Morettini on Management

General Management and Marketing Advice for Software and Tech Companies

Tag: market

Strategies for a Technology Market Slowdown

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

Recently, technology stocks (along with the stock market in general) have tanked. There is a credit crunch that shows no signs of abating, and inflation is rearing its ugly head in some markets, and political gridlock seems to be the order of the day.  Is the economy headed for a “double dip” recession–taking technology businesses down the drain with it?

I don’t think so, but I’m not in the business of forecasting such things. Tech stocks are often affected more severely than average in an economic downturn, which affects technology industry investment and ultimately tech growth rates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make Sure That You Have Money For A Rainy Day
While it’s no time to panic, it IS time to make sure that you have the financial resources necessary to comfortably cruise through a downturn.  Availability of funds and terms will only get worse if the  stock market heads down further and the credit crunch continues. Also, make sure that you have available the largest line of credit possible with your bank. It may cost you an extra few thousand dollars a year, but its excellent insurance, if you are surprised on the downside. If you’re in startup mode and financing yourself on credit cards and home equity lines–maximize your future access to these as well! Whatever your sources of funds, make sure now that you’re financially well prepared for whatever the future holds.

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

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

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

1 Comment by admin on January 14, 2008
filed in Business Development, Corporate Strategy, Financing, General Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, Software/Product Development, Startup/Early Stage
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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 , , , , , , , , , , ,

Business Models in the SMB Market

The SMB market is typically a very popular topic for hardware and software companies. Every one wants to sell to the Enterprise market; as a result, competition is fierce and standards are very high. If you get to the Enterprise market early, with an innovation that creates a new category, you can find success if you are truly making a contribution to the market. But late entries into a market segment, as well as early stage companies competing with larger, established companies, often have a very tough go of it. In these situations, attention often turns to the Small and Medium-Size Business, or SMB, market.

And why not? At first blush, the SMB market appears to be huge, as well as underserved. It looks like a perfect haven for an early stage or turnaround company with a solid product, but not quite enough differentiation, brand name, or marketing muscle to push out the big boys in the Enterprise space. So the decision is made to focus on SMBs.

What’s Wrong With This Decision?

There is nothing wrong with this decision, per se–if it’s done with eyes open, for the right reasons. But too often, it is done to run away from a problem (the inability to penetrate enterprises), rather than run to a great opportunity. A lot of times, companies see the SMB market as easier turf; simply a larger, less competitive market than the Enterprise market. Major problems can result from this type of mentality, and I see it quite often in my consulting practice. Companies that enter the SMB market from this perspective usually aren’t fully prepared to do what it takes to be successful, in what is a very different type of market than they may be familiar with. So where are the land mines in the SMB marketplace?

What’s Not Obvious in Marketing to SMBs

The first thing to consider is that customer needs are often quite different. A lot of this depends upon what technology and market segment you are in, and whether your product is aimed more at the “S” (small) segment, or the “M” (medium) segment of the SMB space. For example, if you are selling a single user productivity tool which is useful staff accountants, you may not see much difference. If on the other hand you are marketing a company wide, networked application of some complexity, the differences may be huge. Like everything in technology marketing–the devil’s in the details. Every situation needs to be evaluated closely, and treated differently on its individual merits. The most important thing is TO NOT ASSUME THAT THINGS ARE THE SAME BETWEEN SMBs AND ENTERPRISES IN YOUR CATEGORY. Do the work, evaluate the situation–don’t assume. Assumptions, without verification, are what get you burned in this transition. Below is a list of some of the major differences in the SMB market:

IT Departments are small and less of a factor–if they exist at all.–In Enterprises you may be dealing with persnickety CIOs that want thing just so. In SMBs, if there is a CIO at all, he will be looking for an off the shelf SOLUTION that will “just get the job done”. Or you may end up struggling to figure out how you can sell your complex solution, to a company that has NO IT DEPARTMENT AT ALL.

There is less money to spend–It’s harder to make money with big ticket hardware and software, let alone customization and expensive services. Your products better have value – and margin – right out of the box.

Ease-of-use is even more critical–There probably is no training department or other corporate staff, and people are busier overall. If they can’t figure out how to use it quickly, you’re going to have a hard time selling it.

There is much less time available to purchase products–Even the sales process may be compressed, in terms of how much time the prospect spends reviewing your marketing literature, or talking to your sales people. The actual TIME ELAPSED during the sales cycle could be EVEN LONGER due to lack of time available to the prospect, but the INTENSITY of the purchasing engagement is often much less.

How Do You Need To Structure Your Business Model Differently?

Lower prices– They just can’t, and won’t pay the same prices that you can get in the Enterprise space, in most cases. So you’d better come into this segment with a price and value proposition that makes sense to these price-sensitive customers.

Marketing vs. sales–The SMB market is more marketing intensive, with respect to marketing/sales ratios, than the Enterprise market. There are many more customers; the average sale amount is much lower, and much less face time available for direct sales. While in many respects Enterprises are the most demanding customers in the world, you’ve got to be a better marketer to succeed in the SMB space than you need to in the Enterprise world.

Low cost sales force– With much lower average sales amounts, and much less time available on the customer side, it is usually impractical to have a large, high-cost field sales force. Inside sales forces are the general rule in this market. If you have a product that demands customization and hands-on support, VARs are a good adjunct to consider. The more they are taking orders generated from marketing, and the less they are cold calling prospects, the better.

Better usability and reliability– You’ll need many more units being sold to get to the same level of Enterprise revenue, across a much larger customer base, with much less (if any) maintenance revenue to fund a large support staff. Your product better work when it’s installed and better be very easy to use over time. Unless you have a highly customizable solution and are using VARs as a channel, SaaS is a great platform for delivering software to this market.

Little or No IT support–The good news is that there is no prickly IT committee or staff that you have to “go through” to sell to the real users. The bad news is that if even the littlest thing goes wrong, there’s no one internally at the customer to pick up the slack–you’re going to hear about it directly from the user–over an over again.

Summary

The SMB market is actually a simplistic catch-all phrase for a large, heterogeneous group of markets. But it is a useful abstraction, as a starting point for understanding how to penetrate and thrive in B2B marketing to smaller companies. I hope this short introduction is useful–feel free to pitch in and post a comment adding to this topic.

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

1 Comment by admin on June 10, 2007
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, Pricing, Product Marketing/Management, Software/Product Development, Startup/Early Stage, VARs, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Organizational Structures in Software & High Tech Companies

So you’ve put together a hardware or software startup company. Chances are you didn’t give a lot of thought to what the next step should be in organization development–you just wanted to bring in some revenue and find a way to keep the doors open. Or, maybe you gave it a great deal of thought, even before you bound your initial business plan–there are quite a few anal-retentive planning types out there–you know who you are!

I don’t mean to make light of this issue; it’s actually quite a serious one. Let’s look at a few of the questions to consider when deciding how to organize your company, as well as a few options.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS TO PONDER

What are the strengths, weaknesses, and operating styles of the principals? I believe that this is a critical question to ponder, if one wants to organize the company successfully. One of my great examples is HP. Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard instituted a decentralized structure almost from the very beginning of Hewlett-Packard. They were careful to keep the units small, by breaking them up as they grew. In my opinion, this was one of the great drivers of HP’s success, and worked well because it suited their personalities, as well as the folks that they hired. They believed in “Management by Walking Around”, but also believed in motivating high performance by allowing their employees to use all of their talents, without unnecessary constraints. It seems simple, butit is often hard for managers (especially hands-on, entrepreneurial types) to give their employees enough rope and space to excel. I believe that this hands-off, decentralized approach only worked well because this style fit with Bill and Dave’s personalities.

What are the key personality traits of your employees and target hires? Similar to the question about the principal’s above, the organizational style needs to fit with the “personality” of your company, the culture. If you have a lot of type “A”, self-motivated people with strong leadership skills, a decentralized org chart may fit better than a hierarchical, centralized approach.

Are there disparate technologies within the company? This is a big driver in deciding how to organize. If you have several different technologies, how do they fit together technically–if at all? Do they fit together from a market perspective? If there is a lot of synergy or need to coordinate between technologies/products, a centralized, hierarchical approach may work best. The less “fit” that there is between your core technologies or products, the more inclination I would have to organize using a decentralized, business unit approach. This assumes that the resources are available for a decentralized organization. But if resources are so scarce that you can’t decentralize properly, does it make sense to try to be successful with multiple disparate products/technologies anyway?

Now let’s take a look at some common ways to organize.

ORGANIZATIONAL OPTIONS

Hierarchical/Functional/Centralized – the classic organizational style of traditional businesses. The strength of this type of organization is that it is easier to optimize each function, as there are more resources available within each function in a centralized approach. This can enable a more sophisticated approach to best practices. On the downside, my first job was with a Big 3 Automotive manufacturer, which was VERY hierarchical and centralized. The company was SO hierarchical that it paralyzed the organization to a huge degree; trying to get even the simplest, small thing done had to go many levels up. It was like trying to turn a battleship on a dime, and really painful. I’m not a big fan of this style for larger organizations, but for smaller, single-market or single product companies, it generally is optimal.

Decentralized/Business Units – This is the polar opposite of the traditional hierarchical organization. It’s my preference for growing companies who are starting to “spreading their wings” beyond their initial market or technology focus, as well as for larger companies. It’s strength lies in the ability to keep lines of communications short, keeping personnel close to the marketplace, and motivate self-starters by providing more positions of broad responsibility. For medium-sized companies, the danger lies in decentralizing before there is really critical mass to run separate business units, which comes with some added costs due to duplication of functions. One good way to mitigate this is to centralize and share as many of the non-product specific functions as possible, such as finance, HR, quality control, etc. The key functions that absolutely need to reside in the business units are usually marketing, product development, possibly manufacturing (for hardware companies) and occasionally sales.

Product-Centric or Market-Centric- This is a variation that can be combined with either of the two major organizational structures above. For example, within your marketing department, there could be people assigned as product managers, or as market managers. Sometimes a hybrid approach is used, where there are product managers for unreleased products, and market managers for currently-marketed products.

Matrix – This organization style is “overlaid” on top of a more typical organizational structure, such as the types discussed above. The main idea is to set up “dotted line” teams, responsibilities and reporting structures that are desirable, but fall outside of the normal way a team is constituted within the main structure in use. For example, in a hierarchical organization, you might set up a matrixed, cross-functional team to put focus on the launch of an important new business initiative. This may give the new initiative more emphasis than it normally would get, given its modest contribution to the overall business at that point. If used properly, matrix management techniques can be a great way to dampen the negatives that are inevitable in any rigid organizational structure. It must be used with caution, however. If used too frequently, or without endowing the “head” of the matrix with real power to accomplish the desired goals, matrix organizations can quickly become ineffective and politically driven entities–and the butt of jokes around the water cooler.

This is just a quick take on a very complex topic. There are many different ways to organize a software or technology company for success–too many to discuss here. And we just touched on a few of the issues to consider. Hopefully this short article will stimulate some thinking on this topic, to avoid organizational structure which often form haphazardly as companies are started and grown. Post a comment if you have a take of your own.

Phil Morettini

PJM Consulting

www.pjmconsult.com

 

3 Comments by admin on May 11, 2007
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, General Management, Startup/Early Stage
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Flattening of the Growth Curve

In every company’s history there comes a time (or two or three or four times!) when your momentum slows, and the sales curve begins to flatten. This can be one of the most trying and frustrating times for software and technology companies. It’s certainly not as difficult as the startup phase, when “crib death” is an ever present fear. And a no growth, flat revenue scenario is much preferable to declining sales combined with negative profitability that follows, which leads to a “death spiral” if no effective action is taken.

I do find this situation is often more confusing to company management than either the start up or death spiral scenarios. This is because it often occurs just after a period of fast growth and prosperity, where it seems that the company can do no wrong. As a result, senior managers are often in denial about what is happening—whereas in the startup or death spiral situations, the situation is much more obvious, usually motivating folks to take fast, decisive action.

Search for the Culprits, Blame for the Innocent

With flattening growth, it’s easy to blame things that may not be the true cause. I often here excuses and tactics such as the following:

“The marketing department just needs to put out better promotions. Fire the VP Marketing and bring in someone who will get the job done”.

“The sales force isn’t selling hard enough, they just need to close more deals. Get the VP Sales off the golf course and tell him to kick some butt, or he’ll be the next to go”.

“The channel is useless; they’re taking 30% but they aren’t pushing the products—take more deals direct”.

“We just need to charge more for our products; we’re leaving money on the table”.

“Cut the price to stimulate demand.”

“The UK distributor is fat, dumb and happy—sign two more of his competitors to motivate him and maximize sales in that country.”

Now some of these reasons may even be accurate, and some of the proposed tactics could be possibly be useful. But I have found, quite often, that things of this nature aren’t the fundamental issue, and beating up the sales force, cutting or raising prices, or messing with your channel balance may exacerbate the situation and make things worse—not better.

The Real Problem

Sometimes the answer is as simple as “All good things must come to an end.”

Growth cycles don’t last for ever, as much as every software & technology company CEO, VP marketing and VP Sales wishes it would. There is almost a natural cycle that occurs with revenue that often coincides with the life cycle of your products. Also, the economy changes, competition heats up, novel marketing programs age and are copied—which reduces their effectiveness, market segments get saturated, and customer budgets are re-targeted to the “next new thing.” Stuff happens—always. The only real question is when.

So what’s a befuddled and perplexed tech company CEO to do?

Finding a Solution

Well, the first thing I recommend is to really spend some time getting to the bottom of things. Instead of shot-gunning blame that may be misplaced, or impetuously blowing up established pillars of the business—conduct a real, objective analysis of the nature of the slowdown. I don’t suggest paralysis by analysis by any means, but do take the time to gather some data, so that your actions will be based on more than knee-jerk reactions.

Past that, it’s hard to generalize on a course of action, because the proper action will depend upon what you find in your analysis. But for the sake of discussion, let’s say that while there are a few factors that you find which could be leading to slower growth, there isn’t a “silver bullet” reason that can be “fixed” to get the revenue curve again pointed up and to the right. Below are some general steps that I’ve found may enable you to “restart growth”. I might add that many of them are most effective if you begin them prior to actual revenue flattening:

Try marketing programs you haven’t used before
Usually when you get in a period of high growth, there is a workhorse program or two that has worked well for you, and there is a tendency to “keep doing what works”. Unfortunately, even the best conceived marketing programs eventually run out of steam. One of the keys to having consistently good outbound marketing, is too be constantly testing new ideas, placing small bets, and fine-tuning them if there is enough success to continue. As I’ve said before, product marketing is part art, and part science—with the art portion unfortunately upfront. You need to do a little trial and error to find a good program, and then the science kicks in, using data you’ve gathered to optimize it. But the key is to be constantly testing new ideas, in good times and bad. If you wait until your growth has already slowed, you may scramble for quite a while, trying to find a new answer.

Have an internal “growth” brainstorming session
Ideally you are doing this before you fall into a revenue rut. But regardless, do bring together people in your organization to bring out the ideas they may have to give the top line a kick start. Do hold these sessions in an open, non-threatening and non-political environment. It’s important that people are able to speak freely, and not be ridiculed, if they come up with an idea that’s “too far out of the box”. That is often where strategic breakthroughs are made. And don’t just limit these sessions to executive managers. Remember, the people at the bottom of the org chart are often the ones closest to the business, and are sometimes able to more easily spot a big opportunity that the company could capitalize on.

Hire some outside help
Consultants have a very bad name in some areas—unfortunately, sometimes with good reason. But bringing in someone with deep marketing or management expertise, with a different viewpoint than the internal management team, can sometimes be the quickest way to new approaches that will turn the ship quickly. I’d recommend staying away from folks that that have a cookbook formula, have only been consultants and not operating executives, or take too much of an academic approach. Every company, market and point in time is different and needs to be analyzed as such. But hiring the right outside consultant or firm who is creative, analytic and “been there and done that” can have a big impact. PJM Consulting has often worked as a change agent in these situations, and increasing or restarting traction is an area of specialty.

Look at entering an adjacent market
If it’s determined that your current market space is getting saturated, one of the first things to do is to look at adjacent spaces. Preferably, look somewhere that you can leverage your current marketing, distribution and brand, but also possibly where you can apply existing company technology to a different customer’s problem. The key here is don’t go to a complete green field that looks attractive because it’s large or growing fast, but where you have no real possibility of competing. Again, it’s best to be taking this step in anticipation of slowing growth in your current business—rather than waiting until it happens. Getting traction in new areas can take some time.

Consider M&A to fill out your product line or distribution system
If you’ve been caught by a surprise slowdown and you need to do something quickly, a strategic acquisition can sometimes be the answer. I warn you to proceed with caution here. M&A is fraught with danger—statistics show that most acquisitions don’t work out well. You need to think it through, proceed carefully, and don’t get overly excited by the thrill of the deal chase. If done well, however, a strategic acquisition can be a real shortcut to entering an adjacent space, filling out your product line for an existing strong distribution system, or adding sales channels to your strong product offerings. This is another area where PJM Consulting has strong experience, and can offer assistance.

Think it through before you start shooting

There are obviously endless other potential ways to explore when attempting to jump out of a revenue rut. I wanted to suggest a few to stimulate your thinking—and more importantly, steer you away from some “knee-jerk” reactions, that often make your situation even worse.

What have you done in the past when you need to restart growth? Post a comment below and fill us all in on your strategies.

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 April 19, 2006
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, General Management, Marcom, Mergers & Acquisitions, Product Marketing/Management, Promotion, Software/Product Development, market research
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Strategic Advantage

How does a company compete in the long run? I’m not talking about day to day stuff—but what sets your company apart, and gives it a place in the marketplace that allows it to survive, and hopefully, thrive?

There are a lot of different terms used to describe the ability to compete: strategic advantage, differential advantage, competitive advantage, unique value proposition, etc. But all these terms mean essentially the same thing—what have you got that the market wants–that other don’t?

Drinking the Kool-Aid

At PJM Consulting I have the opportunity to talk to a great many software and hardware company CEOs, many which are of the early stage variety. I’m taken aback that some of them don’t even understand the concept of strategic advantage. To start a company, and not have thought about what is going to allow you to break into an existing market seems pretty strange to me. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

A far greater number of CEOs understand the concept of strategic advantage, but have a tendency to fall in love with their company’s sales pitch—also referred to as “drinking the Kool-Aid”. This is natural, but really unfortunate. Lack of realism as to what your company brings to the table is not helpful in creating a company that will break through market noise and become successful. I would argue that realism, even skepticism, about a company’s advantage is an attribute that is important to every startup CEO. Don’t get me wrong; I don‘t mean to imply that a CEO should walk through the halls of his company, spouting “whoa is me, how will we ever make it”! But at least in internal thinking, he or she should be constantly questioning and testing whether his company’s advantage is real, and not fading. A bit of healthy paranoia can be very useful when it comes to strategic issues.

What is a Real Strategic Advantage?

So what does it take to have a real, sustainable competitive advantage? Let’s look at some of the things that are—and some that are not—what I’ll call “mirages”.

REAL ADVANTAGES

First Mover
The first mover advantage has led to some of the great success stories in high tech. Apple in PCs, Cisco in Routers, IBM in Mainframes, Adobe in Document Standards, Intuit in Personal Financial Software, SalesForce.com in Hosted CRM—just to name a few. What is important to mention here, is that while the first mover advantage is real—it isn’t necessarily sustainable for very long. First movers that don’t develop another, more sustainable advantage, often end up as road kill in the long term.

Critical Mass
Being big can be great—as long as the mass is muscle—not fat (see the large company discussion below). Being big can allow you the resources to build a great brand, spread your fixed costs over a large number of unit sales to provide a cost advantage, and enable you to attract and pay very smart people. Yes, size can be an enormous advantage, particularly in manufacturing market segments where scale is so important. As long as the company keeps its eye on the ball and uses its mass to its advantage, this can be one of the strongest, most sustainable strategic advantages.

Patents
I have mixed feeling about this one. Patents can of course become a major strategic advantage, over the very long period that the patent is enforceable. If you have a strong patent portfolio backing a product that has achieved market success—this is one of the most powerful, sustainable advantages available. But I believe that the pursuit of patents can often be “fool’s gold” for many young technology companies. First of all, they really aren’t that important, unless you have success in the market. If you aren’t successful in the market, sometimes you can become “patent troll”, suing others for infringing your patents—but that is truly a business plan of last resort. In software markets, in particular, I’m of the belief that almost anything can be “coded around”. Also, with the wide variety of stuff available for patent these days, coupled with great confusion about what is truly enforceable, it’s gotten harder to obtain a patent that you are certain you can count on. I’ve seen a lot of early stage companies dump too many scarce dollars into the patent process, which could have been very useful in that critical time window available to make a new product successful. I’m suggesting a balance here. Using the patent system can have huge payoffs, but this should be balanced with the need for capital in achieving market success.

Low Cost Producer
This is another major strategic advantage if you can achieve it. It can allow you to essentially control how much profit is made by an entire market segment. It is a lot more realistic to gain a significant cost advantage in hardware than in software. But with rapid globalization and the constant emergence of lower cost labor markets throughout the world, even current low cost producers cannot allow complacency to set in. Years ago, if you achieved the low cost producer position, you were probably set for a while. But not anymore.

Brand
This is the ultimate strategic advantage, and arguably, the only one that is sustainable in the very long term. If you establish your company as the leading brand in your market segment, it will allow you to charge higher prices, get away with somewhat higher costs, smooth over your slower decision-making, and much more. A great brand covers up many sins in the short run, and gives you additional time to recover from your mistakes, which competitors with lesser brands won’t get. In the long run, brand is practically everything.

MIRAGES

First Mover
Wait—“First Mover” already appeared in the “Real Advantage” column above! That’s right, it did. I think of being a First Mover as an advantage, but one that can quickly turn into a mirage, and often does. Think of VisiCalc in Spreadsheets, Ashton-Tate in databases, 3Com in networking hardware, Novell in network operating systems, Digital Research in microcomputer operating Systems, even Apple in PCs (they’re up now, but haven’t always been)—the list could go on and on. Many of you may not know the names of some of these companies, but they were all industry pioneers, and at one time dominant in their market segments. The message here is that being a first mover is a means to an end. It can assist you greatly in establishing a position in the market—but if that position isn’t quickly backed by some more sustainable advantage—ultimately the company may serve as a case study for some fast follower to “go to school”, and ultimately “eat their lunch”.

Technological Superiority
This is one I hear all the time from technically-oriented CEOs, talking about why their startup will win—vs. the 50 other startups and 5 established market leaders in their segment. First of all, they are usually kidding themselves—it s often not really true. They just have their head in the sand, or don’t know what’s in their competitor’s labs. And even if they do have unusually smart engineers, or a great technology platform, that in itself isn’t enough to guarantee initial success, let alone sustain it. The technology must be somehow be protected either via patents or trade secrets, and it must still be translated into an easy-to-use product that can demonstrate productivity benefits of some sort, to the target customer. Except for early adopters, no one buys products due to the wiz-bang technology inside.

Market Leadership
This is similar to the “First Mover” discussion above. Market leadership, by itself, is not a true competitive advantage. Your company may be in the lead at the moment, but
why, and for how long? Maybe there is a technological innovation in a competitor’s lab that will soon make your solution obsolete, from a performance or cost perspective. In High Tech markets, leadership can be very fleeting—unless there is some substantial, sustainable competitive advantage behind it.

Large Company
This one kills many good companies. Senior management gets complacent thinking they are one of the giants of the industry—who could possibly challenge them? This complacency is often accompanied by bloated cost structures, slow decision making, lack of “smart” risk-taking, and political/bureaucratic business processes. All of these things allow the nimble innovator in a high tech market to outflank the slow-moving large company. Having critical mass can be great—but not if you implode under your own fat.

So that’s my opinion on competitive advantage. I’m sure that you may be able to come up with many more “Real Advantages and “Mirages”. Or you may disagree with the points I’ve made. Either way—let’s talk! Post a comment on, or send me an email message.

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 March 24, 2006
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, General Management, Startup/Early Stage
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

High Tech Product Planning

There are many ways to skin a cat, so the saying goes. Planning high technology software and hardware products seems to fit in the same category.

While there are some models that you tend to see over and over again, there are a lot of ways that planning of products occurs in the technology industry.

Developer-driven Product Planning

One typical way is what I call “developer-driven”. That’s when an engineer, software programmer, or inventor comes up with a new way to apply an existing technology in a novel way to a different, unsolved problem. Or in some cases, the developer is a true visionary, and actually invents a new breakthrough technology, that blows away the existing way of doing things.

While this developer-driven model is very common, and when it works it can lead to blockbuster successes, this approach is rife with problems—I have repeatedly been brought in to clean up the results of this approach in my consulting practice. The reason for this is that companies using this approach usually have a technology or product-centric view of the world. And what’s missing in the view?

Customers!

Now I don’t want to insult all the technologists out there who have taken the lead in developing products. Of course, technology professional understand the need for customers, and the importance of getting their feedback in the product development process. Some have a natural knack for product planning, and are highly effective. Yet the reality is that product developers aren’t trained to, nor do they generally derive any pleasure from—trying to extract product preferences, unsolved problems, and workflow issues from potential customers. Often customers don’t really know what they want, or have some other agenda which can lead a product planner in the wrong direction—unless the planner is experienced and savvy in uncovering the desired information. Let’s face it, developers are trained to design hardware and write software code. Many do pick up product planning skills—but in my experience, it’s far from the majority.

The end result of a developer-driven product is often one that is launched, gets a few customers, but then stalls long before gaining traction and critical mass in the marketplace. Precious cash has been burned through, and the typical lament is “it’s a great product, if we could only find someone to sell it”. What is frequently believed to be a customer-facing sales and marketing issue, is quite often a product that doesn’t meet customer needs—as a result of flaws in the product planning process.

Customer-centric Product Planning

Another common way that I’ve seen products planned is what I call the customer-centric approach. This method is characterized by using a few “model customers”, with a fanatical devotion to using their input to develop the product. Often you will see this in a company that has previously failed using the developer-centric model discussed above. Sometimes, it’s the same technologists on their second try. Now, you may be thinking, this is the way you do it! But while this approach is definitely an improvement in some ways over a purely technological approach—it too has some limitations.

The customer centric model works well if you are developing for a very limited, niche market—or at least one that is quite homogenous. The problems occur in two areas. First, if your target market is of a heterogeneous nature, it is easy to miss that part of the market that isn’t represented among your select few model customers. Secondly, this approach can sometimes stifle innovation. In high technology, customer input is very important—but customers shouldn’t be doing your product planning for you. Each has their own quirky agendas, unique to their individual companies. In addition, customers often can’t see far enough past their current problems and needs—to imagine how to apply technology to make a radical improvement in their workflow, 2-3 years down the line. So if you only build what they tell you to build, you will often end up with a mostly mundane product, and also one that contains a few features that the greater market will scratch their head over why they were included. Worst of all, the product may be nearly obsolete by the time it hits the streets, because you haven’t looked far enough ahead of the market, and built-in what’s possible and desired for the future. These products get stuck in the present of when they were planned—which in the tech world, is the distant past by the time they are introduced.

Market-centric Product Planning

Finally, let’s talk about the way product OUGHT to be built. I call this approach a market-centric model, although it includes elements of both the customer and technology-driven approaches.

The most basic requirement for success in this approach is to have a skilled, balanced product planning team. The core of this team consists of an experienced Product Manager with a marketing background, and an experience Engineering Manager or Technical Project Leader. I call this the “2-headed monster”.

Having two leaders to a project sounds like a prescription for design-by-committee, which usually satisfies no one. And there are definitely dangers to this approach. The most problematic (and frequently encountered) issue is when the Product Manager and Engineering Lead clash, or just don’t like each other. Then you have a real problem—and one that must be dealt with quickly. But that’s a topic for another article. The important thing here is that to make a truly GREAT high tech product, both the Product Manager and Technical Lead possess key expertise that needs to be brought to the table.

The Product Manager is the market expert, and customer proxy when necessary. He is the one who is trained, experienced and skilled at uncovering the true needs and latent desires from potential customers. He also has a market perspective, so he will ensure that all important segments of the market will be canvassed to ensure that the resulting offering is MARKET-driven—not shaped by love of a cool technology or requests from a few key individual customers.

The Technical Lead brings a couple of critical skills to the table. He keeps the discussion centered on what’s POSSIBLE, ensuring that you don’t plan a product that can’t meet the required timing and budgetary constraints—or worse yet, can’t be built at all! In addition, he or she can “see ahead” and inject the use of new technology to solve a problem, in a way that those less technical might not be able to envision.

I won’t pretend that this approach to planning products is easy to implement. In truth, it’s hard to pull off. The key ingredients to success for this model are an honest, open process and culture, where everyone is motivated by the success of the product and ultimately, the company. In companies with a high degree of politics, or rivalries between departments, the process tends to fall apart quickly, to no ones benefit or satisfaction. Mutual respect is critical. Anyone should be allowed an opinion on any aspect of the product.

An engineer can express an opinion on the customer base, or marketing approach. A marketer can have an opinion on what technological approach is most appropriate. This cross-fertilization of ideas is very valuable, and can lead to innovative approaches that just aren’t derived from orthodoxy. But at the end of the day, after all the discussion has taken place, there must be mutual respect and trust in the competency of each functional area. Marketing people must be trusted on marketing matters; developers must be trusted on engineering matters. If that trust isn’t there or is lost during the process, a successful product is unlikely.

Best for Success

When done right, the Market-centric approach to product planning is optimal. It usually leads to solid singles and doubles, with the occasional home run. It reduces your risk of an outright flop, while increasing somewhat the normally long odds of creating a blockbuster, market-leading product. Once a company has evolved their product planning process in this manner, it’s poised to introduce a succession of market winners.

That’s my take on planning great high tech products. What’s yours? Post a comment or drop me an email message.

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 September 29, 2005
filed in Corporate Strategy, General Management, Product Marketing/Management, SaaS, Social media, Software/Product Development, Startup/Early Stage, enterprise software, market research
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Strategic Fundraising

Almost every company goes through it, except for the fortunate few. Some people have gone through it multiple times. While never easy, raising money for the second or third time (assuming success the first time!) is a picnic, compared to the first time.

The questions that run through an entrepreneur’s mind are nearly endless. Do I even need the money? Is my company fund-able, regardless? How much do I need? How much should I try to raise? What’s the best time to start raising money? What type of investor should I approach, and what are their expectations? How should I go about approaching them?

I could fill up the rest of a page with salient questions an entrepreneur might have. This might be the most daunting process in the minefield of difficult steps to forming and building a winning high tech company.

So you’re a new entrepreneur, with a great idea, a prototype, and a vague notion that you might need to raise some capital. Where do you go from here?

NO COOKBOOK FORMULA

Well, like most things that really matter, there’s no easy answer. It depends on what type of company you’re trying to build, your own control and risk/reward mentality, as well as the dynamics of your market.

For discussion purposes, I’ll focus on an embryonic software company. Most of the discussion will be just as relevant to a later stage business, or an early stage manufacturing business. In a manufacturing business, you’ll need to raise more money to fund manufacturing in the ramp-up phase. But the initial fund-raising is very similar.

FUNDRAISING BASICS

First of all, let’s quickly cover the various categories of capital sources. There are many variations and shades of gray with respect to funding sources, but the following are representative of the basic categories available to new software companies:

1) Self-funding
2) Friends & Family
3) Angel Investors
4) Venture Capital
5) Strategic Partners

Hopefully, these categories are pretty self-explanatory. Next, let’s look at what TYPE of company the entrepreneur is trying to build:

A) Lifestyle Company
B) Solid Single
C) Home Run

A Lifestyle company is one in which you are often intermixing your personal life with your company life. There may be family members involved in the business, your write-offs and accounting are more aggressively aimed at reducing taxes than showing profits, and you aren’t interested in or planning to sell the company anytime soon. Solid Singles and Home Runs are similar to each other; the major difference is market size/opportunity.

Lastly, let’s talk about what outside investors look for in a fund-able venture:

I) Management
II) Market size/opportunity
III) Defensible differential advantage

The three items listed above are all crucial, but they aren’t equal in importance. Professional investors look for strong management teams, but if there are holes in the current team, it isn’t necessarily fatal for many investors. They’re happy to help you fill out the team. Many, in fact, prefer it this way. But having a large market opportunity and strong differential advantage are non-negotiable in the eyes of investors. They are looking for big returns. It’s a long-held view among institutional investors that their own management time is the limiting factor in their own business. As a result, they don’t feel they can afford to invest in “solid little businesses”. If you don’t stack up as having big potential in both of these key areas, almost every professional investor will take a pass.

YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH THEM, TOO

Another important consideration that many entrepreneurs fail to consider is how well potential investors fit with the company’s management. Management teams are often so focused on “getting the money” that they fail to consider that you “have to live with them”, as well. It’s a bit like getting married. You may be thrilled to attract the most prestigious investor (like the best looking potential spouse), but end up with business philosophy and personal conflicts that severely retard the company’s development. This isn’t a used car transaction, where the sale is made and the parties walk away. You and your investors are now intertwined, but may or may not have the same interests.

So ask yourself: Is this a good match?

Are you seeking a “hands off” investor, or someone that will get involved with the details—providing business guidance and contacts—for better or for worse? Many VCs, for example, have successful business backgrounds and networks that can make them invaluable as advisors. There’s another group, however, that don’t have the background or skills to run a company. Yet their arrogance leads them to believe they are eminently qualified to drive even the most strategic of decisions. Are they going to be so involved that it will take up much of your scarce management time that is needed to build the business? On the other hand, are the investors so busy that you won’t be able to get their attention when you need them? Which type do you want on YOUR board?

It’s true that the money that you raise is a commodity—but the people relationships that come along with it can make or break your company. Early stage fundraising, taken as a whole, is NOT a commodity function.

THE LIFE STYLE COMPANY

Now let’s look at the simplest case study. An entrepreneur has conceived a software business using his knowledge of a particular, very specific, vertical market. It’s a market he knows well, and there’s almost no direct competition. Unfortunately, the market, while attractive to him, is not large by software category standards. Yet the market is plenty big enough to support a very profitable company, particularly since there is almost no competition. He’s proven to himself that he has a solution that the market will embrace, allowing the building of a business. Yet he thinks he needs a little additional capital, to ramp it to the point of the business being self-supporting using it’s own cash flow. What should he do?

This is the classic example of a lifestyle company in the making. Sophisticated outside investors will have no interest, unless it’s for personal/hobby reasons. And since there is little competition, and as a result, little time pressure—fund it yourself. Take out a second mortgage, use lines of credit, or get an SBA loan. If you really have to, raise some money from supportive friends or family members.

This example makes up the great majority of software companies worldwide. There are many, many solidly profitable software businesses that will never be on the radar screen of the investor community. These companies often exist quite nicely, enjoying solid and relatively stable profitability with revenues in the $1-10M range. That’s fine—the problem lies when the entrepreneur doesn’t know what he has, or won’t accept it. He thinks his baby needs to grow up to be a fast-growing player. But it’s generally the case that the market is too small. There is little need to be distracted by trying to raise funds from outside investors—and it’s fruitless to try. It will only be a waste of time for the company and investors. And if by some chance it IS funded, there will end up being a lot of turmoil and hard feeling when the company doesn’t meet the lofty expectations that were needed to sell the funding deal. I’ve seen many great little companies screwed up in the attempt to become something they’re not.

THE SOLID SINGLE

Now we’ll examine the next step up—the solid single. This opportunity often presents itself as a larger vertical market than the life style company typically pursues. Another possibility is a horizontal, yet still niche, product. These are often the situations where the most difficult strategic decisions reside. In fact, the great majority of software companies who seek outside funding probably fall into this category. The market size is just on the edge of what the professional investors will consider. And while there is a differential advantage, it’s not at the level that you’ll be able to “knock their socks off” in your slide-show pitch. There’s worrisome competition, but it’s not completely over-crowded with 75 venture-funded companies. What’s a management team to do?

This is a tough call. Every situation is a little different, but my general advice is to work your way up the 5-part funding tree discussed earlier. Fund it yourself as long as it’s not crippling your progress. Then do a round starting with Friends and Family, as well as Angel Investors that are easily approachable via your immediate network. Once you go through this funding, hopefully you’ve built a rapidly improving business with good growth prospects.

It is at this point you may be able to attract money from a VC or private equity firm that has a later stage, more conservative risk/reward profile than the typical early stage VC. Professional investors might see in your company one that may not be a 10X return, but one that may be a 2-5X return in a shorter time frame, with less risk. And this later funding may work to your benefit, because the opportunity in front of the company may be such that you need to manage dilution of your stake carefully, to ensure that at the end of the day, it’s been worth your while. A strategic partner may be even a better fit here. Often a company in this situation may be able to attract funding because their product is important to the prospects of a larger partner company, filling out a total solution or providing a key technology the larger company can’t quickly or easily replicate. In this situation, the company may even get a richer valuation that the “Home Run” scenario which we’ll look at next.

THE HOME RUN

Lastly, there’s the classic Venture-funded company, the one with “Home Run” potential. These are the companies that VCs are out seeking to fund. These are the hot young companies that you often read about in the newspaper or trade journals. A high profile engineer, or someone else well known has started the company, with some cache in their field. The technology of the company appears to have breakthrough potential. The market is new, expected to grow to be very large, and is very newsworthy. But the competition is expected to be very intense, both from established players and a spate of new startups. This is obviously a very different situation than the two discussed above.

In this situation, you’ve got to go get the money. Time is of the essence. Getting established in the market early is crucial, and economies of scale usually become important as well. So a company in this situation typically needs to raise as much money as possible, as early as possible. All the steps are compressed here; and the time between funding rounds may be only a few months in extreme circumstances. It’s best, if possible, to skip the more casual funding sources and go very quickly to where you can raise large amounts of money very early—the VCs, and possibly strategic partners. Care needs to be taken on how you approach VCs, however. Unless you know them personally, never approach them directly. It’s one of the peculiarities of the VC community, and considered perverse by most people outside the VC community. The VC community has their reasons, although their rationale is certainly arguable. But no matter–it’s one of the rules of the game. Always approach them through a service provider (Accounting firm, Law firm, etc.), or another entrepreneur who has been successfully funded by the VC firm in the past.

Until you can get a commitment from institutional investors, however, take money from wherever you can get it, within reason. Self-fund, friends and family money and Angels may all come into play if there is a delay in getting the institutional money to buy in. Don’t worry very much about dilution in this case. The choice is often one of potentially ending up with a small, valuable percentage of a company with a large market cap, versus a large percentage of a failure. As you can see, the advice in this scenario is almost the complete opposite of what I’ve recommended in the two previous examples.

A STRATEGIC DECISION

But it’s all fund-raising, right? Why such different advice?

The advice varies because fund-raising is one of the most strategic activities facing an early stage high tech company. Many entrepreneurs view raising capital as a generic operational activity, like choosing a bank or leasing office space. It’s viewed as just a necessary evil, because every business needs money to survive and prosper. This discussion was intended to demonstrate that raising money should be viewed as one of your most important strategic functions–a decision that is taken with an eye for its effect on your competitive position. It’s really as important as choosing the best technology platform to adopt, or what marketing mix to use to outflank your key competitor.

I know that there are many of readers out there who have run the fundraising gauntlet—give us the benefit of your wisdom! Post a comment below.

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

3 Comments by admin on July 9, 2005
filed in Business Development, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Financing, General Management, Startup/Early Stage
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

US Government Sales & Marketing

What’s the difference between selling to the US Government and selling to the Commercial market?

It’s like night and day.

Sales and Marketing to the government is truly the flip side of commercial activities. You really can’t believe how different these markets are–until you’ve actually come from one side–and tried to go over to the other. I emphasize tried, because it usually doesn’t work out very well!

First of all, in the Government world the term “marketing” is a standard term. But its meaning in the government world is very different from its definition in the commercial world. When you hear someone talk about “Marketing” to the government—they really mean SELLING. That’s in large part because those businesses that deal primarily, or exclusively with the government really don’t do much in the way of marketing in the commercial markets sense.

Everything’s Different

In a traditional government contractor, there is usually no one with a sales title. There are often a couple of people with grand titles like “Vice President of Marketing” or “Vice President of Business Development”. These people have very little in the way of real marketing responsibilities–they are the chief sales people of the company. They are often former government employees, and in the case of a military contractor, frequently an ex-general or ex-colonel. Key to their hiring was that they are very well connected in the government or service branch that the company is targeting. Included in their charter are some “light” Marcom activities–putting together data sheets, and coordinating a few targeted trade shows.  That’s the extent of activities a commercial company would consider to be “marketing”. In addition to the dedicated “Marketing People”, much of the technical selling of individual deals is done at the project manager level.

Of course, it’s not just the sales & marketing functions that are so different in the government world vs. commercial. Almost everything is! The typical government contracting business model more closely resembles a grocery store, than it does a typical high tech company. Margins are very thin, but profit is pretty much guaranteed once you’ve secured a contract. Up front R&D (“IR&D;” in government terminology) is generally discouraged, as it’s a great way to lose money. IR&D; can also be funded by the government; that is utilized heavily but it has limitations. Spending an amount(without government funding) that would be modest in the commercial world on up front R&D can easily wipe out the thin margins that the government contracting business yields. The government contracting model works like this: Hire an ex-employee from the agency that you are targeting your “marketing” at. Leverage that relationship to secure the contract, with a minimum of up front product development expenses. Then hire the people to staff the project, and of course do a good job executing the project. Add new “marketer” from another agency–rinse and repeat.

So for those purely commercial readers out there, this must sound pretty different than what you’re used to. That’s only because it is! There is no Product Marketing/Product Management function in a true government contractor. In the government world your “market” is one customer, or a small number of customers, who are basically specifying the product for you. There are a few sales people, but as I mentioned earlier, they’re called marketing people. The actual marketing tasks are few and far between—collateral creation, trade shows, a party here or there.

Difficult to make the Jump

As you imagine from the discussion above, it’s difficult to move between the two worlds. That’s the reason that nearly EVERY government contractor that has tried to enter commercial markets in any major way has failed abysmally. Government-oriented companies typically don’t have the entrepreneurial cultures found in commercial high tech companies. They lack fundamental Market Evaluation and Product Planning skills required for success in the commercial world—because it’s not required in their core market.

Senior managers at Government contractors are often profoundly aware of all of this. They may intellectually understand that they need to do things differently for their companies to make the jump to the commercial side. But especially if they have been very successful in the government business, a difficulty emerges that won’t be obvious on the surface. And this can be the worst of all: Successful senior managers tend to fall back on their what I like to call their “Common Business Sense” when they encounter new or stressful situations. Often they don’t even realize that they are doing it. Unfortunately, when an executive with a government contractor utilizes their “common business sense” to make a decision involving a commercial business, the results can be disastrous. The “right way” of doing things in the two businesses are so fundamentally different that it might work out better if they took the OPPOSITE path from what their instincts told them. Not an easy way to do business.

Commercial to Government

So what’s a C-level manager in a commercial company, which would like to secure some government orders, to do? Given the different business cultures of the two markets, it seems pretty daunting. Those poor government guys who have tried to go commercial have had their hats handed to them—does the same fate await me?

Fortunately, it doesn’t necessarily need to be so bad. If you are selling services, or highly customized products, you may need to closely replicate the government-contracting model, if you are going to be successful. If you are selling fairly standard products, however, it may be possible to gain significant government business leveraging your normal commercial marketing efforts.

A few years back, I was running a startup commercial software product group within a company that was otherwise a pure government contractor. It was a diversification effort for the company. Our sister groups within the company were all very successful, and extremely well connected within government contracting and procurement circles. I expected, and was promised, a lot of help in placing our products in large quantities within various government agencies and military branches. For a lot of different reasons, that help never materialized. But a funny thing happened—this startup software product group ended up with 40% of its revenue from US and foreign governments. This was without a government-specific product, no real marketing advantage provided by our well-connected parent, and no special government emphasis in our sales and marketing programs. Contrary to popular belief, if you have a great commercial standard product that has use within the government, the agencies and branches will find a way to purchase it. Our product was aimed at Network Administrators, and their needs were similar to their commercial counterparts. The government market is huge, and we did well in the government sector. With a few modest investments, however, we could have done even better. So what steps should a commercial company do to maximize its penetration in the government marketplace?

Tips for Success

Create a great product—Above all, your market research and product planning are the starting point to success. Make sure to include a few potential government customers in your upfront planning, which should ensure that you don’t miss any special requirements they might have. This is a huge market you don’t want to miss.

Have a modest entry-level price for your product—Even if in a production environment your product costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions, it’s very helpful to have a low entry-level price– ideally less than a thousand dollars per unit. This will allow a motivated prospect to acquire your product initially by “going around” the laborious, lengthy, confusing—and often competitive—contracting process. Even if you have to go through a contract later to secure the full production purchase price, the bidding process may then be “written to your specifications”.

Hire an experienced government sales executive—This can NEVER hurt. It really helps having someone who knows his way around your target agencies, to head your Government Sales Division.

Place your products on the GSA schedule via an established Government Reseller—Getting on the GSA (Government Services Agency) via your own company is a long and complex process. For most commercial entities, it isn’t worth the effort. It’s much easier to give up a few margin points to a reseller already on the schedule. It’s much easier for him to add your products. They won’t do much for you in the way of promotion, and I’ve found that being on the GSA schedule in most cases isn’t REQUIRED to buy your products (although some will tell you otherwise). But it does make it easier for the customer inside the government, and if nothing else, raises their comfort level. They will know that they won’t face a major hassle to buy your product.

That’s my take on selling to the US government. Hopefully there’s a nugget or two in there that can help you. Post a comment with a few of your own tips.

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 June 17, 2005
filed in Business Development, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, Marcom, Product Marketing/Management, Software/Product Development, VARs, market research, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BIG S, little m

Don’t worry; this isn’t going to be an article about Sado-Masochism! Well, come to think of it, that term may apply to what some founders and senior managers in startups are doing to themselves and their companies. What I’m referring to is the VP who gets hired to manage both the Sales and Marketing functions. Oftentimes this turns out to be a job we call “VP-SALES & marketing”. Thus the phrase “Big S, little m”. The position is usually offered to a crack sales guy or gal, who also happens to have a marketing title somewhere in their job background.

JUST GO GET THE ORDERS

To high tech insiders the meaning is clear. The anointed candidate will be expected to go out and beat the bushes for customers, and bring in new orders quickly. Oh, and by the way, Mr. VP, you’ll also be in charge of producing data sheets and attending a few trade shows. You know, all that marketing stuff!

In most of these cases, I would recommend that anyone being approached for a job like this run in the other direction as fast as possible. These positions are usually classic “traps”. The attitude is “We’ve got a great new technology; all we need is someone to go knock on a few customer’s doors and bring the purchase orders back to headquarters”.

Hopefully, most  will recognize that this is a recipe for a very unhappy outcome. The founders and senior management will be unhappy with revenue and profits, the VP will be unhappy because he’s likely to get fired in 9-12 months. The other employees will be depressed and talking about how “Sales & Marketing” is the weak link in the company. And the investors, of course, will be very, very cranky.

Why does this occur? It often occurs when the key senior decision makers (CEO, CFO, Founders, etc.) don’t have a background or appreciation for the difficulty of the sales function. And it’s even more likely to happen when there is no key decision maker with a background in Marketing. The decision maker’s attitude also often includes an over-confidence in the role that superior technology plays in the overall success of a company.

IS TECHNOLOGY ENOUGH?

Certainly having a defensible technological advantage is a major factor in the success of a high tech company, especially when that company is in startup mode. The problem arises when management believes this by itself is enough to “win”. How hard is cold calling and knocking on doors for a sales force with an unknown company name? Not to mention an unproven product, which may solve a problem the customer may not yet know exists? I’ll give you a hint—it’s really, really hard!

Likely there is a lack of understanding of the crucial role marketing plays in establishing a new product in the marketplace. There may be a view that marketing is some theoretical, squishy function that is a waste of money, or maybe something that has value but the company just can’t afford. Management thinks we’ll introduce the product, sell a bunch and build the marketing function later. Unfortunately, that thinking is as backwards as can be, and will usually lead to the unhappy results discussed earlier in this article.

Why IS marketing so important, and why is it such a critical mistake if it isn’t a major part of the new product process? It’s because marketing is crucial in every phase of introducing and growing the revenue of new products, from conception until end-of-life. In the beginning, an engineer may come up with a great new technology that appears to allow someone to do an existing task better. Or maybe it allows someone to do something that wasn’t even possible before. But that’s really just the beginning of the product development process. Product engineers aren’t trained to closely match customer needs with the features of this whiz-bang new technology. Often they think it’s easy – you just go ask the customer what he wants! But customers often don’t tell you the truth;  sometimes they lie, and sometimes they don’t even know what they really want. And even if they tell you the truth, it’s important to make sure that what these customers are telling you is representative of your entire target market segment. This is a task that looks intellectually easy on the surface, but for a lot of reasons, it’s very difficult to get right.

Sometimes companies do get it right even without an experienced, professional marketing function in place. Let’s assume for a moment that they do. There’s still a very long way to go before those purchase orders start pouring in. The product must be positioned properly, relative to the direct and indirect competition in the market. It needs to be priced so that the market is willing to take a close look, but not so high or low that it retards the product’s long-term profit potential. Will it be distributed only through the company’s direct sales force, or should we court VARs, distributors, retailers or OEMs? What kind of pricing can we offer those partners without creating gray markets or channel conflicts? And please, let’s not forget about creating a bit of demand for those poor guys and gals in the sales force. Cold calling really does suck! It’s not good for anyone, the sales reps or the company’s profitability, if cold-calling is going on the majority of time. It will “burn out” your sales force in no time.

Marketing programs that generate hot leads, or even complete sales, are much more cost-effective than relying on highly paid (but beleaguered) sales reps to do their own inefficient “door to door” marketing. And how should we generate those leads? Via PR, Advertising, Direct Marketing, Partnering, Search Engine Optimization, Paid Search Engine Ads, Trade Shows? The Marketing folks are the strategic quarterbacks of the organization who should be driving the answers to these questions—as well as executing the strategy within the required parameters.

IT MIGHT WORK—BUT DON’T BET ON IT

So does “BIG S, little m” NEVER work? Well, in some cases it not only works, it is even appropriate. Take the example of a semiconductor company selling a very niche chip to a vertical segment. They might have only 50 potential customers. In this case you REALLY CAN go ask the customer what he wants, and easily ask enough of them that you will end up building products that will apply to your entire target segment. With respect to lead generation, the target market is so small that traditional outbound marketing programs don’t make sense anyway, and that “door to door” marketing by your sales force might work just fine.

But I propose to you that this example scenario is the classic “exception that proves the rule”. In many, if not most cases, “BIG S, little m” will lead to failure – or at the very least, suboptimal performance. That’s my view—as always I’m very interested in hearing yours–post a comment!

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 June 2, 2005
filed in Distribution Channels, General Management, Product Marketing/Management, Software/Product Development, Startup/Early Stage, VARs, enterprise software, hardware, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »