Morettini on Management

General Management and Marketing Advice for Software and Tech Companies

Tag: tech

Is SEO a Legitimate Marketing Technique?

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

Lawyer: “What are you concerned about?”

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

Lawyer: “What is it that you do?”

Client: “I perform search engine optimization.”

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

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

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

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

Arguments for SEO

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

Arguments against SEO

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

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

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

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

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

Choosing an Advisory Board for your Tech Company

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

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

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

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

Domain or technology expertise

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

Access to capital

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

Access to distribution channels

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

Honest and straightforward counsel

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

Available bandwidth

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

Motivation

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

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

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

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

Should Microsoft Break Up?

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

Pro Breakup Arguments

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

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

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

Smaller, less bureaucratic operating units

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

Greater focus

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

Greater ownership

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

No Place to hide

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

Con Breakup Arguments

Synergies

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

Brand power

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

Tradition

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

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

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

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

No Comments by admin on November 29, 2010
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, General Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, enterprise software
tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is The Tech Recovery Upon Us?

Let’s face it, things still aren’t great economically: unemployment is over 10% nationally in the US, credit is tight for small businesses as well as reduced access to investment capital, and consumer’s moods, while improving are still not positive.

However, while I don’t want to overstate the case, but I do believe we are on the way to recovery. This has strategic implications for software and tech companies.

A look at the positives:

Stock markets on the rise–The Dow Jones Industrial average is up nearly 65% in the last nine months. Tech stocks in particular have been strong: the benchmark NYSE Arca Computer Technology Index is up nearly 95% in the same period. This is from a very deep bottom, of course. But it adds considerable wealth increases optimism, which usually leads to positive momentum.

Search firms are adding their own staff– ExecuNet’s benchmark Search Firm Hiring Index has increased the last two quarters, after many quarters of decrease. This is a nice indicator of expected increased hiring by businesses overall.

Worldwide employment on the rise — Manpower, Inc.’s Global Employment Outlook Survey for Q1 2010 states that the employment outlook is mostly positive in the Americas and Asia-Pacific, while still somewhat mixed in EMEA. Labor market strength in Asia-Pacific, which is becoming increasingly important as a consumer market, is expected to return to levels similar to before the global downturn.

VCs still have lots of money to invest — After sitting on the sidelines in fear (like everyone else with money in their pockets) during this great recession, Venture Capitalists are starting to poke their heads out among the economic green shoots. They were sitting on huge amounts of capital that was raised in the pre-recession bubble environment, much of which is still not invested-but still accruing management fees. I have heard that there are now many limited partners filing lawsuits as a result of their funds lying fallow, which may stimulate an acceleration of VC investments in the coming year.

IT spending is forecast to rise — After several down years and a very bad 2009, Garner is projecting an increase in excess of a 3% in IT spending worldwide in 2010. This is very important, and a bullish signal for the tech sector heading into the New Year.

The IPO market window appears to be opening — Security software company Fortinet had a very successful offering in November. Meru Networks, a supplier of wireless LAN solutions, announced today it planned to raise $86M in an initial public offering. IPOs tend to drive increased capital access up and down the food chain, and that window has been closed for some time. If it opens significantly, that bodes well for growth in the software and tech sector.

No more bubbles – at least anytime soon

We’re not heading toward another bubble anytime soon. It appears we’re headed for moderate, but hopefully sustainable growth as a result of our two catastrophic burst bubble in the last decade. Government debt, commercial real estate and inflation potential are concerns in the long run, but appear to be manageable in the near term.

What should tech companies do?

First of all, don’t be stupid and increase spending if your situation doesn’t support it — credit is still very tight, and access to investment capital still remains below typical levels of the last decade. So make sure your plans are supported by cash flow, or in the case of early stage companies, at least access to reasonable levels of debt financing or investment capital.

If you are able to spend, it’s a great time to grow fast or take share from competitors — when the economy is just starting to take off and buying is accelerating, act before your cautious competitors have come out of their shells.

In general, companies tend to be too conservative in their investment and hiring plans — Take note that hiring tends to peak at the apex of an economic cycle, just before growth slows or turns negative. In fact, many experts consider strong hiring a leading indicator of an economy that’s lost its momentum. I’ve never been a fan of hiring just because you have the money and growth rate to support it. This is a leading cause of bloated cost structures and bureaucratic, slow moving organizations. But most companies are pretty lean in staff after several years of recession. So if you really do need people, it’s more productive to hire them now as we begin an up cycle, instead of waiting until the very end of it as so often happens.

That’s my forecast and advice for the software and technology business sector as we enter 2010. What’s your forecast? I’d love to hear it. Post a comment or shoot me an email to add your own spin to this discussion.

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

No Comments by admin on December 21, 2009
filed in Corporate Strategy, General Management
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Compensating the High Tech Sales Force

A very controversial topic within many software and other tech companies is how to best compensate the sales force. How much is required? How much is too much? What’s the best mix of salary and incentive comp?

If you’ve read anything I’ve written before, you’ll find my next comment familiar:

It all depends on your particular situation.

There is no across-the-board best practice for optimizing your sales force’s performance via compensation strategy. Every company, market and competitive landscape is different at any given point in time.

Let’s take a look at some of the more common variables and how they might affect your compensation strategy:

Established brand vs. startup
If you’re a startup, plan on paying your sales reps more. It will be harder to attract great reps as a startup, unless you are in a special situation with an incredibly hot new product (of course, every startup CEO thinks this way about their product!). You may need to pay reps a higher base, and certainly richer commissions than your established competitors. Some of this can be mitigated if you are offering an equity opportunity, as discussed later. But for sure, prospective reps need to believe that there is a good chance they can make more money at your startup, or you won’t be able to compete with established companies for the same level of folks. That’s just a fact of life.

Price Point
If your price points are higher, you may need to pay a higher base salary, if the total number of sales made will be low. Lower price points lend themselves to higher commissions and lower bases, because the rep will be able to start making money sooner, and more regularly.

Length of sales cycle
The sales cycle aspect is pretty straightforward, and tied closely to the price point discussion above. Price points and sales cycles almost always have a direct relationship. High price points lead to longer sales cycles, and low price points to shorter cycles. It’s harder to compensate heavily on commission if there is a long sales cycle, because sales reps need to eat regularly, too. If you have a product that takes a long time to sell, make sure that you have a decent base salary for your reps, if you want to keep the good ones.

Growth vs. harvest
Companies generally highly value reps that can sell new products and into new accounts–they want to pay for growth. So the more you are asking your reps to do what is considered to be the hardest thing in sales — sell “new”– the higher the commission structure should be. Selling “new” is the highest form of risk in sales, and it should be compensated by the highest reward. Selling established products and selling into established accounts (harvesting) is not as risky, and as a result can often carry lower commission structures.

Initial sale vs. ongoing revenue
Similar to the growth vs. harvest discussion, sometime you are selling a product that has upfront revenue as well as ongoing revenue, typically from updates, replacements or services. You generally want to pay higher commissions for the upfront portion than you do the ongoing revenue. A good example of this is a traditional software license with an annual maintenance fee. If you pay commissions on the maintenance portion at all, in most circumstances the payout should be lower than the incentive on the upfront license fee.

Commodity vs. missionary sales
Commodity sales lend themselves to high commissions and low (sometimes even zero) base salaries. This is because sales cycles are usually short for commodities, and since they are by definition in big markets it’s easier to make a base level of sales and resulting commissions, even for a new rep. By the very nature of commodities the rep’s service is often a major differentiating success factor, so a comp mix toward commissions rewards the exceptional rep to really work hard. Missionary sales, on the other hand, require a great deal of patience by the rep, as well as a lot of hand-holding and relationship building. To keep good sales reps in such a situation, it’s important to have base salaries which are adequate to enable the best sales reps to exhibit patience with the long sales process. Missionary sales are an area that really demands both high bases and strong commission structures, as they are one of the most demanding forms of selling.

Hunters vs. Farmers
Hunters obtain new accounts while Farmers maintain and maximize the sales into existing accounts. These two situations require two different sales personalities, and the compensation packages should be different as well. The hard-charging hunter will require a decent base salary, but really needs the high commission structure to keep him motivated. The Farmer is likely to be a more stability-oriented, relationship-building style of rep. A relatively higher base and lower commission structure is usually more comfortable for reps in situation.

Equity
In most cases, the playing field is slanted toward established companies when it comes to compensating and attracting sales reps. Equity participation can be the great equalizer for startups in compensation. Every company has a different view of how broadly to offer equity. But a startup that offers equity participation to its sales force can often give up less in cash compensation. For risk-taking reps, equity can even be the deciding factor in recruiting, in some cases. The lure of equity that might grow into a significant stake at a successful startup can help pull a rep from a more established job.

So what specifically should you be paying your reps? Laying out actual numbers is beyond the scope of this discussion, because there are too many factors and potential situations to generalize. All the factors above come into play in structuring a sales compensation package, as well as factors such as inside vs. outside sales. Every situation is different, and competitive factors also come into play, if you’re competing directly with your rivals for reps. Local market circumstances, as well as the overall economy, can also play a strong role in setting the final package.

Above all, if you want to optimize the performance of your sales force using compensation as a tool, you must do your homework. Don’t just quickly come up with something that “sounds good” or is “how you’ve done if before”. Analyze the situation of your unique company at this particular point in time, and at certainly consider at a minimum the factors mentioned above.

That’s my thinking on how to compensate your sales force–what’s yours? Post a comment below or shoot me an email if there is a particular situation you’d like to discuss.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter.

2 Comments by admin on August 17, 2009
filed in Distribution Channels, Startup/Early Stage, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

White Papers in the High Tech and Software Marketing Mix

There are many marketing methods in Software and IT marketing that can be appropriate in some, but not all situations. I’d put White Papers in that category. The term “white paper” is a broadly used term, and can mean different things to different people. I define a white paper as a document written to provide insight or expertise specific to a market, process or product category.

PRODUCT & MARKET APPLICABILITY

White Papers are used far more often in B2B marketing than in B2C marketing. I have seen them used in a B2C environment, but only infrequently. A White Paper is most often useful when there is complex technology or work processes involved. In a B2C environment, they would usually only be used in an “early adopter” market where a product concept is new, and prices and sales cycles are still long.

MARKETING RATIONALE FOR WHITE PAPERS

Why use a White Paper at all? The best reason is to build credibility for your company or product. White papers are most frequently accessed by prospects early in the sales cycle, when a prospect is just beginning research on a product category. These documents allow company personnel to show off domain or technology expertise, which should reflect well on the product you eventually want to sell the prospect. The white paper shows off your company as thought leader in your category. It also allows you to subtly and gently position your company and product in the prospects mind, very early in the sales process. It is often helpful to designate one (or a few) people in the company as the author of the white paper and as an expert in the field.

THE “RIGHT WAY” TO DO WHITE PAPERS

So what are the key factors to creating a successful white paper? Here’s a few:

* Written by a domain or technical expert
* Succinct-no fluff or overt marketing, to the point
* Aimed directly at your target prospects
* Provides valuable information to your target
* Mostly solution-agnostic, any product or company promotion must be subtle

WHAT NOT TO DO IN A WHITE PAPER

And what are the things to avoid a wasted effort? Keep these points in mind:

* Can’t be a product brochure -no relentless promotion
* Don’t make it the length of a book
* Never stretch the truth
* If it’s too general, so that no one will invest time to read it

BEST USES FOR WHITE PAPER

What can you do with your white paper, once you’ve put in the time, money and effort to create one? There are many good uses–here’s a few to consider:

* It will contribute positively to Search Engine Optimization on your website
* An excellent item to use in a PPC campaign offer
* A great email marketing campaign offer
*An important intermediate step in the sales process; often useful just after a website visit, but prior to a webinar or product trial
* Versatile as “lead bait”; regardless of the medium or campaign, you should require contact info from the prospect prior to a white paper download
*Assists in moving a prospect along without “high touch” interactions–helping automate the sales process and shorten the sales cycle

SUMMARY

White papers can be very valuable tools in a number of market segments. These documents should be used to differentiate your company as a progressive thought-leader in your market category. The optimal goal for a successful white paper is to position your company as a preferred vendor or serious alternative for prospects in your market segment. This is accomplished by demonstrating expertise and providing credible, valuable and unbiased information which is valued by the target prospect. It is NOT accomplished by “tooting your own horn”, playing fast and loose with facts, or duplicating your company brochure. If you want to be a successful white paper marketer, it’s important to restrain yourself from tactics in the latter category. That’s what I think about making white papers an important part of your marketing mix. Please post a comment and add your experience and thoughts on this topic.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

No Comments by admin on April 15, 2009
filed in Online Marketing, Promotion
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What Happens to Apple after Steve Jobs?

I’ve written several times on Steve Jobs and Apple, one of the most fascinating companies and executives that we’ve seen in the history of high technology.

I don’t mean to make this a morbid article; the current (and now long-running) speculation on Steve Job’s health has been well-documented. I hope that Mr. Jobs is fine, and that he has many more years of good health, with a continued long reign at Apple.

But it does raise a slightly different question that is interesting to ponder. There has always be a “cult of personality” surrounding Apple and Steve Jobs. In fact, Apple stock often swings wildly on days when news about Jobs health comes out.  The company has done well during short periods when he has been away, but Mr. Jobs is joined at the hip with Apple in the investment community and public’s eyes. Jobs will leave Apple at some point, hopefully to go into a happy retirement, as I stated above. Regardless of the circumstances of his leaving, what will become of the company once he is gone?

I can think of no tech company more closely associated with a founder/CEO than Apple and Jobs. Gates and Microsoft certainly are in that league, and I’m sure that you can think of others. But I doubt if you can think of any combination that is clearly more high profile and closely-linked.

Jobs has obviously been a major driver of Apple’s current success, and has enriched its many shareholders and other stakeholders. While it may be blasphemy to the Apple faithful, especially in recent times, in my opinion he has also been responsible for some of the company’s periodic downturns. Whether viewed strictly as the company’s savoir, or also an unstable dictator that has wrought big swings in the company’s performance over a long period of time–it’s undeniable that an unusual amount of responsibility has laid in Job’s hands–especially for a company of Apple’s enormous size. He is known to be detailed-oriented and involved (from a positive perspective), and a micro-manager and poor delegater assuming a more negative viewpoint. The basic premise of this article is that once he leaves Apple, there will be a leadership vacuum. This isn’t necessarily a prescription for catastrophe–but it is rarely a good thing for a company, at least in the short term. So what are the broader lessons we can glean from this fascinating situation with respect to managing high tech businesses? Apple really isn’t a rare case–tech companies cultures are built around their founder/CEO quite often, as I see often in my practice at PJM Consulting. This is a case study that can be instructive for many managers. Let’s take a look at a few potential lessons:

Difficult or Odd Corporate Culture
There is obviously much to be admired about Apple’s corporate culture, since it is a very successful company. Yet by many it is considered to be somewhat dysfunctional from a management standpoint. Much of this can be attributed to having a leader with a very strong and quirky style. Cultures tend to develop haphazardly as companies grow, even if its leaders have given some thought to the issue. In a corporation, everyone has a boss and other constraints put on them by the company’s social structure. This tends to dampen the effects of dysfunctional behavior by people up and down the organizational chart. The exception to this is the Founder/CEO who is the head of the organization. Much like the old story about the “Emperor who has no Clothes”, no one in an official capacity will call out the person at the top of the org chart on their bad behavior, decisions and eccentricities. This is dangerous and can lead to a culture and company policies becoming embedded with inappropriate ideas for no good reason, sometimes based on what lower level people BELIEVE the CEO would want. The takeaway is that leaders (especially strong ones) must take care not to have TOO GREAT an influence on the culture of the company simply because of their personal style.

Corporate Succession
Strong leader such as Jobs often tend to run companies in a dictatorial manner. They also have a tendency to have a “self-centric” view of the world, and don’t give sufficient thought to planning for the company’s future after their tenure. This may work well while they are in charge, but can lead to a company in disarray when they leave. It’s not clear that there is a clear successor, or strong group of potential successors, in place to follow Jobs at Apple. For a company of the size and stature of Apple, most people would think that this isn’t a good idea. Founding CEOs and Senior Executives with a similar organizational impact need to force themselves to step back from the present, and plan for a future without themselves. This isn’t a comfortable thing for many people, but is critically important for the full potential of their legacy to be fulfilled.

Dangerous Concentration of Responsibility in a Single Person
In a startup, the founders often wear many hats, and make all of the important decisions themselves. No doubt that Jobs and Wozniak personally handled nearly everything when Apple was formed. This is a very proper operating model for a startup. As a company grows, at some point it becomes a VERY INAPPROPRIATE model, and can put the company in great jeopardy. What if that leader has a heart attack or is in some other way unable to fulfill their critical role? Chaos can occur, and the company’s decision-making can be paralyzed, especially in the short term. In addition, I believe that the old saying of “two heads are better than one” usually holds true. I’m not one to endorse decisions-by-committee, but many corporate situations are complex and inherently risky, and the decision-making in these circumstances can benefit by having several strong viewpoints. CEOs should ensure that important decisions include at least some level of peer discussion and review, to avoid blind spots and major mistakes.

Micro-Management
Strong leaders, especially those who are able to create a company from the ground up like Steve Jobs, are often “type A” personalities and micro-managers. This may be highly efficient when a company is in startup mode. Later on, however, it can lead to a lack of development of people down in the organization, as well as paralyze the organization’s ability to make quick decisions. The most effective leaders are those who are able to “let go” much of the decision-making as the company grows, while keeping their fingers on the pulse of what’s truly important. This is a very fine line to walk, no doubt, but it imo being able to successfully pull this off is one of the more important attributes of the very best corporate leaders.

Bench Strength – Can Worthy Managers Survive Under A Strong Leader?
Along the same lines as the Succession discussion above, attracting and retaining talented managers lower in the organization is usually critical to a company’s current success. If the leadership of the company tends to be dictatorial, micro-managers who hold on to most of the responsibility, lower-level managers may become demoralized. The management team needs to be developed, and feel like they have real responsibility and some control of their own destiny. When the guy at the top is holding on to all the power, strong leaders further down in the organization have a tendency to move on to other companies, where they feel like they are making an impact and have an opportunity to progress. The best leaders ensure that the conditions are in place attract, nurture, develop and retain the management talent required for a company’s continued growth and success.

SUMMARY
Apple is a great tech company, and Steve Jobs is one of our industry’s legendary entrepreneurs and managers. Yet every company, even highly successful ones like Apple, has holes in its game. There are many strong leaders much like Jobs at the head of software a
nd tech companies. Too often their strength is manifested with a very short term view of the organization. Although difficult to do, the strongest leaders operate with a view on not just optimizing the immediate issues facing them, but also plan ahead so that the company can function well even without their personal involvement. Often this means suppressing some of their own natural tendencies so that the overall organization can more fully develop. The resulting decentralization of power reduces a number of risks that are inherent when too much depends on a single individual. That’s my own view–post a comment if you have additional views to add to 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 January 9, 2009
filed in Corporate Strategy, General Management, Operations
tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

The End of Customer Service

No one answers the telephone anymore.

At least, technology companies in the US surely don’t. With big companies, you are either presented with an endless phone tree–”press 1 for a company directory”–or the newest innovation in communications technology: the cheerful “automated voice attendant”. In many cases these attendants, and several other “innovative” service options, can lead to a great deal of frustration for customers and prospects.

As a consumer and business buyer I’ve found this frustrating, not to mention an incredible productivity sink. As a High Tech industry executive and consultant with a strong marketing background, I find this practice curious at best–and insane at worst!

Think about it–how many BILLIONS of dollars companies spend trying to get the attention of potential new customers–most of who are going to need to contact the company at some point. Yet it seems that once we’ve got their interest, or God forbid, they’ve signed up as an actual customer–we are doing everything possible to keep them away. Doesn’t anyone remember the old marketing adage about current customers being your best source of additional business? Management guru Peter Drucker once said “The purpose of business is not to make a sale, but to make and keep a customer.” Apparently not many people agree with this, or have forgotten it, because “modern” customer service practices are doing there best to drive these folks away. Let’s examine some of the new customer service approaches:

OUTSOURCED CALL CENTERS IN OTHER COUNTRIES

This may be everyone consumer’s favorite new “pet peeve”–calling an American company based in Chicago, or Iowa or San Jose–only to be connected to some call center somewhere in India. Often this leads to a very, very frustrating experience. Companies are going this route for support as an expense driven decision–to obtain cheaper labor. But the reps on the end of the line are often poorly trained, probably aren’t employees of the company that you are calling, and often don’t speak English with an accent that is easy to understand for most Americans. Are there good reps who give great service available in these call centers? Certainly, I have spoken to more than a few. But compared to the “good old days” of local support, the average caller experience has degraded significantly. Add this to the initial frustration that the caller who is dialing has because of a problem with his or her new $1200 PC–and you don’t get a prescription for a happy customer.

PHONE TREES

This one has been around a while, but the increasing complexity of the tree, and well as the difficulty of exiting it to get to a live person, has continually made the situation worse. You can literally spend 5-10 minutes just navigating the phone tree these days. Oftentimes, callers just give up–which appears to be what companies want. I’ll discuss below why companies shouldn’t.

AUTOMATED ATTENDANTS

As I discussed above, this is one of the more recent scourges of the besieged customer with a problem. Ironically, Automated Voice Attendants have been made possible by a really nice leap forward in voice recognition technology. And there is no doubt that these products have come a very long way from the days in which they were first implemented. But talking to a machine is at this point still inherently inferior to speaking with a real human. I endorse the use of these Automated Attendants, but they should be used judiciously. I would still utilize them only at the very beginning of calls, and not require them to take a customer too far down the line of getting their problem addressed. Also, please make it easy to get away from them to a live human. With the high market share of some of the Automated Attendant companies, I am having far too many conversations with the same perky, Stepford Wife-ish-sounding artificial female voice. It’s getting a bit creepy. While we’re at it, let’s talk about my biggest customer support pet peeve. With all of the sophisticated software available today, why is it that I have to give my account number and god knows what else to this robot lady, and then repeat all of the same information to the first live person that I speak with, as well as everyone that they transfer my call to? I understand security concerns, but geez! Hasn’t anyone heard of data sharing and company firewalls?

“INTERNET COMPANIES”

The advent of the Internet has allowed for the creation of the ultimate small company: one man or woman, behind an Internet site. These companies invariably list no contact phone number or physical address. You can only email them for support, or if you’re really lucky, IM them. Unfortunately, potential customers figured out that this is likely a one man operation long ago. They will be reluctant to buy your product as a result, because they don’t believe you are “for real”, or at least they won’t be able to get good support. If you have the capability of offering real support, I urge you not to present your company in the image of one of these “Internet companies”. If you do, it will cost you business.

FEE-ONLY TECH SUPPPORT

I won’t deny that is some cases tech support fees are justifiable, and necessary. Even for consumer tech products. But in most cases tech support, and least at some level and for some period of time, really needs to be bundled into the base product offering. This trend came about with the intention of making tech support a “profit center”. While I believe that tech support can drive profits, in many cases it shouldn’t be done by attempting to extract additional money from customers (especially upfront or on the initial call) for the right to call in to get product issues fixed. There is a standard of care that most customers believe is fair: Help them get the product installed, up and running. Take care of any bugs or product defects. If you don’t meet this standard, you will likely pay for it yourself–in reduced customer satisfaction and loyalty.

I want to emphasize that I am not a racist, market protectionist, political isolationist or technophobe. I have nothing against a man or woman working in a call center India, doing their best to do their job. I’m also a tech guy, and certainly love the idea of using technology to increase labor force productivity. But as a marketer, above all else, I believe in the old axiom: THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS KING. Customer service today is not treating the customer as King, but like the lowest creature on the food chain. It’s possible that we are just undergoing a period of “growing pains”, implementation issues, and the new customer service methods discussed here will be the way to go in the long run. Maybe technology maturity and some additional training for the folks in those faraway call centers will correct the current painful situation.

BIG OPPORTUNITY TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE

But my guess is that those corrective measures are a long way off. In the meantime, there is a big opportunity for savvy software and tech companies to use this “gap” that has occurred in most company’s customer service, to gain a strategic advantage in their market segment.

Unfortunately, in my Software and High Tech Practice at PJM Consulting, I find that customer service operations are usually an afterthought to senior management–especially in early stage companies. It’s understandable, since it doesn’t appear to be part of the strategic core that will mean the difference between success and failure for a young company. But in today’s world, used properly, customer and tech support can indeed be a strategic weapon.

Not only can good support cement the relationship with the customer and build long term loyalty, but don’t forget that you’ve got a customer on the line! Remember the old adage I mentioned above about your current customers
being the best place for incremental business? Once you’ve satisfied the caller’s concerns, you have an opportunity to educate them about new offerings, present them with a special offer, etc. The possibilities are nearly endless to profit from this customer interaction. This interaction by the way REQUIRED NO INCREMENTAL MARKETING EXPENSES TO INITIATE. Companies don’t realize the opportunity that they are leaving on the table, both to increase customer loyalty, and sell incremental offers to existing customers.

DIFFERENTIATION FROM COMMODITIES

Let’s talk about a specific example: HP & Dell in the PC business. I’m an old HP alumnus, and until recently, a long time Dell customer. Over a long period of time, customer support, specifically technical support– has gone from a major strength, to a nightmare for customers of both companies. At various stages of the customer ownership lifecycle, both of these companies throw every obstacle I’ve discussed in this article at you–Endless phone trees, automated voice attendants, email-only or IM-only tech support, and clueless representatives in foriegn call centers. PCs are as close to a commodity as anything in the High Tech business these days. These two market leaders, along with their competitors, are pretty much slugging it out on price (and brand, which means less and less in a standards-driven market like PCs). This is certainly not the way to achieve high gross margins, let alone customer loyalty.

Personally, I’d pay 10-15% more to buy a computer from a company who guaranteed good, local tech support. I run my business on my PC; when a problem occurs that I can’t fix on my own, it is often excruciatingly painful. I’m sure that these companies don’t believe that I, or many others, would pay more. But if a PC company put forth a well-developed marketing message touting their emphasis on technical support and customer service–and stuck with it–they would obtain a customer for life. Now, I may not have been willing to pay such a premium 10-15 years ago, before real customer service “ended”. I may have gone for the lowest price. But with personal service and support nearly gone the way of the Dodo bird (become extinct), things are different. Since good, personalized tech support has become a scarce commodity–it is therefore an opportunity that some smart company can exploit.

SUMMARY

There’s a big opportunity out there for smart technology companies to go against the current trends in customer service and tech support. Make it easy for people to reach you, using whatever method they prefer. I’m suggesting short phone trees, live operators, and an adequate number of representatives to eliminate long waits. Focusing completely on expense control or technology solutions, not personal service, is a mistake for tech companies. Savvy, “forward-thinking” software and tech companies can increase market share and customer loyalty with an “old school” approach–personalized customer service and support.

That’s what I have to say about the state of customer and tech support today–what’s your opinion? Post a comment if you’d like to discuss this further.

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

2 Comments by admin on May 6, 2008
filed in Corporate Strategy, General Management, Operations, Retail, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »