Executive View from Silicon Valley

Social media explained and the next phase of #socialmedia

2012-01-27T11:35:00.000-08:00

While people debate social media and what all the services do, I found an elegant, yet tongue-in-cheek, image from Adverblog that does the job admirably.

From a clarity and classification standpoint, this image delineates a complementary ecosystem owned by the major companies shown. Nearly every social media company who currently or hopes to compete with one of the leaders would overlay one or more of the companies listed.

If you agree with not only the implied classification but also the market dominance suggested by the image, then you may also agree that any competitor in that space has a low probability of success due to the ownership of each social media category by an incumbent 800lb gorilla.

New entrants, may attempt to introduce product suites, integrated features, or better differentiated features, however the problem is not one of a better product, but one of category ownership. A new entrant with a suite or integrated product must be more than just better with some feature advantage. They need to overcome thought leadership of each of the major competitors that they overlap. I would argue that direct competition for those major segments is over, unless one of those leaders grossly pisses off their user base.

The implication for me is that a new entrant must follow a narrower vertical strategy where they can capture both the pain and imagination of a niche market and own it. Yes, the whole of social media will likely follow the path of social networks - products for businesses in narrow verticals where the open access and unsecure information of the current leaders creates social media demand that lacks the privacy, security, and narrow market knowledge that practitioners in a narrow field of focus require.

This is not new, of course, as this parallels the growth and segmentation of enterprise software. Where once there was ERP, CRM, and Supply Chain, etc, there are now those software (and SassS) in specific verticals such as government, human resources, finance, automotive, energy, bioscience, medical etc. The only thing that prevents or delays the next wave of vertically focused social media, is the process and structure of demonstrating consistent and repeatable results and ROI in the same way that CRM analytics enabled the creation of pretty charts showing how to identify, cull, and optimize that sales funnel.

Where did my review go? Social Media Fail.

2012-01-20T15:11:00.000-08:00

I believe in the power of social media and the power of crowds. Specifically, I rarely questioned if review systems were good things designed to help and inform consumers. I also believed that reviews were a way for product marketers to gain insight into the values and shortcomings of products.

Unfortunately, one of my favorite stores, Brookstone, has fallen short on providing reviews that would benefit customers, and especially myself.

The issue at hand is not one, but two disappearing reviews (out of 8 for the product) that I had submitted following two product returns and several calls to customer support. The real problem is that the two reviews were posted months apart for a product that lacked a key feature that the retail store confirmed was not in the product. The product is linked at the end of this post, if you're interested.

So to sum it up - I paid $400+ for a product online with ship to store (Brookstone retail). I Tested it in store, where it was clear that the “Foot rollers” did not work, and I confirmed with customer support that the product was supposed to have the feature. I returned it and wrote a review about the product failure, but great in-store customer service. I read it on the site, thinking that I was helping them correct the product mis-listing or boost quality control. A few months later, after a hard day on my feet, I tried again. I looked for my older review, and it was missing, so I assumed that there was some system glitch, and/or that the product was somehow improved or different. So I ordered again.

As they say, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. I might have to check my mental reasoning skills, as the same thing and more happened. Not only did the product not have the feature, but service again claimed that it was supposed to have rollers. This time, however, the sales person confirmed that he had not seen the product EVER have working foot rollers. My new review included a suggestion that the customer service or marketing department verify the product features as it would help other customers make an informed decision and reduce return costs.

This time, my review was gone in less than a day.

6 months later, after another aching foot day, I went to check Brookstone.com and the product that I wanted earlier. There the product was, claiming to have the missing, but key feature, -- but neither of my reviews were there.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me - but more than that, Brookstone. I can’t trust your online rating system, and will never order from you online again. This time, however, the review won’t be removed, and this note can hopefully serve to shine a light on customer service and review systems.

I have continued looking for a better foot massager (notice that it still claims to have foot rollers). If you know of a comparable one with foot rollers at the same price or better, let me know.

The limits of crowd-sourced marketing

2012-01-03T17:34:00.000-08:00

I met with a few people today and ended up in a "crowd-sourced marketing" discussion. I enjoy the live sharing and discussion, but especially the banter back and forth around an idea. While I do enjoy it, I have colleagues who are dead set against that type of activity - unless they are paid for it.

I completely understand where they're coming from, and they bring up a number of good points. Here are a few:

You could give them an idea that could save their business
You should be paid for the good ideas you provide to others
They may never hire you - "Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free"
You cheapen your brand by giving so much away

I don't disagree that those points could be true, however I have my own response based upon my experience:

Ideas are cheap. Without the details and careful thought about implementation, it's very rare that an idea could save a business
Ideas are only the first of many steps. If you want my details and help with strategy and implementation (the hard part), then I deserve to be paid.
If someone takes my idea and doesn't hire me, the odds are that they can only implement part of what I've verbalized. There's more to an idea than what you can share in quick meeting.
My ability to create, position a product or service, or provide valuable ideation comes grows from past experiences including collaboration. Part of my brand is idea generation, then finding a way (scrappy or full blown) to make it happen.

Do you agree or disagree?

I've heard a number of good ideas which have been followed by poor implementation, poor messaging, or poor positioning, and that has lead me to believe that the details and the implementation matter as much or more than the idea itself.

The more I see the more I believe the statement attributed to Edison holds true "Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration" (source WikiQuote).

So the next time you worry about someone stealing your idea, think about the time, effort, and energy needed to make steal or copy that idea. If they really did implement your entire concept that you gave them - then yes, the person is a douche-bag, but if you just had the idea and never followed up on it, what ownership do you really have?

Disclosure: This discussion is about marketing ideas and does not apply to patents created or owned by me or my employers. Just sayin 8-).

Silicon Valley Innovation Challenge - the ideas are easy

2011-12-02T21:00:00.000-08:00

One December 1st, I was at the Silicon Valley Innovation Challenge helping judge the presentations by teams that included at least one San Jose State University Student. Overall I was impressed by the number of good ideas in the exhibition room, as the exhibits spanned power management, to blood alcohol monitoring, to vanity personalized wear, autism tools, supply chain authentication and more.

Now while that may sound like over generous blanket praise, it comes with a caveat: Ideas are cheap. In fact, I said that to one presenter who had, as part of his business model, an idea auction. Even with his nebulous idea auction, however, that presenter garnered praise from several judges due to the utility and value the business had in a very well defined niche. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a third of the businesses presented could become living, breathing, and thriving successes - if the creators took the plunge and gave it a shot.

That brings me to another point - niche focus and market knowledge can mean the difference between fundable idea and failure or successful small business and pipe dream. One business I liked, called Travit, was showing a supply chain authentication system from manufacturing to end product delivery. That's a tough business - a really tough one. One of the long-time judges went so far as to shoot down my appreciation of the idea stating that there were "problems with the business." Unfortunately, that's where market knowledge trumps lack of imagination. My partner judge worked at Intel, and I have some experience in clinical data managment, both areas where the exhibiting company's product might have a huge impact in ways such as saving lifes and reducing counterfitting.

Now if a judge working at a multi-billion dollar company says a project could solve one of their big problems, do you dismiss any issues as "too hard"? Likewise, if a product/solution can possibly save thousands of lives and become a standard for major pharma or biotec companies, do you dismiss it for potential "problems with the business"?

To me, blowing off any suggested innovation because there are issues or problems with the idea before it's a running business is short-sighted. If the issues, after deeper inspection are insurmountable, then yes, it's best to move on. But if a judge at the competition likes your idea and is interested in being your first customer, you ignore the naysayers, listen to the customer, and solve the problem.

Innovation and entrepreneurship are all about solving problems, finding new challenges, and overcoming them. And while the presentations and ideas may not have been as well thought out as possible, I thing there is value to understand what might be possible with a presented solution. As such, I've reached out to the head of the event to see some of the ideas from the exhibition. Ideas are cheap - but if many of the presenting teams can resolve some of their weakneses and focus on some key business areas, there could well be 20-30 businesses that launch from that event.

Don't be correct, be accessible in your marketing message

2011-10-24T09:11:00.000-07:00

I recently had a conversation with someone who discussed a "bifurcated costing model for predictive analysis" - and yes, I too almost glazed over as I heard this. While I may have the math and science background to understand that phrase, and it may be technically correct, there's a cost or penalty for using such an accurate description in communicating your idea or message.

I try to look at problems and solutions as a opportunity to explain it to my mother. Granted, she's pretty smart, but she has no reference point to the math or statistical phrasing involved in technical solutions I often have to explain. In fact, all she cares about is that there's a problem and I try to solve it. If she can grasp the problem because I explained it using accessible terms, all the better. I'll explain why this matters later.

Realistically, a "bifurcated costing model for predictive analysis" appears to have no bearing on everyday life, it's worth another look. While "bifurcated costing model" is mostly descriptive and sets context, the key phrase, "predictive analysis", has a real-world application in behavior. The result was framing the message as a solution - a way to help predict people's behavior during online transactions. It may not be perfect, but it gets to the heart of the matter.

Now why is that important? By using accessible language that my mother understands (or the general public can grasp for that matter) has led to connections, introductions, and even future business, as people quickly understood that I somehow helped people manage or improve the buying process. No one in their right mind would ask their network if they knew someone who did "bifurcated costing models for predictive analysis", but they might ask for a contact or reference to someone who might optimize or improve targeted behavior.

Finally a good auto-follow response on Twitter

2011-10-19T22:34:00.000-07:00

Do you dread following someone on Twitter due to the worry of impending Twitter DM spam?

Maybe you don't face that problem, but let me tell you, Twitter DM's are the new spam. While most people don't spam you too much, I've about had it with the "join my Mafia", "is this you in the picture", and "click here to validate" spam redirections. I've about given up on reading DMs just because of it. But before you agree and give up on the value of an auto-responder, I wanted to share a decent, or better yet, potentially useful DM after following Thomas Korte, or @thomask.

Why should you care? Thomas is an angel investor, so he get's even more spam than most of us, and most of it well intentioned spam from entrepreneurs trying to get his attention. That made me curious to see how he would handle Twitter follow requests, so I followed him, and his "follow response" is one of the rare and useful DMs I've received:

(follow-response) Hi. You might find this post interesting: "How to cold-email me (or anyone else) http://t.co/WOfRXJc

Of course, it looks simple and plain, and it could be a spam link. I clicked through and was taken to a very concise and to the point blog post about how to pitch him while showing some respect for his time in the process.

So have I been cured of my worry of DM spam? No, but I do know that there's an exception to the expectation of DM spam. By providing true value and NOT upselling me in his auto-DM, Mr. Korte has set an example that I would like others to follow. So if you use an auto-DM as a follow response, don't blow your connection to your follow - just add value, an maybe you can start you Twitter relationship on a positive note.

Steve Jobs and the Eureka Myth

2011-09-17T12:01:00.000-07:00

There's a great article from the Harvard Business Review about Steve Jobs and the Eureka Myth that is worth mentioning here since it encapsulates a much bigger topic and fallacy in many people's minds - not just for Apple, but for product design and marketing in general.

Basically, the misconception is that Steve Jobs came up with the iPhone and iPad and other products one day, manufactured it the next, and as a result dominated the market. The "eureka" of those products and their "magic" isn't nearly as simple. The were years of ideas and multiple generations of protoypes that went into both products.

In fact, the "eureka" moment came after many trials AND errors, tweaks, improvements, corrected paths and feedback loops. While Jobs and his team were indeed more inwardly focused than the standard market research processes, there was no reduction in a prototyping and test process.

There was no magic - but there was good process and vision.

Google CPC - are your expectations set right?

2011-09-13T23:17:00.000-07:00

A client wanted to launch his wellness business and grow using an initial "consumer Internet" go-to-market approach. I cautioned that there were few good examples of a B2C success in his product and service space, let alone a direct analogy that he could use to garner best practices or emulate. In short, he was offering a new product in a new market, and would likely need a heavy education component or high touch marketing at the start.

Having used Google adwords before, he thought that it might be 'the ticket' to getting things off the ground. After two months of trying the Google CPC route, he felt that he had exhausted Google adwords as a viable vehicle for lead gen. Had the client more time and not been insistent on CPC ads, the "expectation" phase of his marketing campaign could have had more time for discussion.

Online advertising, whether display or CPC, has some general economics that people overlook. The good thing is that the factors in the model can be tweaked to increase performance and ROI, but the bad thing is that there are enough variables that it can be easy to focus on the wrong elements. The basic metrics of advertising, especially search CPC advertising, has some key numbers to keep in mind. These are:

Keyword searches - searches with target keywords where your ad appears
Click through rate - or the ration of clicks to impressions
Conversion to Free action - the percentage of visitors who register
Conversion to Paid action - the percentage of registered users who end up paying or upgrading

For this discussion, I'll use basic industry rates that are on the optimistic side.

Keyword searches: 1,000,000
Click through rate: 2.5%
Conversion to Free action: 20%
Conversion to Paid action: 5%

Using those numbers we might get a funnel that looks like:

The disparity between the searchers who may see the ad and the number of registered paid users is visually striking and provides a "come to Jesus" moment. While your first reaction might be - 1M search ad impressions might yield only 250 paid users, I tend to think about the cost of the ad and how the advertising might even pay for itself.

Using simple math (again, everything is simplified here), if the CPC was $1, that means each paid user must have a contribution of $100 per user. If the CPC was $0.10, that contribution diminishes to $10 per paid user. Contribution, in this case, is the margin built into the product or service price that, net of costs.

I'd be worried if I didn't know how I might drive the CPC down or if I did have other tools and methods to improve the conversion numbers. But once you get past the worry, we can look at the point of this post - to provide awareness. A CPC campaign in the example above can, and often does makes sense. It's important to set "expectations" and to know what you need for your campaign to be successful.

Sorry Vocus and PRWeb, but you sent me to another vendor #vocus #prweb

2011-08-06T22:44:00.000-07:00

I really wanted to give PRWeb a chance, but they reminded me of an important lesson.

There's a phrase that B2B startup marketers and salespeople come to expect: "No one gets fired for buying IBM." That phrase has other forms, such as "No one get fired for buying Cisco" and more recently, "No one gets fired for choosing Google."

What the customer is saying in each case, is that time and battle tested vendors with established track records are safe bets. The buyer, or his manager doesn't want the risk of choosing a startup that may not deliver the same level or quality of service.

It's simple really and can be boiled down to a simple formula: pay A get Y

That equation is actually: pay A get Y, Z percent of the time, where Z = a reliability (or trust) factor. For established and trusted vendors, Z is presumed to be 1. There is an implied certainty that the established vendor has survived this long by delivering Y, 100% of the time.

When you're a start-up or less established business, customers don't know what value "Z" is for your company. Start-ups have two main ways do deal with uncertainty in "Z" for customers. Lower A (Charge less) or increase Y (deliver more value). Basically a start-up or less established business can attract customers with lower prices or delivering more value.

I bring this lesson up as I was in the position to evaluate another vendor for press release distribution and my investigation into using PRWeb has proved unfruitful. I know somone at Vocus, who owns PRWeb, and I recalled seeing a note that PRWeb had a partnership with Zemanta which could provide more social media coverage for my release. I researched my options, signed up for an acount, then froze in my tracks due to the menu of choices. I was considering PRWeb's "premium" release, which provided AP distribution for $160 more than their other options for a total of $360, which was less than the $600 I paid for my usual major wire service. After logging in, I saw an option for "Better visibility" for $269 that would give me AP distribution and several other key distribution points. That meant I would pay $629 for better visibility and, it seems, pay for AP twice. I also noticed that the Zemanta distribution that I had wanted was not listed.

So to recap, I originally though I would get Y + Zemanta + other PRWeb social media benefits for a price somewhere less than $600. In reality, there might not be any Zemanta, and I was going to pay $629, and my reliability/trust factor was still less than 1. I would be paying more for less reliability and maybe more features. That confused me, so I asked the salesman: is Zemanta included? and why do I have to pay for AP twice, which I asked for the response in writing. His response, call me. My response - I need it documented, write it down, then I'll call to ask questions. Again, his response: "Call me". Needless to say my time is better spent using an older, but more trustworthy news service.

So thank you, Vocus and PRWeb, for reminding me that no one gets fired for choosing a trusted and established industry leader. In some cases, and this one in particular, it's not worth the risk when your vendor won't document what service they'll provide and even try to you trust them.

Wisdom or Wisecracking of Crowds

2011-05-15T16:34:00.000-07:00

I was following up on a report on KNTV where they discussed lawsuits against users who gave bad reviews when I ran into a thread from a reporter on yelp.

The reporter request was ligit, and I even saw the televised broadcast of the special report. The topic seemed important, as any commenter on Yelp or Facebook could be subject to a lawsuit for libel and slander. Worse yet, precedent could be set by any firm able to sway a jury to their way of thinking about online commenting. If anyone on the forum/comment list could be targeted, wouldn’t it be in their best interests to help the reporter?

The problem, it seems to me, was authenticity, familiarity, and reputation. Without any of those three, the reporter didn’t stand a chance of getting the breadth and depth of responses she deserved. The reporter, Vicky Nguyen from KNTV in the SF Bay Area, has a profile on the TV station site here, but even so, that did not help her. Let’s look at some errors that hurt her trust, reputation, and authenticity factors in getting the responses she was requesting.

Authenticity: The reporter made an honest appeal for feedback and introduced herself. She stated that she was a reporter looking for feedback on a story. Her appeal seemed transparent and open, but there was a problem with her appeal. The reporter chose a screen name that I cringed at immediately “KeepItReal I”. I’ll simply say that the name sounds like someone is trying too hard, but in the interests of brevity, I’ll stop there.

Familiarity: While the reporter did not commit the complete noob error of FPHR (First post help request), she did not have a long enough history of participation on the site or engagement with other users that people could trust that username was not a joke. Sometimes trust can be gained just by familiarity, but there is little you can do to remedy a new, young, or lightly engaged account.

Reputation: Closely tied to Familiarity, Reputation frames how users act with you or toward you. As the sum total of your experiences with the site, your reputation helps others categorize you as a lurker, commenter, value-adder, conversationalist, influencer, leader, troll, or even spammer. If the reporter’s reputation was one of influencer or leader, she may have received the feedback she needed. Without the right reputation and a history of belonging, it’s much easier to dismiss comments by a typical lurker as those of a troll or spammer.

Due to the the above factors, it was unlikely that the “wisdom of the crowds” would play out, and, in fact, the reverse happened. The online responders made innuendos, jokes, and otherwise ignored the ligitimate request for help from the reporter. The response amounted to nothing more than the wise-cracking of the crowds, which may be the expected response for attempting leverage unfamiliar communities.

4 Tips for Pitching Analysts to Get Past the BS Filter

2011-03-30T09:26:00.000-07:00

The first step is admission. I was an analyst, I admit it, and I appologize for all the bad ones out there. I hope that by providing useful tips and advice, that others may have more successful future interactions with them.

Some people have suggested that the analysts they’ve met either have attitude problems or have not learned the 5 lessons that I listed on my previous blog post. While that may be true, I’ll submit that there may be some key items missing from your marketing toolkit that lead analyst to respond to you the way they do.

Since others have asked me “what do analysts care about?”, I thought I’d frame my answer in terms of key marketing tips for analyst that often apply to the press as well. Oh, if you didn’t know, the analysts are almost always where the press go when writing stories if an analyst covers the space.

Here are some quick tips when pitching an analyst, in no particular order:

Why should they care?

Really, chanting “we’re #1” without justification instantly turns on the bullshit filter for an analyst. Actually, the filter is always on, but it goes from “normal” to “high” if you just cheerlead. What impact is your company and/or product having now, not what might happen the in future. If your future vision doesn’t sync with your current actions or position, there will be a problem

What is the current product/topic of discussion’s position?

If you are talking to an analyst about a new product or service introduction, you MUST be able to state a clear and compelling UVP (unique value proposition). If there’s nothing unique and compelling, I wouldn’t care. Why would the analyst care? Of course, a “me too” offering can be news if you’re a $1B+ company entering a market and about to squash smaller competitiors. The value proposition in that case: Resources, massive customer base, long term market analysis and staying power.

How does your product/service really compare to other offerings?

No competition? You’re fired, your market doesn’t exist, or your lying. Good analysts know every significant player in a market, but no, a pre-product startup may not qualify. If there’s no one doing it the same way, in the same location, or with the same technology, then you may be re-segmenting an existing market or opening up a niche in an existing market. In either case, there are certainly indirect competitors or even hidden direct competitors

Did you visualize your differentiation?

Key skills that marketers need when presenting to analysts is position mapping and visualization.

Analyst create reports, charts, and visualizations that the press and Wall Street love to reference. If you’ve ever heard that a picture tells 1000 words, then consider a good position map or visualization your resume to the analyst. In 3 to 10 seconds, the position map or visualization tells the analyst if and how you matter. Sure they might be pleasant to you anyway, but if you don’t have a position map or visual that conveys why you matter, you won’t. Nuff said.

These tips, suggestions, etc. are part of the marketing framework I use when looking at a company and business and prepare them for press or analyst communications. Remember, the press assume that you already have contacted an analyst willing to speak with you or who is familiar with the product. The press will gauge the "news" value of your product or service depending on if an analyst took your meeting to cover the topic, and sometimes the number of analyst informed also telegraphs news value. If you’re doing outreach to the press, the above tips are good homework to have done. You will need to do additional work to prepare for testimonials and "social proof."

If you have question on this, please comment below, follow me @dkuroda on Twitter, or formspring me on my blog.

When it comes to trust, Industry Analysts rule

2011-03-23T00:51:00.000-07:00

I saw an interesting article in IT Marketing World that struck a cord. I had been an Industry Analyst in the past, but since I left that occupation, I have heard numerous engineers, IT folks, and even marketers call Industry Analysts all kinds of unflattering names.

Recently, I spoke with a Marketing Director who referred to analysts as if it was a curse to work with them. I said it was no problem for me, since I used to be one. Now I do not hold Industry Analysts in a position of honor or holiness, but I knew then and still know now that they play an important role for technology markets, and it's just good business to deal with them properly.

Why should you care? The article I linked above sums up the issue - Trust.

The article states that a SiriusDecisions survey found that "Industry Analysts and Peers are the most influential and trusted sources of information", with Industry Analysts scoring nearly 3 percentage points higher.

Of course there are other factors in decision making, and the study also cites "favored sources of content", "influencial sources of content", in addition to "trusted sources". Because trust is only one important factor of many, I won't claim that Industry Analysts are the end-all be-all, however I do have some fond memories of lessons learned from being an analyst and what it took to be a good one:

1. Always have a BS filter - As an analyst, companies were always trying to bend my ear to their way of thinking. It never hurts to question motivations.
2. You can position anything - Analyst are wary of every positioning statement, since every company positions themselves, and smart ones position their competitors. Good analysts know positioning well and that this is just part of the standard pitch.
3. What really matters to the market? - An analyst is paid to think beyond spec wars and get to the issues that really matter to customers and the market.
4. No one operates in a vacuum - No matter how good someone's story sounds, the competition is always moving. Sometimes they may even be ahead.
5. The road to hell is paved with good inventions - One of my favorite lines first told to me by Jim Handy (hi, Jim), as it describes the hope inherent in every company pitch. Companies want to build a product or service that solves a problem. Often they fall short and the best product/service doesn't win. Good marketing, bigger marketing budgets, legal wrangling, misinformation, related product momentum, goodwill, or other factors can determine the winner.

I think that good analysts apply the 5 guidelines above and can provide a truly balanced view with limited biases. When they do, the real issues that matter to customers can be addressed, and they can provide a perspective worthy of trust.

Are you looking for Barbie and forgetting to Lead Score?

2011-02-14T22:25:00.000-08:00

A recruiter I’ve known for years showed me a CMO position spec and asked if I knew of any matches. The position looked pretty standard, covering the strategy, positioning, messaging, branding, press and lead gen under the standard umbrella, and I mentally noted a few good candidates who met the basic requirements.

As I delved deeper into the spec, the company described how they were looking to take their company and product space to a new level, citing how their industry was stuck back in the dark ages in terms of leveraging intellectual capital and interpersonal relationships for productivity and efficiency. I had seen this problem in several industries, where the “oldest man in the room” syndrome was the norm, and hoarding knowledge insured job security and maintained a rigid hierarchy. The implication is that a cultural change and essentially a change management process is attached to installing and acclimating the industry customers to newer, more open, and automated systems for creating, managing, and leveraging the knowledge base in the minds of the knowledge hoarders.

The right candidate would then require the marketing knowledge and experience for a normal CMO, but also the patience and change management mindset to educate train and persuade industry members to adopt new and potentially disruptive social technology. The bar was getting higher. The company would clearly be breaking new ground, and the spec recognized the forward thinking required of the right candidate.

Then I came across the show stopper - the company wanted deep industry experience AND a track record of implementing similar socially oriented knowledge sharing and productivity tools.

Wait, did you catch that? The company was breaking new ground, bringing the industry out of the dark ages to do things that has never been done, but they wanted the same person to be an industry insider with a track record of doing things that the industry has not been doing, ever. Basically, the spec was asking for someone who has done what has never been done in an older industry that has a tradition of sticking to tradition.

That’s when you stop, take a step back, and ask the hard question. “Are you looking for Barbie?” Where Barbie is the mythical perfect person with the perfect background, skills, experience, and other qualities. I think every company would like to hire a “Barbie”, and there’s no reason not to want that, but the question has to be asked “What do you really want this person to do?”

My recruiter colleague has not gotten back to me, but the hiring company should take a long hard look and possibly do a stack ranking of the real requirements. For example the requirements might be:

Rating category	Weight	Score
Deep industry experience	1.2
Marketing executive experience	2
Experience driving cultural change	1.5
Experience marketing to multiple marketing verticals or segments	1.3
Experience in marketing knowledge tools	1.8
Experience in marketing social technologies	2
	Total

In the example above, the company would be identifying an experienced marketing executive weighted toward experience in social technologies and knowledge tools and less experienced with multiple vertical segment marketing and potentially less industry experience. Note that if the hiring firm stuck to hiring “Barbie” setting all categories at 2, then “industry experience” could completely replace “marketing social technologies”, and the firm would hire someone without the skill necessary to fill the role.

So trying to hire “Barbie” could lead to poor candidate sourcing and poor decision making in the hiring process. All parties concerned would be best be served by applying a “lead scoring” framework to systematically identify and engage the best candidates.

Lifetime Customer Value Case Study - Turning a Negative to a Positive

2011-01-28T20:55:00.000-08:00

I’ve talked about value and customer service in several posts, where I discussed the impact on perception, confidence, and trust when customers work away, against, or oblivious to their customers. The choices some vendors and companies make simply don’t make sense, are not well thought out, or are just dumb, while others seem to treat customers as not only single sales targets, but as a source of long term income.

Recently, I received a defective product from an online vendor (HandHeldItems.com) that was priced low enough that it wasn’t worth my time to work through the support tickets, RMA process and shipping costs to return the product. It was a loss to me, and yes, I lost faith in the vendor and silently put them in the “low QC & poor products” list in my mind, planning to avoid ordering from them in the future.

Imagine my surprise when they sent me a cheery email asking me to review the product. That email tipped me to action in a bad way. I went to the site and product page and promptly ripped on them for the quality problem, linking the review to the photos I had also posted of the defective goods. I got it off my chest and thought that I won a minor moral victory that cost me a small lesson in trusting that online vendor. It was over and I moved on.

Out of nowhere, a short while later, I got an email from the online vendor. I expected it to be a “please contact us to resolve the problem” email, like I had seen on some other sites. I expected that it would only anger me by requesting more time and effort of to do the customer service ticket, RMA, and shipping steps I sought to avoid. I was wrong. The firm was notifying me of a new shipment, when I didn’t order anything. There was no clue as to what it was, why it was shipped, or even if they were planning on fixing the problem - there was just a shipment coming.

A week later, the package arrived, and in it, a replacement for the defective product, but no note explaining why they shipped it. I promptly tested it, and it worked. I was pleasantly surprised enough to write this article, as I realized that the company had regained some trust and the benefit of the doubt with this simple, but important act. While I also realize that I have not given up on my concern for quality from the company, I can trust that they will do what is right to fix a problem.

They may or may not have done the calculation, but they made a good move. As a repeat customer, I have ordered from them more than once in less than a year, and over the course of 5 years I might represent a decent chunk of change in revenue. If they ignored the problem, they would have guaranteed that I would spend my money elsewhere. As it stands, they’re on my approved vendor list not just as someone who had products I purchased, but as a company with a customer service policy that values it customers.

Your Customer Said Build Green, but You Need to Build a Jaguar

2011-01-21T13:36:00.000-08:00

People say what they think, but not always what they mean

Ever have a customer who wanted a product and would say something like "that would be really cool in forest green"? Then you might build them a version in forest green and they continue "that's not how I imagined it would be, I don't think I'd really want one in forest green."

You haven't been punked, you've been hearing, but not really listening. The customer may have imagined a version of your product that had the color, shine, and elegance of a Jaguar that was both art and gadget. You just delivered color when the customer really wanted experience.

Sometimes customers say things that are the easiest to say. Colors are easy to see and describe, but they often have emotional ties with meaning. But it's not just colors, but think of shapes, another difficult topic. What do you do when someone says your product is too linear or angled? Do you add curves , make it curvy, or even wavy? The linear shape may suggest industrial, simple, or cheap, and the lack of rounded anything may symbolize austere or minimalist expectations.

My point is that when someone gives you feedback on a product or service, be sure to listen deeply and don't just record the words you hear. This problem exists for consumer goods, physical services, and even online applications and enterprise software. If you listen deeply, you may just uncover a real need or opportunity that the customer has not figured out how to articulate.

If you do your job right and extract the real need, you may be rewarded with happier customers and a larger market.

Google App Inventor - What Could Have Been

2011-01-06T10:22:00.000-08:00

When Google announced their Chrome notebook with the program where they would issue a few units for feedback and testing, my mind started racing. Not only was this a great idea that would lead to buzz and market interest, but maybe I could get my hands on the product and start building some Android apps with on a notebook that featured Chrome OS, a cousin to my now favorite web browser, Chrome. I would prove to myself and the world, that Chrome OS and App Inventor could more smash the development success that Microsoft had with VB and VB.net by enabling anyone, even business types/former coders like myself to jump into the game. That night, I had a dream that not only would I get the notebook that I applied for online, but I would also get my invitation to Google App Inventor.

The next day, I saw blog posts from people un-boxing the Google Chrome notebooks. I crossed my fingers, checked my email for my App Inventor invite, and silently hoped that my notebook would arrive. Days passed, then weeks, and I lost interest and hope that I would be able to spend my entire Christmas holiday building apps and testing the notebook. By the end of December, I was resigned to my fate, no Chrome OS notebook, no App Inventor invitation. I had to make a decision and spent a few days looking at some of the development SDKs and web developer tools, finally settling on Appcelerator for a number of reasons.

I have a number of app ideas that I could build myself or farm out, but I really wanted to prove my point - doing it the Google App Inventor way, and also benchmarking against doing it with Appcelerator later. I had even hoped to blog about how Google Chrome + App Inventor could best Microsoft, Appcelerator, and Apple, but w/o the tools that just won't happen.

A day or two ago, a friend told me that he got a Chrome OS notebook. It was shipped to him 2 weeks ago. While I was glad that I didn't hold my breath waiting, I was envious. I was silently more upset when he said that he had not figured out what to do with it, while I would have tried to build 3 apps in that time. Sure, he has provided some PR value for Google by carrying it around and showing it to all his friends, but one of his work friends received one as well, so the novelty has started to wear off for him.

So after watching another developer tutorial on Appcelerator and brushing off my envy, I decided to peak back at the App Inventor site. To my dismay, the App Inventor site no longer was invitation only, but open to anyone to download, install, and start building apps. Again I felt cheated and now face a new dilemma - should I abandon my Appcelerator proejct for App Inventor, even without my Chrome OS laptop, or do I keep going forward with the current plan?

As I ponder the question, I'll list a few factors weighing on me:

Last communication from App Inventor team - 10/2010, telling me it's invite only
10+ hours invested in Appcelerator documentation and videos
Downloaded an installed Android SDK to use with Appcelerator's Titanium
No Google Chrome OS laptop, so I would prove a different point if I used my Windows machine

The lack of communication and time invested are bigger factors than #4, which was a nice to have. The key issue for me here is the human factor. Whether is product engagement, contract negotiations, sales, or marketing, the underlying issue is people. People use the product, people give feedback, people tell their friends, and negotiate or communicate with each other about it. I like the concept of App Inventor enough that the lack of human consideration hasn't dominated the decision, but I hope that Google communicates better to employees and the market when it launches Chrome OS in ways better than I've seen for App Inventor.

The Best Charity that No One Has Heard Of

2010-12-06T16:53:00.000-08:00

I was reading the "Give Well" blog, when they posed an interesting question about how to tell the story of the "Best Charity" that they found. Few, if anyone, seemed to know about this charity, and even if they did, there was no gripping or compelling story that spread the word out about the charity. The core of the problem? said charity is "in the sector of health system logistics."

A challenge yes, but insurmountable, no. As I read the article, the author correctly points to the key success factors of fundraising - connecting contributions to tangible emotional impact. That should be it right? But yet they claim to need help with suggestions on telling the story. The real goal of the question, I suspect, is expand the "connection" strategy to implementable tactics within some budget, time frame, or other scarce resource.

My approach would be one of focusing on the tangible impact as a function of resource inputs. One reason why the charity was voted "Best" by Give Well, is its use of funds to create impact well beyond its budget. Indeed, if the impact could be clearly presented in simple statistics such as a high Charity Navigator score where 95% of funds goes to disease reduction efforts, or every $1 spent insures delivery of 20 vaccines, then there would be an obvious starting point.

While there are many charities that will accept donations, there are only so many donors. The charities who often draw the most donors will either have longevity, track record, or infrastructure that helps them pull in donations. Without those key leverage points, charities need to find ways to draw and keep attention. That's where the emotion and reason come into play. Impact and results by a charity satisfy something I call the minimum logic requirement - that minimum about of proof where a donation is not a bad idea, and the charity has more or less equal footing for donation $. Then, the emotional aspect can kick in. If a donor has to choose from charity A or B after the logical stats have been evaluated, then the one with the biggest emotional response has the best chance.

The tactic I would suggest is creating print and video material showing both the success stats intermixed with compelling images/video of before an after scenarios. I could story-board it if I had the figures and some footage, but I'll try to explain here. Start with videos or stills with a voice-over from a local affected by the charity talking about before the impact, describing what it was like. Then follow that with a brief statement of what the charity does, then more video and stills with voice over from the same person, discussing what the impact has been. Repeat for each success/impact using several locals, being sure to include statistics that increase trust and credibility on the front end.

That's how I would tell the story - in as many media outlets as possible, sharing the content with all current and futures supporters, and encouraging sharing. I would also include instructions on how to share the content as well, asking supporters to identify and contact local and regional outlets to share their stories, using any connections to charity members.

Do you Survive like a Cockroach or Thrive with the Best?

2010-12-05T15:44:00.000-08:00

"Survival of the fittest is not the same as survival of the best" was the quote that called to me from a recent article on MyVenturePad. It was such a nice and simple way to rethink the phrase "be a survivor". I've seen many co-workers give that recommendation to team members, telling colleagues to be a survivor and keep their heads low when times get tough. As the article continues "A cockroach is one of the most adaptable creatures on the planet. That's survival of the fittest. Do we want our organizations led by cockroaches?"

Seeing this statement made me think about Charlene Li's latest book, "Open Leadership", where she discusses leaders who, instead of sticking their heads in the sand when times get tough, take risks, innovate, and basically try something new to move their companies forward. While what she discusses makes sense and all employees should advocate for the company good, I'll contrast that attitude with other companies I've worked at. I've seen senior managers instruct subordinates to "just do your job" and "don't take any risks", when in fact, it was the fear of getting fired and a blind adherence to tradition that insured that the company couldn't keep a leadership position even if it fell into one. One company I know was a leader in small router technology, but the founder had a policy of locking up all source code each night for IP protection. No one stole source code, but no development happened after hours or when the founder wasn't there, and, most importantly, no engineer dared to experiment with new ideas w/o the CEO's express approval. While that company is still in business today with decent technology, it's no longer considered a technology leader and rarely mentioned in discussions in SME router RFPs.

Maybe it's not the individuals at fault who want to survive, maybe it's the culture of the company that ushers employees into that mindset. If the company has a culture of fear stemming from firing anyone who takes risks or suggests products or services that might push the corporate comfort zone, then a culture of risk averse employees will be the ones who are hired and stay at the company - surviving until the a better competitor puts them out of business. On the other hand, if the company is willing to consider risks and learning from potential failings, then employees will feel comfortable pushing envelopes and boundaries where the next great product or service might be found. At one company I worked for, the 3D Avatar with stereo sound technology the company had was held at arms length, with most of the company not acknowledging it or its potential. I had a soft spot for it since it was used by the Klingon Language Institute. Fortunately, my CEO, Larry Samuels, and a customer both saw the value in the technology, which allowed me to manage a business development OEM deal that not only generated $1M+ in revenue, but also led to a $5M+ round of financing. Some people told me that if we hadn't made that deal, the company would have shut down. I prefer to think of the opportunity, and how taking that risk gave us more opportunities and learning that would never have happened if we had killed the 3D avatar and audio technology.

So you might see some optimism bias in my discussion, and yes I prefer to see the glass half-full. I also prefer to believe that businesses are not built on cockroaches who just survive, but on smart risk takers who find ways to thrive.

Lying or smart marketing? A personal shoe story:

2010-11-02T13:30:00.000-07:00

My feet hurt, and I knew that comfy shoes would fix it, so I searched online for comfortable shoes and found a few. Air support, memory foam, springs - all were listed as THE solution for sore feet and an aching back. The spring technology was the most intriguing. I had seen in a few magazines, but I did not have a chance to review the details around their claims for comfort until now.

There are different spring technologies, spanning 'wave springs', special materials, and unique encapsulation processes that differentiate the 3 vendors I found with spring-based shoes. The one that caught my eye, Gravity Defyer, had a nice website, but it was difficult to find information on the technology. The website was a little difficult to navigate if you were searching for information and not in the buying mood. What really interested me was their 'clinical study' and how they were justifying their claims.

Now, I've never tried these shoes, nor do I have any reason to believe that the shoes are bad, or good for that matter, but what caught my eye was the opening paragraph of the 'clinical study'. See the quote from the clinical study link below:

This 'clinical study', if it can even be called that, does not use an independent 3rd party to collect and analyze the data. In fact, the study is actually a statistical analysis of data provided by Gravity Defyer to the analyst firm. In simple terms, if the analysis firm was sent 100 perfect ratings in 17 rating scales, they would have to state that the data showed 100 perfect ratings. The analysis was a foregone conclusion since there never was a question about the outcome of the analysis since the data and results were already known before the analysis was performed by Packer Engineering. If that's the case, what's the 'clinical' part of the study? Where's the real value to consumers in this equation?

So what's going on here? Some would argue that "clinical study", as a term of trust, was abused and that consumers would be confused. It seems to be on the wrong end of ethical language. It may even be illegal as it could mislead consumer into believing that doctors, control subjects, and proper protocols were involved.

On the other hand, it could also be savvy marketing. If the term 'clinical study' is not protected with a legal expectation, this technique could be viewed as a quick shortcut to earn trust that actually works. If there are no legal ramifications to using 'clinical study' then why not use it any time you want to appear to have a scientific advantage? It's buyer beware, right?

This seems slightly less ethical, but probably more effective than those "similar to as seen on TV" stickers you see on products. The font is so small in parts that it looks like "as seen on TV", so it's easy to mistake the product at the store for the one on late-night infomercials. Yes, before you ask, I've seen people in stores pick up the "Snuggle blanket" instead of the "Snuggie" and specifically point to the "similar to as seen on TV" sticker or printing on the box and call it a Snuggie.

If there are no policies or standards around marketing language, it can easily be used borrow goodwill or even mislead consumers and even business readers. In order to know what you're getting and possibly save yourself of headache or legal wrangling later, read the detail. There may be more to what's being said than is written in the large print.

What kind of innovator are you?

2010-10-22T09:34:00.000-07:00

In Silicon Valley, I hear the “innovation” term tossed around left and right, almost as if being innovative was the key to success or a cure for common pickup line. In my mind, innovation has a more definitive and structured meaning that has developed from brinigng new products to market, striking business deals, and crafting patents.

For structural purposes, crafting patents has probably been the most helpful in formulating what innovation means to me and how I explain it. When crafting patents, there are a number of ‘tests’ I try to apply when determining if something is patentable:

Is it new?
Is it unique?
Does it solve a problem?

The 4th test - can it be created by someone normally skilled in the art, is less important for this discussion. Also, to avoid the flame wars around the value of patents, this is not a discussion about patents, but my view on how patent development can provide a potential framework for looking at innovation.

Unfortunately, much of the innovation I hear about fills only #1 and #2 above. Too often, someone will claim a product or service is an innovation because it’s new or different. Yes, a product that auto-tunes any speech to a Rick Astley song might be innovative, but does it really matter? Similarly, a toaster that burns images of religious figures on bread could be called an innovation, but really, is it worth bragging about? These are indeed product innovations, but more for fun.

How would the above compare to a system that tracks eye focus and viewable angle of advertisements in online-games to create an awareness and exposure index for advertising value optimization? How about a contract term where non-payment for 30 days automatically triggers a system audit and daily compounding increased licensing fees until partial payment of >50% of past balances is made and cleared by the bank? These service and contract innovations have a distinct business undertone.

The first two wacky ideas above (one of which I know exists) are indeed innovative, but may not provide lasting or long term value. The next two examples are much more narrow and esoteric, but have implications for long-term advertising and/or licensing structures. This subtlety leads to my main point here - innovation as a term is widely used and abused and lacks distinct meaning.

So while I do think that auto-tuning to Rick Astley is a type of fun and cool innovation, I prefer the longer-term economic value of innovation of the advertising awareness and exposure index. Neither is right or wrong, both are innovations, but be mindful of the mindset of the listener when you discuss innovation. If you and your reader have different definitions of innovation, you could be speaking entirely different languages.

Disclaimer: The “advertising awareness and exposure index” comes from a patent I drafted that was abandoned in 2002 when resource was not available to put the invention into practice. Yes, I know, I kick myself with 20/20 hindsight that it might have been valuable.

Set your Brand Free, Protect your Trademark

2010-10-07T20:39:00.000-07:00

I was fortunate to have the time to attend the Clearvale 2nd Floor series at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View and see the speaker from Lego discuss his social media successes. While the talk was interesting, I especially appreciated how he provoked my thoughts about brands and trademarks.

He said that a trademark has legal protections for color, proportions, usage, and language, but a brand can change based on the actions of the consumers, users, public, and, oh yeah, the company.

I've written legal clauses and trademark guidelines and even sent 'reminders' to firms to use our trademarks with respect. Over the course of several years working with internal legal and marketing teams as well as external partners, it's become clear that a trademark is really that - a symbol or representation with some well defined parameters for use and display.

On the other hand, I've also participated in many discussions about brand. A wise man once told me a brand is not what you say it is, it's what your customers say it is. If you think of it that way, it's easy to separate brand from trademark. You can legally prevent people from using your trademark in incorrect and/or confusing ways, but the way you deal with customers, consumers, and partners determines the brand that people hold in their minds when they think of you.

Is your brand one where you're known for attacking your own customers for trying to promote you? Is your brand one where you encourage your fans to spread the good word but make sure that your fans use your trademarks correctly? Think about that for a moment if you will. How many times have you seen executives or marketing types state "we need to control the brand" only to have the cover up attempt define the people or company as one who covers up errors or mistakes?

So have all the trademarks you need, but work on brand and keep working on it. Your customers are, even if you're not.

Did you just break the value contract?

2010-09-16T11:11:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd take a few moments to discuss something I call the 'value contract'. It's the implicit agreement that a business has with it's customers and it's usually an unspoken agreement tied into the customer relationship.

An example is Costco - the value contract in my mind for Costco is that I will get good quality and a fair price and can return anything in a reasonable time frame. In return for those things, I have adjusted my behavior to go to Costco in spite of the long lines. I've traded quality, prices, and customer service for a little time. That's the Costco brand in my mind, and I would guess that it's somewhat similar for millions of it's customers.

I regularly go to an electronics store, and to me, the brand means "low prices, pretty good selection, random service levels, with value oriented food". The food was cheap and decent enough that I went out of my way to go there just in case there was a good electronics deal to be found. Value-priced food was my rationalization for going since I wouldn't otherwise have driven there. I suspected others felt the same, as there was a decent lunch crowd. In marketing and business terms, it seemed like a loss leader - something with negative or lower than normal margins to draw in buyers.

Last summer, for some unknown reason, this store increased the price of their combo meal by 17% and started using obviously cheaper sandwich ingredients. I was bothered by it, and vowed to give up my habit of eating there. I failed. It took three more meals of bad food and higher prices to finally break that habit, but during that time, I noticed that the deli crowd dropped dramatically as did overall traffic to that store during lunch. Other people appeared to be bothered by the change in price and quality. Finally, I took my lunch buying and lunch-time electronic shopping to a competitor.

Three months later on a random weekend visit to my original lunch spot/electronics store, I noticed that the price dropped back down to the original level. I promptly adjusted my schedule and used the same excuse to go back. To my surprise, both the price and food quality had be adjusted to the original levels. As I continued to return week after week, I noticed that the lunch crowd was building back as well.

So someone figured out that the deli was indeed a loss leader, bringing in shoppers who otherwise might spend their time and money elsewhere, right? Maybe, or their memory only lasts 9 months. At a recent visit, they upped the price by 17% again and changed their side dish/chips vendor to one with portions nearly 1/2 of what they gave a year ago. I looks like they are breaking that value contract again.

I'll be breaking that lunch habit faster this time. Did someone break a value contract with you in a bonehead way? Please comment or click the ThankThis button if you like this article.

Smarter Executive Hiring for Startups

2010-09-03T18:48:00.000-07:00

Fellow executive Michael Stewart once told me that his ideal position was to be head of sales for 5 startups, pulling in 25%+ salary from each with a percentage of sales plus equity. I don’t know if he still feels that way, but his statement resonated with me on several levels as it made alot of sense.

While Michael and other executives I know definitely earn their salaries, those same salaries are hard to justify for small or growing startups. Startups are then faced with a dilemma - hire an expensive senior exec who brings the strategy, planning, and wisdom you likely need, or hire a cheaper, more junior exec with some of what you likely need, but fits in your budget. Of course, the real answer lies in what you need, but there’s the rub. Do startups really know what they need? Early stage startups are almost always defined by a market vision that a group of customers want a product or service. They have an idea or early prototype, and they’re trying to make sure the product fits their intended customer or they are working to really define the customer that will buy and use that product. Sure, field research of 5 to 20 people may have helped, but does that really scale into the enterprise, retail, or massively deployed Internet presence?

Change that around a bit. If you think you really needed a seasoned executive, but your marketing or sales staff budget was $12k/month, would you hire one senior executive at $12k/month? A seasoned mid-level exec at $10k/month with change left over, or one senior executive, at 25% for $4k, plus another mid-level marketer for $7k/month. You would probably need to provide an equity incentive as well, but that’s par for the startup game.

While a number of executives in Silicon Valley have the strategy and implementation skills and experience to plan and execute, it’s not uncommon to find senior executives who dismiss implementation as ‘work that marketing staff does.’ Hiring the seasoned mid-level exec might get the job done, but there’s almost certainly going to be gaps where he/she will lack the experience or skills. Going with a part-time senior exec and full-time mid-level marketer would provide both the experience and implementation skills with the best odds for success.

Now the part-time senior executive model might only be a short-lived solution, as success could require more management time, more executive team integration, and additional implementers, but this is also the beauty of that approach. Success has pushed off the full salary load of the full-time exec until there has been some success allowing for a cost-effective and cost-justified conversion to full-time.

The problems of this model are not insignificant and will come from both the executive and the hiring company. The executive will naturally want to be paid contractor rates to guarantee the perceived value for his/her services and will likely require equity even in a part-time role. The hiring company will likely require board approval for all VP level candidates, possibly dragging out a 3k or 4k/month hire into the same hiring process for a $15k/month salary load. If the benefits outweigh the risks or complications, both parties will come to a mutually agreeable solution.

From a progress-minded view of things, I have no problem seeing that it could work, where I, as one of these executives, could find a way to make it work. On the other hand, I would like feedback from others on ‘Should it be done?’ I look forward to your opinion.

Do You Suffer from Induced Success-a-phobia

2010-08-06T22:52:00.002-07:00

Silicon valley is a great place to meet entrepreneurs who, at first glance, have good or even great ideas with serious potential. In many cases, however, I've seen entrepreneurs afflicted with something I call induced success-a-phobia (my term) - or induced fear of success.

It’s easy to get stuck and distracted by the wrong things. After all, there’s no shortage of service providers trying to sell startups their services, sometimes waving the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) card or sometimes dangling promises of funding or customers. Some of these consultants are really good, sensing an insecurity or chink in the entrepreneur’s armor, and finding a way to extract money from the entrepreneur for non-core issues. It might be legal docs, business plans services, detailed financial projections, patents, revenue models and forecasts, slick marketing plans, etc. While those administrative tasks should not be ignored, entrepreneurs need to really ask themselves if what the service provider is selling will help the business succeed. Without answering that question, it’s easy to get so buried in the administrative distractions that they never execute on their vision.

A friend pointed me at a young, 23 year old CEO, whose first two companies were not ground breaking or even high-tech, but this CEO had a vision and repeatedly executed, simply following through on what needed to get done. He created a business where there was none, recognizing the needs he could fill, then taking the steps to fill them. He did not appear to lose much time on raising money, either, mostly focusing on customers and sales. Both of the first two businesses did not sound like they were VC backable, but as an entrepreneur with a vision, he plowed ahead and executed anyway, seemingly oblivious that he was pursing tough businesses with few technical advantages on his side.

This CEO epitomizes the gumption that I often see missing here in the valley, regardless of age and experience. He saw a need and filled it, without an if, and, or but. He just went for it. He had an idea, figured out what needed to be done, then put the plan in motion. In his case, even flying to China to setup manufacturing, building a sales team, then aggressively building channel at Mac World. He did all that at 19. Of course, that’s a rare case, but compare that to what I often see entrepreneurs doing here in the valley. If they don’t get stuck in analysis paralysis by simply going to endless meetups and startup seminars, they come down with induced success-a-phobia.

While my advice may sound flippant, there’s a key concept where many would-be entrepreneurs should start - “Nothing great was ever built by worrying about why it can’t be done”. I sometimes use a sports analogy to lay it out in simple terms, and my apologies to the original idea owner: “You can never take a swing if you don’t step up to bat, and you can never hit a home run if you never swing the bat.” Know the key elements that matter in your business, and take the steps necessary to get where you want to go.

Are you an expert? or Where do I put in my 10,000 hours?

2010-07-26T21:24:00.001-07:00

I few months back I spoke with a young marketing intern, and I asked him how he was preparing to enter the job market and land a marketing job. He responded “I’m reading alot”, and then proceeded to name some online magazines he was reading on a weekly basis. He then expanded on how he attended two webinars the previous week on viral marketing. Fast forward to this past week, when I just finished reading Malcom Gladwell’s “Outliers”, which has a section on expertise and gurus.

Gladwell speaks about the the sheer number of hours of practice the experts put in, citing the 10,000 mark as some commonly accepted level. Somehow, by sheer force of will and desire, the examples in the book put in 10,000+ hours to become recognized experts - the truly exceptional. Gladwell places Bill Gate, Bill Joy, and even Wozniak and Jobs in that group. Now 10,000 hours is alot, that’s about 5 years of practice 8 hours a day or 10 years at 4 hours a day. It’s possible, and somewhat realistic, then, that software developers and coders that I’ve worked with could have reached their 10,000 hours around 7 years of full time work, if they only wasted 1-2 hours a day in meetings, code reviews, QA, etc. Fortunately, most web developers work in only one to three languages, and the coding principles are highly leverage-able between languages.

So I asked this fellow who would he would hire - someone who read alot, or someone who was actively trying to test the things that he learned in his reading. He said that the person who practiced what he learned would be a more valuable hire. His words “you take the guy who probably screwed up elsewhere, so he won’t screw up on your dime.”

So how has my simple questioning impacted my young friend? The next time we met, he had joined a group that was creating and implementing a marketing launch plan for a non-profit. They were meeting every week and slowly moving the project forward. When I pressed for details, he added “this is nothing like the webinars - the team has so many conflicting priorities and resource constraints that nothing can be done in a step-by-step fashion”. I asked if he learned anything. He said he did, and that next time he could avoid the mistakes his team was making now.

While it’s only a start, my young marketing friend has started his journey toward the 10,000 hours of practice he needs to become the expert he wants to be. More importantly, he’s started to learn that experience is more than reading and watching webinars, and that getting his hands dirty gave him a new and marketable perspective.