Competing with Entrenched Software & Technology Industry Giants

I was reading an article in the business section of our local newspaper recently about a new Search Engine name CUIL (pronounced Cool). I already knew about CUIL, because I had noticed that it had recently indexed the PJM Consulting website. One of their claimed differentiating factors is that they've their search index is twice as large as Google's is. In addition, they believe that they have improved the ranking algorithms, and they also present the results in a different way. The results offer fewer results per page, but more comprehensive information on each site, and often include a photo or other graphic. The premise of the article was that it may have a chance to be a real competitor vs. Google, or at least Yahoo and Microsoft, for market share in the huge search business. The founders have impressive pedigrees and come from Google on the technical side.

The article gives credence to the possibility of CUIL being a potentially serious competitor to Google, Yahoo and MS, while pointing out that quite a few companies have attempted to enter this fray, creating barely a blip in search engine market share to date.

I've taken a quick peek at CUIL--the presentation is definitely different and may be superior for some tastes. But at least at this early stage, in my quick look I wasn't terribly impressed with the relevancy of the search results. No matter how you present the data, the relevancy of the results is paramount in search. I'll be sticking with Google for now, but will keep an eye on CUIL to see how it develops over time.

Will CUIL succeed? It's of course way too early to tell. They're taking on what is arguably the most powerful technology company in the world today, attempting to compete with them in their core area of strength. So you can't say that the odds of success are high, which they rarely are for any startup. But this IS the technology business, so you've got to give them at least a puncher's chance. Like it usually is, the key will likely be how well they execute.

But execution aside, what's the best way to go about competing in the software and technology industries today? Should you just steer clear of the elephants of the industry? Many believe this is prudent, but I think it is not always necessary. After all, it wasn't so very long ago that is was nearly impossible to get a venture capitalist to fund a company that was perceived to compete in a category with Microsoft (which could be viewed as MOST categories of the software business). Yet a short time later, Microsoft is considered in many ways a dinosaur, one that is quite beatable (don't get the impression that I'm writing MS off--I'm not. Redmond may yet rise to dominate again).

If it isn't insane to compete with the giants, what are some best strategic practices that an early stage tech company can adopt to give it the best chance to survive and thrive, when entering market categories with large, entrenched competitors?. Let's take a look at a few ideas:

Make Sure that you can Differentiate - This would seem obvious for any business, but when you are going up against a huge company with a good brand--well, don't even try it without significant differentiating factors. They don't need to be product related, necessarily--it could be free and outstanding support, better price points, exceptional ease-of-use, or many other things. But don't kid yourself--you will need REAL differentiation.

Pick a Niche, any Niche--at least to start - It is important to pick a small enough niche so that you can provide that true differentiation discussed above. Your investors may want you to attack a huge market, but if you don't have that influence pushing you in that direction, pick a small area that you can have a higher chance of dominating when you're new. If you are successful in your initial niche, you can then broaden out into adjacent segments. Down the road, maybe you take on the giant "head-on"; but starting out is NOT the time for this.

Raise more money than you think you will need - Every once in a while a new company will "hit on all cylinders" from the very beginning. But in my consulting practice at PJM Consulting, I rarely see this. In fact, a good part of my practice is helping companies "pick up the pieces" after their initial business plan or execution has gone awry. No one likes to give up more equity than they need to, but things usually take longer to start working than you initially project. There are usually too many things that you don't know, until you really get into the marketplace. Plus, it's generally easier (and cheaper!) to raise a bit more money at first, than it is after that first misstep. A little extra funding in the bank can be a good insurance policy against a capital crisis early on.

DON'T try to be like them - A common mistake that I often see early stage companies make is trying to "be like the giant competitor". Sometimes this comes from an inferiority complex, and sometimes because the founders come from one of the giant companies themselves. The last thing you want to do is create a big company bureaucracy. In most ways, you want to operate VERY DIFFERENTLY from you huge, slow-moving competitor. Resist the urge to create huge amounts of process before your company size dictates it as necessary. Be very careful about hiring away senior executives from you giant competitors, unless you are certain that they also have successfully operated in an early stage company before. Stay as fast and nimble for as long as you can--that is a primary advantage at this stage of a company's development.

Recognize the giant's execution weaknesses and beat them there - Analyze the large competitor's business, and try to create your differentiation where they are weakest. It could be faster customer service, better channel relations, better ease-of-use, etc. If you concentrate your differentiation where they are doing the poorest job, it will accentuate the difference to the marketplace, and you will have a better chance of your advantage being recognized.

Focus, Focus, and Focus - This advice can be viewed as the culmination of the points above. Make sure that you don't try to do any more than you can do EXCEPTIONALLY WELL at this stage. You can always expand your focus later. Remember, there is a good chance we would all be speaking German, if Hitler hadn't prematurely opened up a second front with Russia in World War II. The tech landscape is littered with companies that followed an analogous strategy, with similar disastrous results (Novell and Netscape are two former high-flyers that immediately come to mind).

SUMMARY

As an early stage company entering a market where a major company or two are the known leaders, make sure that you don't "bite off more than you can chew". You can always expand your focus after initial success. Contracting your focus is usually quite a bit more painful, and many companies don't make it through that transition. That's my advice on how to attack a large, entrenched competitor. As usual, I'd be interested in seeing your comments.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com
pm@pjmconsult.com

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 you 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/

The Haphazard Development of People in Early Stage High Tech Organizations

Many entrepreneurs start out giving little thought to how they will grow their embryonic technology business in the long run. They are totally focused on designing and releasing the first product, or making that first sale. This focus is usually a very positive thing in a new company, since grandiose plans of startups have a way of getting derailed by the harsh realities of trying to survive.

Other more organized and contemplative entrepreneurial types have a master plan all laid out, including the steps on how they are going to grow their company all the way to the happy exit they have planned. This approach can be of great benefit as well; even though things won't go exactly as planned, it's great to have a road map that you can adjust as conditions change.

One thing that many younger organizations don't do so well, is in planning the development of their staff. Don't misunderstand; there are a lot of development opportunities for employees of newer and smaller companies. But this development often just "happens"; there is little thought that goes into it. A job needs to be done--and a particular body is more available than any other. The fit may not be ideal--and the amount of training given minimal. But the person is thrown in to sink or swim, because like the old saying "necessity is the mother of invention". It needs to happen, and it often works out well a surprisingly large amount of the time, given the haphazard way in which this "personnel development" often occurs.

But is this optimal, even within the constraints of a hard-charging software or hardware company? Most of the time, with a bit of foresight and a strategic pause, you can increase the odds of successfully stretching your current staff, into areas where expertise or experience are lacking. Below are five simple steps that may greatly increase your success rate in growing

Consider Psychographic Profiles Of Candidates In Your Hiring Choices
Like most things that are done in company development, if you hire the right people, things are likely to turn out better--no matter WHAT curves the marketplace throws your way. So try to think ahead when hiring that next entry-level employee, to fill the open clerical or support role. What other activities may need to be done in the near future? In what areas could this new employee be grown? Are you hiring the most flexible candidate, the type that will be most comfortable when you try to "stretch" them into an unfamiliar role? Will they freak out at being asked to perform a new and challenging activity, or will they embrace it as an attractive career growth opportunity? Try to think ahead, and the answer to your next personnel crises might be right down the hall.

Plan Ahead As Much As Possible
As mentioned above, it's really useful to try to think ahead to what functions will need staffing in the next 3, 6 or 9 months. This type of strategic thinking is difficult for many early stage managers, who are focused on getting through the end of the month. Unfortunately, this mentality often leads to hiring the person that will save a few nickels in initial salary, or has the most experience for the immediate position--therefore "hitting the ground running" with the least amount of training. But if you factor the medium and long term needs of your business into your hiring decisions, you may hire different candidate--who may add much more to the growth of the business over time.

Train At Least A Little--Don't Just Throw Them To The Wolves
Startups have a tendency to "throw people in the pool and see if they'll float". Many times managers will ask an employee to get started, and just do the best they can in the short term. It's often a crisis situation, and the manager intends to come back and train them when things settle down a bit. Unfortunately, in early stage companies, the situation NEVER settles down. As a result, you end up with an employee that fails, feels abandoned and neglected, or develops bad habits that become hard to undo. While it's hard to find the time or resources to provide training, for most people, it's an important factor in ultimately achieving success. So make it a priority to give the person in a new role some basic training, no matter what it takes.

Supplement And Train Using Consultants As Mentors
One great way to provide training and support to employees in new roles is to get some outside help. Many smaller companies don't believe that they can afford consultants, because their price tags for providing expertise and short term work are much higher than permanent employees. But that is usually "penny wise, but pound foolish". Most jobs that need doing, also need to be done right. If there isn't the expertise or senior management bandwidth available to train and support the employee in the new role, the job may not be done the way the manager intended--costing the company far more than the amount that outside help would. In these instances, an outside consultant is actually a very cost-effective way to prevent costly early mistakes, as well as putting the employee solidly on a track to long-term success in their new role.

Allow Room For Errors
Margin for error is usually less in early stage companies, with a resulting amount of high pressure to "get things right the first time". But it's unrealistic to think that someone new to a job, with minimal experience and support, will do everything perfectly the first time. Startup managers need to factor this into to their expectations, and plan for results to be a bit uneven at first. It's especially important that the demeanor of the manager makes the employee feel comfortable to take educated risks in the company's best interests, without feeling like any missteps could cost them their career.

SUMMARY
It's true that early stage tech companies can't afford to engage in the same type of organizational planning and personnel development that occurs in most giant corporations. However, that is somewhat offset by the vast opportunities for development that are found in these fast-changing, non-bureaucratic environments. Early stage tech companies are well served if they force themselves to engage in just a fraction of the planning done in larger corporations. Post a comment and let us know what you think about organizational development in startup companies.

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

Marketing and Selling Technology Products through the Value-Added Reseller (VAR) Channel

Selling through multiple channels is one of my preferred strategies in technology marketing. If done properly, it allows a company to fully exploit its expensive, hard-earned intellectual property to the maximum extent. One of the most popular channels (and one of my favorites) used to sell B2B software and hardware is the Value-added Reseller, or VAR channel.

VARS ARE THE DISTRIBUTION HOLY GRAIL FOR MANY STARTUP COMPANIES

In fact, with a great many startup software and technology companies, building a VAR channel network to sell their companies products is the first thing they want to do, upon releasing their first product. This is especially true when the founding management team primarily comes from a technical background. The thinking goes; they are technologists who have created a great product. They don't have a lot of experience selling or marketing--and most of the startup money has gone to, and will continue to go to developing products. Why not just recruit a bunch of resellers to market and sell their product for them? Sounds like a great idea on the surface, doesn't it?

Unfortunately, there are few strategies that are more flawed, and which have continuously led to failure than this one.

Let's contrast the realities of the VAR channel, against this simplistic notion that has been tried again and again, without success:

WHAT VARS DON'T DO

1) First of all, VARs DON'T market. At least not YOUR products, anyway (they may market their services). So the very first flaw in this strategy is that it is based on a gross misconception of what a VAR typically does.

2) VARs don't create new markets. VARs are great at selling into established markets and further expanding already growing ones. Missionary sales: brand new markets, categories and products? Not so much.

3) They don't sell a wide variety, or a large assortment of products. In fact, VARs are focused on actively selling VERY FEW products--if they are even focused on selling products at all.

4) VARs aren't motivated by high product margins.

5) The individual VAR does not exist to help YOUR company make money.

Now if you're not a sales or marketing professional with experience working with the VAR channel, you're probably very confused by the list just above. So what is it that VARs actually do? And why is it worth dealing with them at all!

What happens time and time again is that a technologist startup CEO will pursue the VAR channel as their exclusive distribution channel, without knowing any of the points in the list above. Their effort will fail miserably, and they will then scramble to begin selling their product directly, or through some other means. They will swear off the VAR channel forever, and I do mean swear:

"Those !!@#$%^^* resellers are good for nothing. They take a big cut of your margins, while adding no value in return. I'll never deal with them again."

I can't tell you how many times I've heard some version of the quote above.


But the VAR channel is a major force in the technology business, and if you know what you're doing, it can be used to great leverage by your company. So let's now take a more realistic look at what VARs CAN DO:

WHAT VARS ACTUALLY DO

1) First and foremost, VARs are in business to sell their own HIGH MARGIN SERVICES. That is why they exist, and how they put bread on the table. This revelation may be discouraging to some product vendors, but you must understand and respect this above all, if you hope to leverage this channel. The only exception to this is the "core" product, which will be discussed later in this article.

2) VARs are very interested in things that apply to their own vertical focus. Although it wasn't so true many years ago, most successful VARs these days have a very tight vertical focus.

3) Many VARs act as "thought leaders" for their corporate customers. So they are very interested in "what's new" in the market, so they can stay on top of trends and remain market experts for their clients. This means that they will sometimes spend a lot of time talking to you about your new product, but never find the time to actually "sell" it (even if they have the best of intentions). In the busy world of the small VAR, client demands and selling the core product and services usually soak up all excess time.

4) VARs are often used as "aggregators" of purchases by corporate clients. This way, the corporation can use a single vendor point of contact for their technology purchases, greatly simplifying their purchasing process. They can also leverage the VAR as an evaluator/validator of new products and technologies. This makes them a very important part of the purchasing chain for many corporations.

5) If they put any real effort into selling products at all, it is usually into one or two "core" products that they have built their service offerings around. If you aren't a product that pulls services, forget about getting high mindshare with the VAR.

6) When it comes to selling "non-core" products, VARs are almost completely driven by the demand they see in their installed customer base. They won't often add in new products that they don't see a demand for, unless they are really techie, early adopter types. And these techies will often add a product, but never find time to actually offer it (let alone sell it) to their customers.

7) The VAR channel is EXCELLENT at fulfilling demand for great new products into their existing, installed customer base.

8) VARs can be an excellent proxy for a vendor in installing, configuring and offering first level support. This can enable a vendor extend its reach and to leverage the VAR channels existing infrastructure rather than building out a large field organization (which depending on the product category, may not even be feasible).

So given the points outlined above, what are the "best practices" to follow when you are seeking to build and leverage a VAR channel?

VAR CHANNEL BEST PRACTICES

*Always sell your new product directly in the beginning. Even if you don't plan to build a direct sales force and sell directly in the long run, it is critical to establish that the product works, and can be sold successfully. If you can't sell your own product, no VAR will be able to either (and few smart ones will be willing to try). De-bug and systemize the sales process, make sure that your end user price points are right, and build a small reference account list--at a minimum. Only at this point should you begin to approach VARs to distribute your product.

*Marketing the product is the vendor's responsibility. Do not naively think that the VAR will market the product for you, or that since you have VARs to sell, you don't need to market at all. Remember, VARs are great at fulfilling demand among their existing customers--and very poor at creating it among new customers. The vendor must position its products in the market and create demand for them--otherwise your channel efforts will certainly fail

*Treat VARs like the valued business partners they should be. If you do sell direct, don't "steal a deal" and take it direct just to make a few more points on one sale. Nothing is more short-sighted. Not only will this VAR not do business with you again, in any given vertical it's a small community--and word gets around fast. You risk becoming a pariah in the VAR channel, and losing all the hard work that you put into building your network. My philosophy is: when in doubt, cut the VAR in on the deal. If you don't feel he's adding any value to your business, eliminate him from your network after the deal. But don't use your low opinion of a particular VAR to convince yourself to cut him out of the deal. You risk cutting off your own nose in spite.

*Be realistic in what the VAR channel can do for you. If you have a non-core offering, be happy that they "make it available" to their customer base, rather than expecting them to sell it actively. Remember, VARs are key influencers of their clients; just being available to endorse your product as something they offer, to a customer that hears about the product elsewhere, can be very valuable.

*Provide a reasonable margin, but don't "throw margin away" thinking that it will motivate a VAR to actively push your product--if they otherwise would not. It won't work, and you'll just be giving away money for no reason--that you could use creating demand instead.

*For most products, make sure that you don't over-distribute by signing up more VARs than your market will support. Even though greater margins might not make a VAR push your products, the erosion of margins to near zero will cause a VAR to eliminate your product from their portfolio. It's better to leave a few deals on the table, than to risk demotivating your entire reseller network, because they are 6 competitors are bidding on every deal in an particular area. The exception to this is if you represent a "core" product that pulls significant service revenue, you can get away with a lot more stuff, because the product margins are trivial to the VAR compared to the lucrative service revenue. But in this case, be careful when using your market strength to abuse partners. People have long memories, and "what goes around, comes around."

SUMMARY

That's my primer on how to approach, and even more importantly, how NOT to approach doing business with Value-Added Resellers. Post a comment or send me an email to delve into this important topic further.

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