Morettini on Management

General Management and Marketing Advice for Software and Tech Companies

Will Smartphones Replace PCs?

Smartphones are taking over the world–the tech world, at least. The computing buzz these days is decidedly mobile. The question is “where does it end”? Do Smartphones continue their growth until they are the dominant or sole computing platform, or does this trend stop somewhere short of that? Let’s look as some of the factors that will drive the market:

Processors

The state of microprocessors used in Smartphones will go a long way in deciding the ultimate outcome of this discussion. We’ve seen similar scenarios to the Smartphone phenomenon before, and history tells us that microprocessors will keep progressing on all three major computing platforms. History also says that applications have always grown in size and capability to take advantage of the increased level of processing power and memory available at a given cost. In addition, desktop PCs (and laptops to a lesser degree) don’t have the extreme power constraints that a pure mobile platform like a Smartphone does. If historical trends hold true, it won’t bode well for Smartphones becoming the dominant computing platform, because PCs will continue to have an inherent advantage in software capability due to more powerful hardware. If there is a leveling off in PC processor capability, Smartphones will have more of a chance to overtake them as the primary computing platform.

Screens

Screen size and power consumption are also very important to this argument. Until holograms become standard, screen size will always be an important factor is choosing where to do your computing. This doesn’t bode well for a total Smartphone takeover of computing.

Keyboards

Keyboards are an analogous issue to screens; once voice input becomes standard in the computing world, keyboard size will seize to be an issue, tilting the field toward Smartphones. But until this happens, all but the insane will prefer typing on a PC keyboard over anything available in the Smartphone world (although there have been definite improvements in Smartphone keyboards).

Batteries

Battery life is also a major driving factor in the capability of Smartphones. While mobile processors and memory will almost certainly continue to provide greater compute capability at lower power consumption, desktops essentially have no power constraints (except for the very green-conscious). Even laptops come with an assumption of working at least part of the time where they can be plugged in. There could come a day where batteries are so powerful and hardware is so miserly in power consumption that battery life is no longer a major issue. Until that day, however, the checkmark goes to PCs.

Software

There are two aspects of software that are important to this discussion. The first is the number and breadth of applications available–the Smartphone category has already blown through this checkpoint. Hundreds of thousands of applications are already available on Smartphone platforms. Smartphones are already in the mainstream from a software assortment perspective. The second question is the sophistication/capability of the infrastructure software available, to ensure whether bleeding edge technology can be used on a platform. While Smartphone infrastructure and tools aren’t t yet as powerful and mature as what’s available on PCs, things are moving fast and I don’t see this as a major issue preventing Smartphone dominance.

New Hybrid Smartphone/Laptops

This embryonic platform holds the promise of being a game-changer in the market, tilting the advantage towards Smartphones as your primary (and possibly only) computer. What I’m referring to is a normal Smartphone “docked” into a laptop accessory shell, providing a larger screen, keyboard and maybe even bigger battery while using the same interface and software available on your Smartphone. This allows all of your files and computing occur on a single device, which would represent a major breakthrough for users. It’s the holy grail of computing. You may have seen ads for one of the early models, the Motorola Atrix “Lapdock”; or heard about the recently announced ASUS Padfone hybrid Smartphone/Tablet. It’s still very early in this segment and definitely uncertain how it will turn out. As in any early market, prices are still high, and the early devices don’t quite work as well as you’d like. But the paradigm is a powerful one. If the companies bringing out these devices stick with it, continue to innovate and introduce next generation devices that meet market expectations, this is a product that could truly be a PC killer. Only time will tell if this category will become the next generation of computing, or peter out like so many other great ideas that weren’t carried out to the required maturity.

I realize that tablets are becoming an important part of the computing ecosystem, but for simplicity I’ve considered them a next generation laptop in the context of this discussion.

I can’t say I know how this eventually works out. If I had that type of view into the future, I’d be in Vegas placing bets rather than writing this article. But using history as a guide, I think all three major platforms–desktops, laptops and Smartphones–will be with us for a long while.

I do think there will be a re-alignment in computing market share among the main platforms. I see desktops continuing a slow decline in share and eventually becoming specialist computers, used only where the ultimate in computing power is required. Smartphones have already staked their claim as the new growth platform. How far this growth goes is the only question. The wildcard is the new hybrid category. I believe that these devices could become the dominant primary computing platform if the hybrid Smartphone/laptop category takes off–which is far from a certainty at this time. If hybrids don’t take off, I believe screen, keyboard and processor limitations will prevent Smartphones from becoming the dominant computing platform anytime soon.

That’s my forecast–what’s your opinion on the direction computing will take? Do desktops eventually go away completely? Are they replaced by a Smartphone/laptop hybrid device? Do two of these three platforms survive, or will all three co-exist in the future as they do now?  I’d be interested in your own forecast–leave a comment to further this 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

3 Comments by admin on June 12, 2011
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Software/Product Development, hardware, market research
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Outbound Marketing Dead?

The craze in the marketing world these days is “Inbound Marketing”–otherwise know as “content marketing”, “permission marketing”, “new marketing” “modern marketing” and a few other buzz-terms. The definitions may vary slightly, but they’re essentially variations on the same theme:

Potential customers find you, rather than you (the marketer) approaching them.

The current commentary on marketing methods goes like this:

People are insanely busy these days, and constantly inundated with marketing offers of all kinds, causing them to tune them out. Traditional outbound methods such as direct mail/email, advertising, etc. no longer work as a result. The answer is to use inbound marketing methods, defined as to driving traffic to your website via search engines, content (such as blogs and videos) and social media. Since these users have found you, they are by definition more attentive and better qualified targets.

Of course, although this discussion is very hot in the marketing world today, it isn’t really a new topic. It’s an argument about Push vs. Pull marketing, concepts which have been around nearly since the beginning of marketing as a science. At any rate, the preceding paragraph makes a lot of sense, does it not? No denying that getting boatloads of prospects finding you is a good thing.

The problem I see is that like most “trends”, the inbound marketing case is being grossly overstated. There is no doubt that the Internet has enabled pull/inbound methods grow to a degree not previously possible. If you’re a software or tech company marketer, in almost every market/product situation you should be leveraging online inbound methods to the max. But is that all you should be doing?

Of course not. Some companies may be able to fill their pipelines using only inbound methods. But this shouldn’t be an either/or discussion. In almost every situation, both inbound (pull) and outbound (push) should be used. They are not competitive methods; they each serve a different purpose, and are actually very complementary. Let’s take a look why:

Different psychographic profile of prospects

Prospects are not a homogeneous group in any market. They come in all shapes and sizes–early adopters, mainstream buyers, late adopters, etc. As a result, they respond to different stimuli, and have different buying styles. Many want to be totally in control and never have any “invasive” marketing targeted at them. But for every person that is offended by any offer directed at them, there are others who are happy to receive a timely, targeted offer which saves them money–as well as time– in searching out a software or hardware product they need. This is especially true for some very busy folks, and others that absolutely hate the shopping process. Outbound marketing can be a real advantage with these prospect profiles.

Different stage in the buying process

This is a key point which someone relatively new to marketing may not understand. If you have a prospect in the active buying stage, inbound marketing works great. Since they are out searching for your product or service, if you’ve done a good job on inbound marketing activities, there is a good chance they will “find” you. But what about those target prospects that aren’t yet in active buying mode? Should you just be ignoring them? I think not. First of all, you absolutely want to get a leg up on your competition and get your message to them as early as possible. By doing this, you’ll be on their short list of vendors to check out when they are ready to buy. But the right offer can also turn that future prospect into an active buyer–without so much as a look at the competition. What happens to your odds if yours is the only marketing message they see? Outbound marketing is much more effective than inbound in this scenario.

Timing vs. budget

From a marketer’s perspective, outbound and inbound marketing may fulfill different needs. Inbound marketing may provide a solid, day-in-and-day-out flow of leads and revenue. Outbound marketing can provide a more instantaneous bump to your numbers. Think PPC advertising vs. SEO. An inbound marketing technique like SEO is probably the more powerful activity in the long run, but and outbound method like PPC advertising can start creating business almost instantly. This outbound marketing bump can be very useful during slow periods where you’d like to “smooth out” your numbers, when you’re just getting started, during a busy (but competitive) holiday buying season or to give extra emphasis to a new product introduction.

Targeted Offers

Since you have greater control with respect to when a prospect will be exposed to an offer, it’s much easier to provide urgency and that critical timeliness component via outbound marketing. In addition, targeting can also be easier with outbound methods.  Direct outbound marketing, in particular, can be highly targeted if good lists are available.

Push and pull on the same prospect

Lastly and very importantly, this really isn’t an either/or argument–as I stated earlier. When discussing inbound and outbound marketing, we’re really still just talking about push and pull by other names. As any good marketer knows, push and pull work together. The number of total marketing impressions matters–more impressions increase your odds. This is fundamental brand-building. As an example, it’s well documented that PPC ads and organic results on the SERP converts better than either alone. So don’t choose between inbound and outbound marketing–use best practices in both methodologies to optimize your marketing results.

So what do you think? Will all your investments going forward be toward inbound Marketing activities, or is there still room in your budget for outbound methods? I’d love to hear your plans and opinions–post a comment to weigh in on this 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

4 Comments by admin on May 16, 2011
filed in Online Marketing, Product Marketing/Management, Promotion, Social media
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Rise and Fall of Novell

Once again one of the great brand names of High Tech has been prominently in the news, this one  for it’s demise as a standalone company. This time it’s Novell, Inc.  Attachmate announced that it had closed its purchase of Novell, which becomes a brand of Attachmate.  The price was $2.2B–not chicken feed, but much less than the promise held by this company in the distant past.

This company holds a special place in my memory. In the early 90’s the Novell name was synonymous with Networking. The company was a pioneer in Corporate Networking, and played a major role in helping to create this market as we now know it. When I entered this market in 1990, the company’s core product, NetWare, held a commanding 70%+ market share in the networking software space, which was already very large at the time, and growing at a rapid rate. It was in this environment that I began my first general management position, starting up a systems and network management software business. Netware being the dominant NOS at the time, I got a very close look at the company’s activities, and some of the decisions and events that began Novell’s long decline. Novell is still a $1B business, but in terms of power and prominence, they are a shadow of the company I kept a close eye on in the 90s. There’s been speculation that the company would be an acquisition candidate for some time, so the news isn’t a big surprise. But it’s a story which is a cautionary tale, and many lessons for tech company management teams that don’t want to “blow it”.

So what caused the unfortunate change in fortunes for this former industry high-roller?

It’s a familiar story, actually, especially for those of you who are regular readers. The Novell story is particularly interesting, because several factors, each one itself capable of wreaking havoc on a solid company, came together to put this company into a long nosedive.

MICROSOFT-ITIS

The first problem was what I call “Microsoft-itis”. Novell became very successful on the back of its flagship NetWare platform, which drew the attention of Microsoft. Microsoft tends to become unhappy when any other software company grows too big, too fast. The upstart is then viewed as a potential threat in Redmond, as well as the fact that the market this other company has helped grow now becomes large enough to be attractive to MS. So the first problem was getting in the gun sight of Microsoft. Now, it’s hard to blame the company for this, it’s more of a side effect of success. This situation has caused problems for many a company, and is enough unto itself to throw a large majority of companies off their game. To have Microsoft target you is quite disconcerting, and if you don’t make the right decisions, you may be in serious trouble. How a company reacts to this challenge is critical, and in truth, often life or death.

ARROGANCE

Unfortunately, in some cases, being targeted by Microsoft sometimes builds a company up in its own view. It’s almost a baptism into the big-time. Microsoft is worried about us; we’re a peer to them now! We must really be smart! This leads to a false sense of security about the company’s true position in the market, leading to the second factor which can bring a company down—Arrogance.

Novell had plenty of excuses to be arrogant, even without Microsoft’s attention. They were truly dominating the Network Operating System business. The brand was dominant, the product was good, and the worldwide distribution network of VARs and distributors was second to none. Sales people at Novell no longer had to sell—they took orders. That led to a need to keep the big ball fast growth rolling, even as the market matured and became quite large. Wall Street, you know. Novell became known as a company that pushed, rather than created via pull marketing. There were numerous channel-stuffing scandals, so sales people could make their quarterly numbers and max out their bonus. No matter, things were well in hand, Novell was on a roll.

The closest competitor at the time was Banyan, with their VINES operating system. Banyan had a nice niche in the largest, WAN oriented corporations, but was no threat to Novell’s dominance. There was also a fast growing peer-to-peer player, Artisoft, who had a nice niche in the entry level market. Again, Artisoft posed no serious threat. And then there was Microsoft, with its alliance on the LAN Manager NOS with 3Com. At the time, Microsoft’s distribution strategy was still to primarily be an OEM supplier, preferring to let others take the lead in bringing the product to the end user market. They had piggybacked the hardware vendors with DOS and the emerging Windows 3.0, and were attempting to use that strategy in the Networking market with 3Com as their main partner. 3Com at the time was a dominant networking hardware vendor. They also teamed with many suppliers of UNIX software to create private label versions of LAN Manager for each UNIX flavor—HP UX, for instance. There were about 17 other platform partners, as I recall. It looked like a formidable syndicate which could challenge Novell for market leadership.

However, like many early Microsoft entrées into new markets, the offering was a joke. LAN Manager ran on top of OS/2, which should tell you something about its lack of success, right there. Technically inferior, with too many players involved to advance and support it, LAN Manager never gained significant traction vs. Netware, even with huge amounts of money being poured into development and marketing. Major new releases would be announced, each which was supposed be the one to give Novell a run for its money. It became a running joke in the network business. At this point, Novell looked invincible.

LOSING FOCUS

Then the arrogance at Novell rose to new levels. Apparently thinking Microsoft couldn’t beat them at their own game, Ray Noorda and senior management at Novell decided to also take on Microsoft on their own turf. Not only that, but to compete across many, many categories. They decided they wanted to become the new Microsoft, and in doing so opened a multi-front war against a larger competitor, with far more resources (See Hitler opening up the Russian front in the War against the Allies).

Novell bought WordPerfect to compete with MS Word, Quattro Pro to compete with Excel, and announced a dizzying array of additional new initiatives. (See Netscape taking a similar approach in its heyday, as well as Google is now, as we speak—that ought to be interesting). No one, I repeat, NO ONE, has won a multi-front war with Microsoft. The people that have fended them off (which is a small list), when MS has put them in their headlights, have done so by sticking to their knitting, and playing by the rules of their own market segment. Intuit is a notable example, which was able to keep MS in a minor role in the Personal Financial software segment, by advancing and focusing on its own offerings and current market.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Well, many of you who have been in High Tech for a while probably already know the result. Microsoft finally split with 3COM, developed Windows NT, essentially building Networking into the Operating System. This finally began to hurt Netware, and although it wasn’t an immediate rout, over time NT became the clear winner. The terminator of Redmond can be knocked down, but they almost never give up—they just go deeper into their pockets, and keep on coming.

The acquisitions that Novell made were already second or third tier products, and their markets were outside of Novell’s core market and competency. Drained of resources and fighting losing battles on many fronts, Novell was soundly defeated, ultimately selling off many of its acquisitions, retrenching and changing their strategy—quite a few times over the years, I might add. They went into a long, slow decline, and once this begins at a large company, it’s very difficult to truly turn it around.

WHAT IF?

So what would have happened it Novell hadn’t reacted like Netscape later did, choosing to battle it out toe-to-toe with Microsoft, blinded in a fit of rage and bravado? What if they had followed a similar strategy to the one that Intuit took? What if they had marshaled their resources, and kept their focus on maintaining the lead they had in Network Operating Systems and related businesses—which were pretty big markets in their own right? Hindsight is always 20/20, but my guess is that they would have had a much better chance of continued success—and possibly avoided the headlines in the Trade Magazines of the last few weeks.

Have you seen similar missteps in your own companies or markets?—please post a comment below to share the insights.

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

5 Comments by admin on May 3, 2011
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, General Management, Operations, Software/Product Development, VARs, enterprise software

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

No Comments by admin on April 11, 2011
filed in B2C, Business Models, Startup/Early Stage, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , ,

International Expansion: Partner or Invest?

This is an age-old question facing software and hardware companies. In this article we’ll examine the pros and cons, as well as the specific conditions that should drive your decision process.

Two basic options confront a tech company considering a foray outside of their home market:

  1. Set up your own subsidiary hiring your own employees to “put on the ground”
  2. Partner with established traditional distributors or strategic partners in the target foreign market

Let’s look at some of the key factors to consider when designing an international business development strategy:

Available Capital

How much money does your company have available for international expansion? If the answer is “not much”, this alone can be the deciding factor in your decision. If capital is very scarce, you’re almost forced to start out using distribution partners. This isn’t all bad, in my opinion. Using partners initially when you are an international newbie is a much lower risk way to start, and allows you to learn this part of the business without “losing your shirt”. I’ve seen a number of control-oriented management teams invest large amounts of money by putting people on the ground in subsidiaries, only to waste it in spectacular failure. Often this failure is due to inexperience.

Product Price and Complexity

If you have a high priced, technically-complex product with a long sales cycle, you will tend to benefit more than others by having people on the ground in the foreign market. These are the types of products which are most often sold directly, even in home markets. In this scenario, even if capital is tight and you can’t afford to put down a fully-loaded subsidiary with a dedicated direct sales force in every foreign market, it still may make sense to put some folks on the ground. As an example, you might be able to afford a channel sales rep and a couple of field engineers to support a large network of sophisticated local country distributors and VARs, across an entire continent like Europe or Asia.

Management Skills

What is the skill set of your corporate management team? If no one on the team has any experience with indirect distribution, for example, it’s going to be pretty tough to successfully build a working distribution channel in FOREIGN MARKETS which are far from home, in more ways than one. In this case, the most cost effective thing to do is to add someone to the top management team with the requisite skills and experience, or at least retain a long term consultant. Going without this hire often seems the cheaper route initially, but in most cases this end up being “penny-wise but pound-foolish” in hindsight.

Local Market Cost Structure

Each foreign market should be evaluated individually before deciding an approach for that market. For example, in large emerging markets with low costs (such as China, India, Brazil for many verticals) it may make sense to put your own people on the ground, regardless of the distribution strategy. When costs are low and the market is strategically important in the long run, the relative benefits of having your own subsidiary are high. In a high cost market with lower sales potential (Switzerland and Norway may be good examples for some businesses,) relying exclusively on a dedicated local partner may be a better way to go.

Availability of Partners

In some cases what may be the best strategy for your company and market in theory is overridden by facts on the ground. Many vertical software and hardware markets have a well established set of distributors and resellers dedicated to their marketplace. In these cases it’s relatively easy to find an appropriate distribution partner. But what if you’re in a business in which this ISN’T the case, which is not all that unusual? Or maybe there is an established channel, but you’re late to the game and all the obvious “good” partners are tied up with your competitors. Sometimes you may choose to not enter that market immediately. But if the geographic market is considered strategic, then you will need to choose a course that looks sub-optimal in theory. That might mean biting the bullet and outlaying the investment to start your own subsidiary. Or, you might find a local entrepreneur with the skill set to set up a new distributorship. If it’s a geographic market that you just HAVE to participate in, then you will find a way!

There are obviously a wide range of combinations and intermediate options, but “partner or invest” represent the extreme ends of potential strategies. In many cases (particularly large, established markets) the optimal distribution strategy will be a combination of these two main approaches: pairing a wholly-owned subsidiary with local distribution partners. In smaller markets, partnering with an established distributor or strategic partner may be the only viable strategy. In other cases, the optimal strategy may be dependent on the specific factors of a particular marketplace (local costs, available partners, etc).

What’s most important is to closely analyze your specific company’s situation and vertical market, as well as the “facts on the ground” in each individual geographic market. Resist the temptation to simply copy your competitor’s strategy or fall back on approaches that you are comfortable with from other vertical and geographic markets. That is how you make mistakes.

What’s your approach to international expansion? Post a comment and share your own personal experience.

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, 2011
filed in Business Development, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, VARs, enterprise software, hardware
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

7 Comments by admin on February 15, 2011
filed in B2C, Corporate Strategy, Marcom, Online Marketing, Promotion
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wireless Communications and the End of Landlines

Hi, my name is Phil, and I am a landline user.

There, I’ve said it. I feel like I’ve admitted a dirty little secret–maybe should even enter a 12 step program of some sort. After all, I’m a long time, devoted tech guy and lover of gadgets of all kinds.

I was a very early and heavy business user of cell phones, and loved having one. Not quite as early as the initial “brick” stage, but soon thereafter. And of course the mobility provided by cell phones and laptops initially, and now Smartphones, has been a boon to business and personal productivity worldwide. Particularly in the third world where communications infrastructure was way behind, wireless technology has enabled these areas to leapfrog over fixed wired technologies entirely into the wireless present.

Wired telephone service definitely appears to be going the way of the dodo bird. A study by the CDC shows one in four households the US now do not have a wired phone, and more than 50% of adults age 25-29 have only a wireless phone.

Wireless technologies have changed our lives, and for the most part for the better. There is no doubt about this.

I love having the mobility cell phone and the computing power of a Smartphone most of the time. But there are some downsides to our developing total commitment to this new technology, which is why I still have multiple landlines at my disposal:

Call Quality

To me, this is the biggest reason to still maintain a landline. If I’m talking to a client, especially for the very first time, I much prefer the predictable QOS a wired phone line offers. Mobile phone technology has improved dramatically over the years, with much greater bandwidth available, and technology that can more efficiently use it. But the mobile phone companies have generally used this added bandwidth to add data services and stuff ever more calls into a fixed amount of bandwidth. As a result, the call quality of mobile phones is still highly variable and often much lower quality than a POTS line. Add in dropped calls, dead zones and the like and conducting business over a mobile phone can be still be frustrating. Mobile phones are ubiquitous of course, so everyone understands. But it isn’t the most professional way to conduct business.

Cost

Some save money by using their mobile phone exclusively and eliminating landlines. If you are a heavy cell phone user by preference or necessity that probably makes a lot of sense. But if most of your calls don’t really NEED to be made on the go, sometimes the opposite is true. A standard, flat fee landline can be pretty cheap compared to most cell phone plans; again, if you really don’t require the constant mobility. In addition, pre-paid cell service has become very inexpensive (in the US, at least), saving considerable money vs. many contract cell phone plans, while also provide greater flexibility in switching service and phones or dropping service. Depending on your usage patterns and needs, the mobile service-only option isn’t always the cheapest.

Fax

Yes, this is an old technology and going away fast. And there are online solutions to get around not having a landline and physical fax machine. But when fax is called for, it’s still pretty convenient to do it the old-fashioned way.

Courtesy

Unfortunately along with YOU having the ability to communicate from anywhere, so do the hordes of people around you. Does she really need to be on that call (loudly) while checking out in front of you in the grocery store? Or check that email or text will flying down the freeway at 75 mph? And the very personal things people will say on a mobile phone in public never cease to amaze me. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. I once had a guy Google on his Smartphone as I tried to interview him for a job.

Ability to “Get Away From it all”

After call quality, this is the next most important reason I don’t rely exclusively on a mobile phone. If you don’t’ have a landline as your primary number, everyone thinks you’re always available, and I’m very available anyway. While there are obvious benefits to this, at times it can get to be too much. In the not that distant past people understood if you took you an hour to return a phone call. Now many folks are upset if you don’t respond to an EMAIL instantly. All of this technology has accelerated business and has made us more efficient in many ways. But I do believe that it’s also important have some uninterrupted time be able to recharge your (personal) batteries, or do some solitary strategic thinking about an important problem. Being disconnected for just a while can be really helpful in many ways.

The bottom line is that 98% of us don’t really “NEED” all of this mobile technology. For doctors or others in some type of emergency response profession, it’s an absolute requirement. But for most of us, it’s really a want and a convenience, not an absolute need. I’m not sure many people understand that these days.

Most really enjoy the power and convenience of our modern mobile technology. But if you ever have a day where you feel like you’re overwhelmed by it all, try backing off a bit. Leave your phone at your desk (or at least in your car!). Go for a bike ride, read a book at the coffeehouse or hit the gym for an hour or two. Get totally disconnected, if only for a short while. Go Old School. You might find that you actually like it.

So that’s my rather obscure opinion on the state of communications technology–am I being silly? Post a comment and let everyone know what you think.

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

2 Comments by admin on January 16, 2011
filed in Uncategorized
tagged , , , , , , ,

Choosing an Advisory Board for your Tech Company

Advisory Boards have become a very chic addition to software and hardware companies over the last 5 or 10 years. So what are the key criteria you should use in putting together an advisory board? Well examine this issue below.

Prior to the 5-10 year period mentioned above, it was rare to hear of a company that had an advisory board. What’s driven this trend? For public companies, it’s mostly because desirable advisers who formerly would have served as on the Board of Directors may shy away, as a result of additional potential liability in that role. For private companies, I believe it was the recognition that those filling private company board seats primarily are there because of ownership (VCs, local angels, founders etc.), and may not have all key domain or technology expertise important to the company at the board level.

As a result, advisory boards are very much in vogue, sometimes to great effect–but often not. I’d compare this phenomenon to strategic partnerships. In strategic partnering, you’ll see everything from deals that greatly benefit both companies, to others which start and end with a vague press release. Similarly, many companies seem to put together an advisory board just because it’s the “thing to do”. This is just a waste of time, of course. Like most anything, if you put little thought and effort into it, very little usually comes back.

Let’s take a look at some criteria that could be useful in putting together your particular group of advisers:

Domain or technology expertise

This may appear obvious, but I see a lot of advisers on boards that are there just because they know someone, or maybe possess specific expertise that just isn’t core to the company’s success. I believe it is very important to use your advisory board to fill holes in your management team’s knowledge or experience.

Access to capital

This is a common reason that CEO’s will recruit an advisory board member, especially in early stage companies where capital needs are a critical strategic topic. But I’m not sure that this is always the best use of an advisory board seat; unless raising capital will be almost a constant need. I prefer to fill advisory boards with more scarce talents specific to the company’s market and technology.

Access to distribution channels

Distribution access is another common motivation in seeking advisory board members. I believe this is a very legitimate goal for your board, especially if the adviser truly has special access, or if distribution expertise is a real weakness within the company.

Honest and straightforward counsel

It’s very important to attract experts who aren’t afraid to challenge the management team’s view of the world and “common business sense”. Of course as advisers they need to be tactful in how they convey their viewpoints. But “Yes Man” panel that makes senior management feel good is of no real use, and can even be harmful by reinforcing a false sense of reality.

Available bandwidth

I believe this is a criterion that is very critical, and is often overlooked. I see companies rejoice when they are able to convince a high profile, “heavy hitter” to join their advisory board. While the name may look great on a company backgrounder or on your website, the reality is often that their time is spread too thin to be of real benefit to you. So make sure that you have a frank discussion, and reach agreement on what level of involvement they can actually have with your company.

Motivation

This is the most important criterion of all, in my opinion. Probably also the one on this list that is used the least in considering potential advisers. It’s easy to get excited about someone that fits perfectly what you need on paper. But you will find many folks that are interested strictly from a self-promotion viewpoint. It’s exposure for them, and looks good on their resume. There’s nothing wrong with this, as long as it’s not the sole or primary motivator. Others may think it will help them in getting to use their services in the future. Or they may have some more sinister reason for getting close to your company. So make sure that the candidate’s reasons for engaging are above board, and that your interests align. I’m not trying to create paranoia in anyone’s mind. But I believe that the adviser’s motivation is the single greatest indicator of success or failure in this role. Don’t ignore it.

So there’s some basic advice to consider when putting together your software or hardware company advisory board. Many of you have done this as well. Post your own advice, successes or horror stories in the comment section below so we can expand this discussion interactively.

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

2 Comments by admin on December 7, 2010
filed in Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, Financing, General Management, Startup/Early Stage, hardware
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Should Microsoft Break Up?

Once again there have been discussions in the press about breaking up Microsoft. Years ago it was the government pressing the issue because of Microsoft’s perceived monopolistic hold on a number of software markets. Now it’s being driven by shareholders, unhappy with the stock’s unimpressive performance over the last decade. MS management is not fond of the idea of being broken apart, as management’s tend to feel. Unless the CEO is a financial engineer by background, the management team generally has no interest in breaking up their kingdom. But is a breakup the best way to go in the long run for the company? Will MS shareholders be best served by such a strategy? Let’s go to some of the pros and cons.

Pro Breakup Arguments

A breakup could unlock value not reflected in the MS share price-

The share price has been roughly flat over the last eight years. This is for a company that still dominates many computer markets, and is enormously profitable. Something isn’t right. Some would say that some parts of this huge company are over shadowed by the dominant businesses, and therefore aren’t fully valued. Specifically, you could break out some fast growing businesses that might demand a higher multiple. Conversely some slow-growing, but large businesses which generate large amounts of cash flow could become great dividend payers, like the GM or AT&T of their golden years.

There are also some potential advantages not so obvious to financial engineers:

Smaller, less bureaucratic operating units

This is not to be underestimated in its power to unlock value and growth. Anyone who has ever worked in a large company, and then gone to a startup, can testify to what freedom from the corporate bureaucracy can bring. Everything happens faster, and innovation is unleashed. Thoughtful risk-taking is allowed, and hopefully encouraged. If you haven’t seen it, it’s hard to understand the huge change that can take place in employee attitudes and behavior when working is a more entrepreneurial environment.

Greater focus

Focus is one of the keys to most successful businesses, but is hard to quantify. When you are very large and feel the need to continue to grow, it’s easy to lose your way. Senior management has only so much bandwidth, and can have expertise in only so many areas. Once this bandwidth is exceeded or new business activity drifts into areas outside of core expertise, mistakes start to happen. When a business becomes too large and diverse the management almost always becomes sloppy, and sloppy wastes money and reduces profitability.

Greater ownership

If structured properly, folks usually feel greater ownership and work harder, knowing what they do might actually make a difference. Not to mention that they are more likely to be recognized and rewarded for their efforts which actually grow the business.

No Place to hide

This is true both for sub-par employees and poorly performing businesses. There are many places to hide in a bureaucracy. With large profits and so very many people, staff jobs abound without a clear need, and real jobs that need to be done are broken up into such small pieces that accountability for the bigger picture suffers. New business units can be run as money losers for years as pet projects of a senior executive. In a leaner, more focused organization, both these phenomenon tend to go away.

Con Breakup Arguments

Synergies

Many would say that you’d give up a lot of great synergies in any breakup. The Office business was built in large part on the shoulders of the Operating System business, as an example. And Microsoft has stayed very focused on software (with a few high profile exceptions like the X-Box), so many of the businesses do relate to each other in relevant ways.

Brand power

This may be the greatest argument, in my mind, against breaking up Microsoft. The power of the Microsoft brand is enormous; put the Microsoft name on any new software or computer-related product and, at a minimum, it becomes an immediate contender in it’s category. Many mediocre software products have become category leaders almost strictly due to the power of the Microsoft brand. In any breakup one of the companies would retain that brand, and the other progeny would certainly be large enough to establish strong brands quickly. But would it ever be the same?

Tradition

To some folks, it just wouldn’t feel right. This is Microsoft, after all. The alpha dogs of software. One of the great pioneers and dominant companies of American high tech. To some, it would be unthinkable to destroy such an American icon, like tearing down the Statue of Liberty.

This all comes down to preferences and judgment in the end. Some like scale and dominant brands like today’s Microsoft, others prefer the speed and flexibility that comes with smaller business units. Many believe that there is nothing like a dominant industry player to drive profits, while those with a contrary view would say that visibility of individual businesses and less bureaucracy lead to greater returns. In my opinion, every major corporation runs its course as a successful entity, eventually faltering under its own weight as it suffers the excesses of success. The trick is in knowing when this point comes–and it’s often not obvious, except in hindsight.

My view is that Microsoft has likely reached a point where a break up makes sense. You could segment MS into several still very strong separate compaies, which I believe would free them to focus on specific markets with much less bureaucratic drag. That’s my view–what’s yours?

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 November 29, 2010
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, General Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, enterprise software
tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

How Soon Should Your Software or Hardware Company Go International?

This is a question that frankly doesn’t come up often enough at early stage tech companies. There is usually an assumption that you first conquer your home market, and then sometime way down the road, when you are already flush and successful, it will be time to expand internationally. US-based tech companies are most guilty of this often questionable thinking.

What’s wrong with this approach, especially for US-based companies? After all, the US is the largest market in the world, and it’s far easier to sell to customers close by, then it is halfway around the world. With this the case, why should you use your scarce early-stage capital in a risky international expansion? This is how the thinking goes.

The problem is that you may be leaving significant low-hanging fruit on the table, at the very time that you need those customers the most. Let’s look at 4 important reasons to go international as soon as possible:

Reasons for Early International Business Development

Early adopters needed

As an early stage software or hardware company, you need to find early adopters of your product. These folks fit a certain psychographic profile, and they are rarer than the average customer. You sometimes need to cover the earth to find them. Limiting your geographic net unnecessarily only makes the job harder.

Distribution partnerships can provide tremendous leverage for a young company

This is one of the big reasons to go international that newbies don’t understand. They think that with all the money they are spending to penetrate the home market, selling internationally will be much more expensive yet. Not necessarily. In many markets, you can find distributors who will take on much or most of the marketing and sales load, reducing your investment tremendously and allowing you to leverage their existing relationships–rather than “starting from scratch”.

Many markets are less competitive than your home market, especially if it’s the US

Unless your home market is a tiny one, there are most likely many underserved markets available to you that have a lot of low hanging fruit. Why? Every startup software or tech company thinks the same and focuses initially on their home market. Since the bulk of the tech business is located in the US, it’s by far the most brutally competitive of all.

Beat your competition to the punch

Getting to a market early can often mean the difference between success and failure. If you’re the first one in a country or region, the early adopters and other low-hanging fruit are there for you alone. You will get your pick of the best distribution partners, and your product category will be “fresh” news for the media. Once established, it will be hard for later arriving competitors to push you down the market share ladder, even if they are larger than you overall.

So when should a company go International? The short answer is as soon as you can possibly do it. But what’s most important is to fully evaluate when “as soon as you can” actually is.

What to Evaluate Prior to Deciding to Go International

Your product must be stable

This should go without saying, but the only thing that causes a greater catastrophe than an unstable product is an unstable product distributed worldwide! Don’t do this–make sure things are solid before venturing away from where it’s easiest to “babysit” early problems.

Your product must be “market-tested” in your home market

While I’m a proponent of aggressive international business development at an early stage, there is such a thing as “too early”. Make sure that you know your product has a market before going far away from home. It’s a pointless exercise to be recruiting distributors and customers in foreign markets with a product that doesn’t really hit the mark, and one which doesn’t even had a reference customer list. If you can’t gain 10 or 20 or 30 customers close to home, heading far away likely won’t help.

Inventory or License only

Businesses that involve large amounts of inventory are one of my exceptions to aggressive early international development. That means hardware companies generally need to be more careful that software companies. Companies that distribute through retail channels involve more inventory than those who sell via VARs or direct, so they also need to be more cautious. The issues that come with inventory such as repairs and returns are exacerbated by borders and distance. So if you’re inventory intensive, maybe start with one smaller market rather than a large regional rollout, to test that everything goes smoothly before placing a big bet.

Direct or Channel distribution

If you have to establish your own local foreign operation, hire a bunch of people, rent office space, etc–you generally need to wait. Most startups can’t afford this type of risk and investment. However, although some feel this route is their preference due to control, it’s generally not mine. It’s quite risky and slows your international progress rate down significantly. Most companies can start out by using partners, and usually this is a good long run strategy as well. If you’re wildly successful and really feel the need for total control, you can always buy out distributors later on.

English or Local Language

English is the universal language of technology. In some vertical markets (such as IT software) English language-only products are fine. These are markets where you can make the fastest penetration after proving your product in your home market. If you do need local translations, they really aren’t that expensive in most cases and can be done quickly, and distribution partners can often help. But make sure that you don’t skimp on a good translation; nothing will hurt your local credibility more than language that isn’t proper, or at worst, makes no sense.

Safety, Legal or Electrical Specifications

This is also an area that can slow down the potential for fast international market development. Many countries or regions have safety or electrical standards that will require product modification or testing (and thereby investment). There are also legal aspects that need to be considered (European privacy laws when selling security or marketing software, as an example.) Don’t let these stop you from doing an evaluation of your international prospects, but these factors can change the calculus of your decision making.

SaaS

If you’re a software company using the SaaS model there may be very little downside to early international business development. If latency isn’t an issue for your product, you may need no international investment at all. Or maybe you need your servers hosted in other parts of the world to reduce latency issues, but this shouldn’t be a huge investment. You still need marketing in the local markets, either by your own direct (albeit remote) methods or through partners. But given the potential rewards, these investments should be a small price to pay.

Process or Cultural Differences

When you first go into a foreign market, it’s important to understand that you can’t fully comprehend the local culture, as well as how commerce functions. Listen more than you talk at first. Hire a consultant if you can afford to. Partners can also help greatly here. But if you are a savvy international business person it certainly raises your odds when attacking foreign markets early on.

Existing Demand

Are there customers “chomping at the bit” for the benefits your product offers? Or will there be a bit of an education process and a long sales cycle? Obvious existing demand is a key indicator for aggressive international business development.

The bottom line is that going international quickly can be a big boost to early growth for a tech company. Be careful, but not overly cautious. Evaluate your specific situation, and take the plunge if the odds are with you. What’s your take on the proper pace for international business development? Post a comment or send us your story.

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 October 12, 2010
filed in Business Development, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, Retail, SaaS, Startup/Early Stage, VARs, hardware, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »