30 October 2007

Business Models Matter

Have you ever tried to swim against a strong current? Even if you are a good swimmer, almost no matter how hard you try, its very difficult to make any forward progress.

This is a similar situation for companies who have business models that work against them. [Business models are roughly defined as the value proposition that your company brings to the market.] No matter how hard you work, or how smart you are, or how great your solution, you don't seem to make any money.

Smart CEOs attack business models first when founding or taking over the leadership of a business. Once they have that down, everything else is much easier to handle. In fact history has shown us that even great CEOs will likely fail with a poor business model and in fact the converse, poor CEOs often are propped up and succeed with great business models. So rather than continuing to swim against the tide, consider altering your model.


So what's a good business model look like?


We have found that good business models have the three characteristics that match up with an immediate, a future and a long term time frame.

Great Profit Margins
Stickiness
Defensibility


Great profit margins - Business thrives on this. Seems simple. However, there are untold numbers of businesses that don't get this. The work hard, sell lots of whatever it is they are producing, and like the old proverb, "will make it up in volume." Actually that is what many of these businesses believe (hope?) - that once their volume is sufficient, they will become profitable.

Instead, smart founders and CEOs seek out ways to make their business profitable today. Clayton Christensen used the term "impatient for profits" in his book Seeing What's Next. It's important to ensure that your business today (or as soon as practical) earns profits and that those profits are not necessarily dependent upon reaching some volume threshold. It certainly makes it easier on your scarce capital to do it this way. Businesses that clearly differentiate themselves from the competition (have a unique offering) generally have an easier time making a profit. They tend to have selling prices that have no direct relationship to their cost - typically large spreads between the two. Instead their prices are based upon their value they deliver to the purchaser. Scarcity helps as well - if you are the only one delivering this solution to a target market - you can often name your price.

Severing the markup-over-cost relationship can accelerate any business model. There certainly are great examples of this in the market, often associated with luxury goods that create a perceived value in the mind of the buyer. But great margins are sometimes found in more innovative ways. I've experienced two technology companies that saw this light. Tangoe, an application software company based in Orange, CT found that their telecom expense management was so good it saved big companies millions of dollars. Rather than just charge some amount that amortized the steep development costs of their software, Tangoe has begun to charge based upon "sharing" that value with the customer. Another company based in Hickory, NC, Transportation Insights, had the insight (pun intended) to charge their customers based upon how much their freight logistics services save their customers, generating large percentage profits for this young company.

At one company that I lead, we found that offering our software as a service (back before Salesforce.com made this term vogue) was our key to juicing our margins. After listening hard to our customer base, we heard there was great value in not just handing them the CDs with the code, but in fact in running the application for them (in this case employee equity management) provided more value and hence higher profit margins. (This move also had an ancillary positive impact on the idea we'll discuss in the next post - stickiness.)

So just don't take the business model you've been handed for granted. Be sure it works for you! If not, no matter how good you are, its probably a critical enough factor to rethink whether this is really a business for you.


Good business model provide enticing profit margins - so enticing that your well-heeled competitors might view this territory as ripe for their expansion. While a good business model (and a great product) might generate some nice short term profits, how do you keep this good thing going?

We call this next stage Stickiness. Stickiness is that quality that keeps your customers loyal to your solution.

Stickiness has another dimension as well. The stickier your solution, the less effort you should have in deriving additional revenue from that same client. Sticky solutions are the "gift that keeps on giving." You've probably been told that is is much cheaper to continue to keep a customer than to try to find a new one. Stickiness trumpets this characteristic ... and more!

Often times smart companies can create solutions that are sold once but paid for on an on-going basis. Subscriptions, leases, maintenance, outsourcing, services, royalties and the like are all examples of long term payouts from a single sale. If you can morph your business model into one that has recurring revenue, rather than a one-time fee, do it! Salesforce.com, mentioned earlier, pioneered a concept called SaaS - Software as a Service. Rather than do what everyone else in the software business was doing - selling based upon a large up front perpetual license fee and relatively small annual maintenance fees (usually running 15-20% of the license fee), they decided for this and other good technological reasons to charge a use fee - based upon the number of users, charged annually. This model changed the dynamics of the software industry. Sell a customer today, collect 100% of this year's fees this year, and then be virtually guaranteed next year's fees next year too! Compare that to the typical company that received 100% of this year's fees today and only 20% of that fee next year. Salesforce.com's model almost guaranteed growth - just by selling one more incremental customer.

Other sticky models are created through a community model. By community, we mean that the company has done something more than just sell you today's solution. They have developed a brand that you become loyal to because they delivered what they promised and they provided the reinforcement for you to continue to identify with that solution. eBay created a great community model that actually became more attractive the more customers it captured - there were more reasons to attend an eBay auction each time a new customer joined.

Each of these characteristics provides an ongoing value proposition for each new customer - one that will continue to generate benefits for the company - and for the customer. Done right, these can be like the proverbial snowball - gaining (revenue) volume at an accelerating pace.

Sticky solutions enable CFOs to sleep at night. Sticky solutions generally have a more predictable and less lumpy revenue flow - characteristics that are valued on Wall Street.

So now you have a great profit margin and a reason for your customers to stick around; what else do you need?



With both profit margin and stickiness, you may be set for the short and middle term. But what about the long term, once competitors have enough time to regroup and mount an attack?

We used to call this a barrier to entry. Most Venture Capitalists used to quiz their founder CEOs on how they were going to maintain their position in the light of big competitors targeting them.

Like security, no protection is fool proof. What you need is to find as much protection as you can today and then run like hell to build yourself as sticky a solution as you can. The government gives you some protection if you have developed something novel by issuing patents and copyrights. Each gives you a bit of a legal monopoly (hence scarcity) on your particular invention. But intellectual property protection is usually not available for services or other non-proprietary businesses, and patents wear out and are costly to defend, copyrights are relatively weak protection, so you will need to take much of this matter into your own hands.

So ultimately your long term protection will be built on establishing yourself, through both bulk and brand. Bulk comes from just that - getting big quick. Companies like RIM who invented the Blackberry was a company just in this situation. They initially relied on patent protection which ultimately backfired (they had to pay almost $1 billion for allegedly violating someone else's patent). But even with that big settlement, they didn't have to fold their tent and go home once their IP barrier was breached. Instead they were large enough to withstand the financial impact, had created a very loyal user base, and continued to innovate off of their original design.

There are always obstacles to customers changing brands - sometimes they are simply psychic impediments such as "I don't know how that new product will work - but I do know that the one I use now works fine" - or sometimes there are real switching costs - like having to convert one's data to a new format. But smart companies rely much more on the positive side of attractiveness to retain their loyal customers. They provide a great continuing customer experience - one that keeps the customer from even thinking about changing in the first place.

Together, great profit margins, stickiness and a good defensive strategy can create long term value for the owners of a valuable solution.

16 October 2007

Presentation to Long Island Software CEO Forum

Last week I presented "Lessons Learned" to a group of software company CEOs on Long Island. Below, using a new tool that I found called "SlideShare," I've embedded the presentation. Let me know any thoughts about it and/or slideshare by leaving a comment.

18 September 2007

Are you really qualified to be the CEO?

There is no degree that you can get to become qualified to become a Chief Executive Officer. Brain surgeons go to medical school and then spend years as a resident, apprenticing for the job. And, after passing the appropriate exams to gain certification, they regularly attend informative and educational sessions to stay current with the latest developments in their fields. Securities lawyers attend law school and then take an intense exam proving their merit before being awarded with their certification. They too have annual continuing education courses to ensure they stay abreast of the latest developments in the law. CPAs undergo a similar rigorous indoctrination and also are required to stay current on changes in laws and regulations.

But what about CEOs? The top office, perhaps the most critical position within entities who themselves control more wealth than some nations, need pass through no such process. There is no continuing requirement for CEOs to stay current on what is going on in business, in their industries, or on how to become better CEOs. Sure, there is business school. But, to our knowledge, there is not even one course given at Harvard Business School that pertains to how to do the job of CEO.

So how do you qualify to become a CEO? Are you just anointed? Is it your family connections? Or did you do it yourself?

Certainly there are many CEOs who become just that by founding the companies that they run. Often, as these companies grow, the founders find that the job has outgrown them. Whether this occurs voluntarily or is forced upon them by their investors, it becomes clear to many of these founders that perhaps they are not the right people for the job.

There are more family run companies than public companies in the United States. So your chances of becoming CEO as a birth right are much higher than climbing the corporate ladder. But here too the CEO job can become a perilous perch.

Other CEOs come from climbing the corporate ladder. They are either good at their prior jobs, show promise in leadership and decision making, or perhaps are just good at the game of office politics. They get appointed by their boards into the job.

But are any of these CEOs really qualified for the job?

What we have found from the years that we have spent working with some of the best (and in some cases some of the not so good) CEOs, is that how they came about capturing the job had little to do with their capabilities. There are some good CEOs who were simply the next generation of their families. There are some that founded companies. And there are some that climbed the corporate ladder. The characteristics of the good ones all seemed to coalesce around a similar set of habits and characteristics.

Our hope is that if you aspire to the role of CEO or already are one today, you probably should consider how you can get good (or better) in that role. The difference between a mediocre CEO and a great one can be the difference between literally tens or hundreds of millions, or even billons of dollars of stakeholder wealth. While we don’t believe that CEOs alone are what causes companies to succeed or fail. It is clear that without a good CEO, a company is clearly hindered in its ability to succeed.

02 September 2007

Straightening out Employee Reviews

I've spent several hours complaining about Business Week's coverage of a number of issues. I thought it only fair to try to be balanced in my comments. This week's issue (September 10, 2007) includes an article in the UpFront section that talks about how to improve employee reviews. Courage it says is necessary to overcome reluctance to conduct such a fundamental business interaction. That kind of courage is obviously sorely lacking in our culture today. That's probably why 90% of managers thing they are among the top 10%. Kudos to Business Week this time and for their balanced inclusion of Dr. Kerry Sulkowicz's viewpoint. If our CEOs don't pay closer attention to this concept surely many of us will be leading what amounts to be a ticking time bomb of a company with a quite out of touch employee base.

25 August 2007

The Five Most Important Founder Issues

Just ran into this posting that hits several critical founder issues right on the head. Take a look at Roger Anderson's Modern Magellan post entitled: Founder Issues - New wine in an old bottle Part 4. Roger lists the 5 most important founder issues for a new company:

1. Control
2. Communication
3. Personal value
4. Short-sightedness
5. Salary

"It could be argued that they all exist in most founders, regardless of the level of experience. A founder with prior experience may feel that they know more about business than anyone around them. Such over confidence can lead to errors that amateurs do not make."

His posting is a good read.

13 August 2007

90% of Managers think they are among the Top 10% of Performers

Business Week, August 20 & 27 edition, reports on p. 43 that among other things associated with how people view their "work" environments, this startling statistic. The percentage gets even higher - 96% - when they segregate out only companies with 50 or fewer employees. Like Lake Wobegon, where all the students are above average, the idea that so many managers think they are doing so well is likely a surprise to their supervisors, or is it?

Certainly, it is a statement of the ineffectiveness of our employee review systems for this many employees to be this wrong. Companies must improve the process of evaluating employees and communicate this clearly to their people or risk a plethora of wrongful termination suits, seldom improving employees and mediocre company performance. Perhaps telling employees the "bad" news is a difficult task. However, the consequences of not doing so will likely be enormous.

11 July 2007

Lessons learned

During the past year I have reviewed several dozen business propositions, talked with founders, entrepreneurs, angel investors, venture capitalists, and plain old rank and file business people. I've been in search of the the holy grail of business opportunities - and have yet to find it (but that is the definition of the holy grail isn't it?)

Along the way, I learned and confirmed some business truths that I thought were worth sharing.

Money

  • There is lots of it available in the market. Even VCs have more capital than they can manage themselves.
  • Valuations are always astronomical for other companies (i.e., not yours).
  • Angel capital usually comes from people who have too much time on their hands and put their noses in places in which they have no expertise.
  • Just because you have money to invest does not make you smart – in fact there may be an inverse correlation. (Thanks to Harry Gruner at JMI for that truism).
  • Money alone can’t help a bad venture or a good venture with a bad management team.
  • You probably can’t succeed without it.
  • If you continually have too little of it, you either are spending too much time looking for it, your valuation is stupid, your management team is inept, your venture is not worthy, or more likely all of the above.
Management Talent

  • There is not enough to go around.
  • In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
  • A combination of business savvy and engineering talent is virtually non existent.
  • Most techies would disagree.
  • Just because you are a founder, does not mean you deserve to run an organization (unless you are the only employee).
  • Good management techniques transcend most industries.
  • If you think your industry (or business) is different, you are wrong.
  • Founders who hold the title of CEO only because they started the company are usually in the wrong job.
  • Founders who have this epiphany, can actually become good CEOs.
  • Friends and family teams are usually all that is necessary to burn down a very promising venture.
  • Most bad management teams don’t agree with any of this.

Technology


  • You can’t risk your success on the back of one or a small team of technical people who don’t believe in technology transfer as a priority.
  • As a CEO if you don’t understand it, over time you still won’t get it.
  • It is highly overrated.
  • Companies that start with great technology and succeed have figured that out.
  • In order to succeed, your technology actually has to solve some problem.
  • Creating the problem just so your technology has something useful to do just won't cut it.

Sales

  • Great sustainable sales only exist in an environment where there are processes and metrics.
  • If you claim to have metrics, but don’t track them or can’t recite them, you are fooling yourself.
  • If you think your business is different and you don't need metrics, you are wrong.
  • Great sales talent is not personality based – it is process based.
  • If you are not concentrating on how to create reproducible sales – you won’t have any.
  • You can always spot a sales driven organization - their employees wear company-logoed clothing.

Founders

  • Believe their ventures are worth at least an order of magnitude more than people with money do.
  • Think that the money guys don’t get it.
  • Expect that splitting the pie is equivalent to shaving ice.
  • Need adult supervision.
  • Every organization has at least one.
  • If you care about how people feel about you, it’s probably best not to be his/her immediate successor.
  • There is much too much more to include (see the rest of my blog postings for more).

Details

  • Some people thrive in the details.
  • This isn’t always bad.
  • There is a place for them in every organization.
  • I’m not one of these people.

Quality of Life

  • In today’s world this often takes center stage.
  • Working with great people, having a flexible work environment, and controlling your own destiny often count more than fewer hours in the office.
  • Working for a, with a, or just be- cause can shift this balance.

Risk

  • There is a significant variance about the propensity of individuals to accept risk, which varies over time, with the weight of their pocket books, and the size of their mortgage.
  • Potential participants in any venture have different short term vs long term needs which also varies over time.
  • Everyone says they are looking for long term wealth generation.
  • Most can’t afford to really do that.

People


  • No good person wants to work with assholes.
  • Most assholes would love to work with you!
  • You are only as good as the company you keep.
  • That includes clients and investors.
  • Even a bad technology can succeed with good people.
  • The converse is never true.

27 June 2007

The Founders' Pie

A reader of this blog referred me to this article about a Founders' Pie Calculator as a way to add some science to splitting up the founding pie. While this method is also still an estimate, it does require that the founders put some tangible thought behind relative values brought to the organization and it does bode well for future sound decision making.

25 June 2007

Make Yourself Dispensible

Where would your company be without you? Better off?

Most Founders don't even consider where their companies would be without them. In fact, founder organizations often require intimate and frequent communications with the founder. This is the natural result of a driven founder with intimate knowledge of the marketplace and the solution being produced . Founders tend to take few vacations that allow them to become untethered from the organizations they created. Founders make many (most) of the critical decisions for their companies. Founders hire people who execute on the founder's decisions - usually not decision makers themselves.

But have you ever thought about whether this is bad or good for your company? While it may feel good to the founder - no decision gets made by some bumble head who doesn't know as much as the founder - and it may make the early stages of a company function efficiently - no bureaucracy, in the long run this poses an undue constraint on the organization as it grows beyond double digits of employees.

Founder decision making is just like the days of time sharing computers. For those of you who are not old enough to remember, time sharing computers gave multiple people access to a single computing resource (usually connected via a slow dial up line and acoustic coupled modem) by slicing the time the processor was dedicated to each individual task. Usually this was done fast enough to make the user believe she had unfettered access to the computing resource. However, when enough people tried to access the computer all at the same time, the response times suffered. (We actually are spoiled now - we accepted these delays as normal - such lack of responsiveness even under the best of conditions would not be acceptable today.)

Similarly, as the load increases on the founder with more and more employees clamouring for access to the founder, decisions get slower and slower - sooner or later bringing the organization to its knees.

It is the unique founder who "gets this" (before her board steps in) and begins to decentralize decision making. Often founders feel uncomfortable taking this step - allowing the bumble heads to make the decisions. They are too used to being the "go to" person for all major issues that anything short of that leaves them numb. But as soon as a founder realizes that she can hire smart people and permit them to make some of their own decisions, the organization gains a whole other level of potential and cycle times can begin to reduce.

So next time you revel in the idea of your indispensability - think again! Maybe you need a vacation?

08 June 2007

Vote with Your Feet

Ever been in an organization where after a change event occurs there is a constant back channel discussion about how the sky is falling? Ever participated in one of those conversations? Come on now, be honest!

There really is only a binary decision that needs to be made when experiencing a change event: either embrace the change or vote with your feet - that is get out if you don't like it.

Change is often accompanied by the unknown. It's human nature to expect the worst under conditions of change. So in the organizations I've led, I always suggest the following approach.

1) Give change a chance. Often times people react immediately to change. For all they know the change might be good or might enhance their career opportunities. So unless change hits you directly between the eyes (like in the case of being laid off due to a change), wait with a positive (or at least neutral) attitude to determine whether or not the change that is occuring is something you can live with.

2) Once you determine that you don't like the change (and you've at least given it a chance) vote with your feet. Get out. Or at least start the process for finding a new opportunity.

All too often employees choose a third path which is to stay and complain. When you stay and complain, you've got no one to fault but yourself. Complaints feed upon themselves. They foster an environment of resentment. And they don't lead to any positive results - either for the individual or the organization.

So either embrace the change ..... or vote with your feet!