1.0? Although there are obvious differences technologically, and there are a few wildly successful companies following a Web 2.0 style model–my reply is “not a lot” is different.

SOCIAL NETWORKING IS THE BATTLEFIELD

The recent buyout of YouTube by Google for roughly $1.6 billion dollars is what finally set me off to write this article. You see, this is EXACTLY the type of transaction that was representative of the bubble years. An overnight success, with a lot of eyeballs (ok, TONS of eyeballs!) and essentially NO revenue turns it’s twenty-something founders into near billionaires, just months after starting the company. Ok, it was 2 years, but you get the point.

Now we haven’t seen a transaction quite like this in a long time, but they seem to be picking up steam. MySpace was snatched up similarly by Fox for about a half a billion, also with almost no revenue at the time. Facebook also looks like it will be sold soon, to one of the new or older media companies, for a big chunk of change.

What’s happening is the Internet market leaders such as Yahoo, Google, Amazon, Microsoft/MSN, and older media companies trying to keep up, like Fox and Time-Warner–are fighting to get and retain the lead in all the important mass market Internet categories. The hottest one at the moment is referred to as “Social Networking”. The idea is that in Web 2.0, the user is much more of a producer of content in addition to being a consumer of it, so that the idea of online users as passive consumers of content is now passé. This new wave is hitting big with sites that are getting huge growth in traffic, like YouTube and MySpace, which enable their users to produce and publish their own content. But how much money’s really in it?

All the big players are afraid of missing this wave, and like most big companies with respect to societal shifts–have missed the boat completely, or have fallen behind their more innovative startup competitors. And yes, I now categorize Google as one of those less innovative, bigger companies. As much as they’ve tried to avoid that fate, they’ve grown very big quickly–and haven’t had a home-grown hit for a while in “Internet time”.

EYEBALLS FIRST, PROFIT LATER

What strikes me as so familiar about all this is that social networking from Web 2.0 looks A LOT like the “Communities” phenomena of Web 1.0. Both represent an attempt to “get the eyeballs first” and “we’ll figure out how to monetize them later”. Both are based upon the idea of getting people together on a user-driven site, as opposed to selling a specific product or service. And both are driven by a business model where the main source of revenue is expected to be online advertising.

Now I happen to believe that YouTube and MySpace will end up being able to monetize those eyeballs. But does that mean that everyone will?

Some of you might say that the difference is that online advertising has been legitimatized by Google’s unbelievable success with contextual PPC adverting, with their search engine Ads and Adsense network. That success is irrefutable. But does that mean it will go on forever, and that the public will tolerate text ads (or something even MORE invasive) littering nearly every square inch of unused webspace? Personally, I don’t think so. There is definitely a place for online advertising, and I expect it to continue to grow robustly for the foreseeable future. But everyone seems to forget that online banner advertising was also highly successful at the beginning of Web 1.0–until the public got tired of it, and tuned it out. Advertising revenue online dropped like a rock, and many companies were destroyed in the process.

Google has done a great job of improving on the online advertising model so that Advertisers became successful, allowing Google to ride on that success by taking a nice cut of the take. But even today, it’s getting more difficult all the time to make PPC campaigns pay off. The days of easy direct conversions to sales are gone in most markets, and using PPC as a lead generation tool–while still good business for many–is far less compelling. Will the PPC market leaders continue to grow fast for a while longer? I’m sure. Will it flatten out at some point in the medium term? I’m sure of that also. Will most of those companies that are raising huge amounts of venture capital, with online Ad-centric business models, find the same level of success? I’ll bet you everything in my bank account against this. In fact, I think that there is room for surprisingly few additional big players who DEPEND upon online advertising for their success.

PUBLIC MARKET EXCESSES

The other aspect that seems to distinguishes the Web 2.0 wave from Web 1.0 history is the lack of overheating of IPOs. In fact, the IPO market for Tech companies overall still hasn’t really recovered from the Web 1.0 bubble. In addition to the burn marks that remain on Wall Street’s hands with respect to Tech companies, SARBOX has also made going public less attractive to all growth companies. Exit strategies are more often based upon a sale than an IPO these days. But two things here: just because it hasn’t happened yet–doesn’t mean these IPO excesses won’t reappear later in the cycle. I believe we are still early in this one. Secondly, I wouldn’t preclude some type of financial bubble, even without public IPOs of nearly no-revenue companies like in 2000. Anytime hype over-inflates the value of assets, the downstream consequences can be severe. If bidding wars by the established companies get too out of hand, it could still end up having a real negative impact on the stock market and the high tech business environment, down the road.

HISTORY HAS A WAY OF REPEATING ITSELF

My final thought on this topic is that in the High Tech world, there is almost always more money chasing the “next big thing” than can receive an adequate return. This inevitably leads to many excesses, including a level of hype that can only lead to disappointment, for those who get in late or with marginal business plans. The result is a boom-bust cycle that we see re-enact itself over and over again. My thesis is that “eyeballs first, figure out how to monetize later” has always been, and always will be a flawed approach, for all but the fortunate few. If you’re buying into Web 2.0 in a big way, Caveat Emptor–Let the Buyer Beware. A history lesson can sometimes be the most prolific forecaster of all.

Will there be a Web 2.0 bubble, much like the original dotcom bubble? It’s too early to tell. But as I’ve outlined above there are some hints in the news that a repeat might not be that far-fetched.

That’s my take on Web 2.0–what’s yours?

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

3 Comments by admin on October 22, 2006
filed in B2C, Business Models, Financing, Mergers & Acquisitions, SaaS, Social media, Software/Product Development, Startup/Early Stage

Overture and its Bid Tool

I wanted to tell you quickly about another very useful tool for Search Engine Marketing. It’s the Overture Bid Tool, which you can access from several different places. I’ve linked a site above that is accessible to anyone; if you are currently doing business with Overture, you can of course access it from within the Overture site.

For those of you who don’t know, Overture is the Pay-Per-Click (PPC) division of Yahoo. Overture was the pioneer in the PPC business, and was later purchased by Yahoo. It is now officially known as Yahoo Search Marketing, but many people still know it as Overture, so the brand has stuck around. It’s a direct competitor to Google Adwords; although it was the pioneer, Overture’s technology has fallen behind Google. Yahoo has a big new upgrade of the service which will be available soon (it was supposed to be released by now, but was delayed). It is supposed to help Yahoo get back in the game and catch up with Google in the PPC business–we shall see. Google surged ahead of it with superior technology that it released at a far faster rate. There may be quite number of you who have utilized Google Adwords but have never tried Yahoo/Overture, since the general perception is that is “where the action is”. These days with the extreme competition for good keywords on the Adwords platform that may be a dubious strategy, but that’s a discussion for another time.

One of the features where Overture has maintained some functionality not available on Adwords is the Overture Bid Tool. This tool is of great use for Search Engine Marketing, in general. It’s very easy to use: you simply type in any search term that you are interested in, and the Overture Bid tool will return a list of advertisers for that the keyword or phrase, with the exact amount that they are bidding.

This can be very valuable in a number of instances. You might for example, use it to scope out a new market, to see if PPC advertising will make economic sense. You can use it to get an in depth view of the marketing strategy of your closest competitors. In a more global view, it can give you an quick overall picture of the competitiveness of a market segment. In many markets, PPC spending can be an excellent proxy for how competitive a particular market space is. So if there is brutal bidding on Overture, you can expect the SEO competition will be almost as bad, and even traditional marketing channels have a good chance of being pretty clogged up as well. And since Overture doesn’t have the volume of Adwords, the bids tend to be lower–so you can expect the competition on the Adwords platform is even worse.

Give the Overture Bid Tool a try–use it for whatever purpose that you like. It’s free, and easy to use. Let me know what use you found for it.

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

No Comments by admin on August 30, 2006
filed in B2C, Marcom, Online Marketing, Promotion
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »