Morettini on Management

General Management and Marketing Advice for Software and Tech Companies

Tag: product

Extending Your Technology With Spinoff Products

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

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

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

Customize your products for adjacent markets

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

Private Label/OEM products

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

Integration & bundling with other products

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

Different price points

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

Business vs. consumer version

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

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

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

1 Comment by admin on December 5, 2011
filed in B2C, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, General Management, Product Marketing/Management, Software/Product Development, Startup/Early Stage, enterprise software, hardware
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

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

Why is Intel Buying McAfee?

Intel’s $7.68B announced acquisition of McAfee raised more that a few eyebrows, both in the marketplace and on Wall Street. Does it make sense? It’s hard to say at this point. So much depends upon execution, as well as potential synergies seen by Intel’s management which may not be obvious to outsiders.

 The price is almost 4X McAfee’s most recent annual revenue. That’s very, very pricey in almost everyone’s view. I’ve read a number of columns by others which analyze this deal from various viewpoints.

 Let’s look at several potential rationales for this deal:

 Diversification into software and services

Intel can’t grow in PC semiconductors forever, and is very dependent on the semi business, which can be quite cyclical. Theoretically, attempting to grow by increasing software and services as a percentage of the business makes a lot of sense. But Intel hasn’t been very successful in the past in this very endeavor, which I’ll discuss more below.

 Technology synergies

Intel’s management has provided justification for this deal by talking about embedding security into its chips, as well as valuing highly McAfee’s embryonic security efforts in mobile devices and the cloud. I think these all have strategic merit–but are they worth anywhere near $7.68B?

 Cost synergies

While overlapping functions can lead to cost savings in many acquisitions, there are probably not a lot of costs to be taken out in this one. McAfee is a big company, in a different business than Intel’s core business. Sure, there may be some common functions like HR and finance that can be combined to some extent, but I don’t see cost savings to a material degree here.

 Use of cash flow

Intel generates a LOT of cash. They are one of the most successful tech companies of all times, and their PC processor business is nearly a monopoly, with terrific margins. So the cash is available, and it doesn’t make much sense to have it sitting in the bank earning 1%. THAT will kill your return on assets metric! It needs to be reinvested, or retuned to the shareholders…

 Growth

On the surface, buying a big software company could be a good growth strategy for Intel. Assuming as there is a good return on investment, then why not? It’s going to be hard for Intel to grow much farther in processors. About the only area big enough to make a big difference in their processor business is in mobile. This is a very competitive arena which they’ve failed miserably in to date.

 So that’s some of the reasons you might use to do a deal like this–but is that reality?

 The real reason deals like this happen

CASH: The biggest reason that this type of deal happens is because it can. In this particular case, tech companies like Intel want to be seen as growth companies. It seems to kill tech companies to pay their cash flow out in dividends. But once your company gets to a certain size, it’s hard to be a growth company. A lot of bad acquisitions happen in the process of trying to continue growth status past a reasonable point. But is this the best return on assets, or use of cash flow, for the stockholders?

 Why there is a good chance this acquisition won’t succeed

PRICE: Intel paid dearly for a very established security software player. They paid for the McAfee brand–but will they keep investing in it in the long run? History says that this business will eventually morph into “McAfee by Intel” and they “Intel Security Software”, if the business stays with Intel in the long run. Built into the price was also a large number of retail customers, a dealer and distribution network — but does Intel really want these things? If not, why pay for all of them?

 TECHNOLOGY: Listening to Intel, this seems to be a technology play–but McAfee is universally not considered to have the best technology in the space. They win to a great extent on brand and sheer market presence at this point–like many large companies. Since the price paid was very high–why not buy a smaller player with much better technology to integrate with silicon–for much less?

 CULTURAL FIT: Semiconductors and software are very different businesses. I’ve spent a lot of time in both. I have always said that the “Common Business Sense” that a management team falls back on when stressed, is a real problem when they are making decisions in an unfamiliar business. It doesn’t seem like brain surgery to manage a software business with a semi background, but there are subtle differences that tend to have massive consequences. Intel has bought a number of software businesses in the past–how many of them can you name? There is a reason for this, they tend to disappear in the large semiconductor bureaucracy and eventually wither away.

 Typical M&A ISSUES: Key McAfee personnel will have a tendency to “cash out” and leave after the acquisition. This is a normal issue in M&A, and when the acquirer is in a different space, this can be a particular problem. Possibly the fact that McAfee is already a large public company may reduce this issue. But if the real assets of a software company (the people) walk out the door, there isn’t much left for your $7.68B.

 In summary, I view this as a very questionable move by Intel. Intel has some very smart folks in management. Maybe they have some great strategic and tactical plans in mind, but if so, they’re keeping it all to themselves. For the stated reasons of embedding security in chips, mobile security and the cloud, they could have bought 2-3 innovative security software companies with bleeding edge technology–for a fraction of the price they’ll pay for McAfee. If this acquisition is to pay off, Intel will need to figure out how to leverage the McAfee brand, consumer franchise and distribution channels. I just don’t see this happening in the long run–I hope for Intel shareholders sake I’m wrong. Acquisitions are an area with room for a variety of opinions–what do 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

5 Comments by admin on September 7, 2010
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, General Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, enterprise software
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is HP acquiring Palm a good idea?

To answer the question posed in the title, it definitely is if you’re Palm!

A long time player and sometime innovator in the mobile device marketplace, Palm was rapidly losing steam, market share and relevancy in the hyper-competitive Smartphone market. The company had staked its future on its new WebOS software platform and the recently release Pre SmartPhone.

 After a long period of decline due to an aging product line built on an obsolete software platform, the Palm Pre and its WebOS software was introduced to critical acclaim by industry reviewers and pundits. Had these introductions come a few years ago, they might have indeed turned around Palm’s fortunes.

 But competition in the SmartPhone marketplace has heated up to a white-hot level. After a promising early start, sales momentum of the new Pre products stalled, and this “last-stand” product introduction proved to be too little, too late. At nearly the first sign of Pre sales weakness top Palm executives began bailing out, while Telco partners quit promoting the product heavily, and it was also being dropped from the assortment of major retailers such as Radio Shack. The end was clearing in sight for this handheld industry pioneer.

In swoops HP to save what little shareholder equity was left. HP is on a roll, and in conjunction with their upward momentum they seem to be intent on acquiring everything available for sale, as well as competing in nearly every category of the technology business. This particular acquisition appears to me to be particularly high risk/high reward. It raises several key questions:

 Did HP pay too much?

Probably. The price HP is paying for Palm is about $1.2M, while most knowledgeable industry observers had placed the value below $500M. This is hard to understand for the casual observer, but you must remember that a company is worth what the highest bidder is willing to pay. Except for those on the inside of the deal-making, no one knows what the sizes of the competitive bids were. So it’s a bit pointless to speculate whether they paid more than they needed to. The better question is what is the intrinsic VALUE of Palm to a company like HP?

 A case can be made in this situation for bidding at a price that will prevent the transaction from dragging out. Software loses value quickly–especially in a fast-moving market like SmartPhones, and this is largely a software acquisition. Another big key to the valuation question is whether or not HP is able to hold together and retain the Palm team, especially the key developers. In most cases, buying a software business (which is the key asset of Palm) without the team is nearly worthless.

 Can HP compete in the SmartPhone business, and should they?

This is a huge question in my mind. Hewlett Packard is definitely becoming the 10,000 lb gorilla in the tech business. But even the biggest giants reach a limitation on resources, most importantly senior management bandwidth and market segment knowledge. IBM at one time looked much like HP today, competing actively in nearly every important technology market. Eventually IBM lost traction and did a painful restructuring focusing on services. Microsoft is huge and still dominant in software, but they’ve been far from successful everywhere they’ve invested. There are many examples in the tech business of competing in too many competitive markets at once. The often-used analogy (which still rings true) is to Hitler opening up a two front war by invading Russia. The old joke goes that had he been more focused, we might all be speaking German today. I am very skeptical of Hewlett Packard being able to win in all of the major markets they appear to be serious about at the moment.

 Can putting two losers together ever create a winner?

Not usually. I can’t think of a single high profile successful instance of this, although I’m sure it’s happened before. It usually doesn’t work in such a highly competitive market as SmartPhones, however. Palm was around 5% market share and fading fast.  HP is very successful overall, but its iPaq SmartPhone has less than .1% market share–I’ll bet most of you are shocked to hear that HP was even in the SmartPhone market prior to this deal! When there is a reason that both companies are unsuccessful, it’s very difficult to change the equation simply by combining. Mergers often create more problems then they solve, regardless of how good they look on paper.

 Having said all this, there is some synergy here. There is a belief is that one reason the Pre wasn’t gaining much traction was Palm’s precarious financial position. No one wants to carry around a phone that could soon become an orphan. The HP acquisition should help immensely on that front. Hewlett Packard certainly has the financial might, industry muscle and influence to improve the position of a well regarded platform like the Palm Pre and WebOS platform.

 Will HP be patient and persistent enough to win in SmartPhones?

To me this is the biggest question. If you asked me 10 years ago I would have said no. As a former HP employee, at one time this wouldn’t have been the type of market that I would expect Hewlett Packard to have success. But since them I’ve seen the company persevere for decades as an also ran in the low margin, down and dirty PC business, and finally push Dell out of the top spot. There was a time when Dell (and a few others) used to laugh at HP in the PC market–but that ended a while ago.

 I’m convinced that this ever more powerful version of HP can succeed in SmartPhones if they so choose. But as discussed above, even in a giant company like this, can they win so many tough fights across so many difficult market segments? That is a different question entirely–and something may have to give. They might not be able to win on all fronts.

 Bottom line

The bottom line for me is that HP can probably muscle their way into the SmartPhone market if they want to bad enough. But can they do it while they also compete with Cisco in networking, IBM in services, and Dell in PCs–just to name a few? Even for a successful industry giant like Hewlett Packard is today, I believe in the concept of “biting off more than you can chew”. That is the real risk. One thing I think for sure is that this won’t play out quickly. Only time will tell whether HP ultimately has the market knowledge, patience, tenacity and will to win in this hit-driven and brutally competitive market. What’s your take on this high profile acquisition? Post a comment to rev up a 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 May 14, 2010
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Mergers & Acquisitions, Retail, hardware
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

High Tech Market Research for New Products

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Comment by admin on March 10, 2008
filed in B2C, Pricing, Product Marketing/Management, Social media, Software/Product Development, market research
tagged , , , , , , , , ,

System Integration vs. Product Development

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

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

A Tale of Two Companies

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

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

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

System Integration Business Models

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

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

Product-Focused Business Models

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

1 Comment by admin on September 21, 2007
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Financing, Operations, Software/Product Development, Startup/Early Stage, VARs
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 , , , , , , , , , , , ,