Growth Times

Thanks to a client request and a full redesign under way for the Growthroute’s website and blogs, I have done a fair amount of work and thinking lately on what constitutes a good website from a business standpoint. I thought I’d share some of the results here, in the form of 10 questions, and invite your comments and inputs. I will integrate the best contributions into a subsequent, improved version.

10 questions to evaluate your website’s business performance:

1. Does it tell visitors what the company does in 5 seconds or less?
2. Does it cater specifically to the top groups you target, and is it organized around those audiences? Does it answer the main questions a typical group member would have?
3. Does it tell visitors what the company does not do in 5s or less? Is it differentiated from your competition?         
4. Does it give a good first impression? (ask this question to a woman – even if you have no women in your audience! They have a better sense of esthetics than most men)
5. Are there clear Calls to Action on each page e.g. Phone number, feedback form, newsletter or social media sign-up, “click here to read the next page”?
6. Does it include easy ways to provide feedback and interact with a user community? Do you give visitors a reason to return or a way to maintain frequent contacts?
7. Does it include interactive content to support the message and help “make it stick”, e.g. relevant widget, quizz?
8. Is there a way to access any page from the homepage (and most other pages except Purchase pages) in 2 clicks or less?
9. Is the site URL promoted in every single outbound communication from the company?
10. Does it contain the keywords your audience is likely to use when searching for such solutions on Google? Does it show in top 10 Google results for relevant keywords?

Often a qualitative review based on such common-sense questions will add more value than the detailed analysis of traffic and engagement metrics I see many companies focus on – especially in the early design stages.

Market online lead generation, online presence, seo, social media, usability, web design, web metrics, web presence, website design, website roi

ReadWriteStart, the entrepreneur’s channel of ReadWriteWeb, nicely published an article I wrote for them called 10 Principles For Not Killing Your Startup.

With the new wave of entrepreneurs brought about by the financial crisis, I suspect the mortality rate of startups is at an all-time high. I didn’t find robust data to back my observation yet, but I did come across a page that points out that, before the financial crisis:

• the chances were six in a million that an idea for a high-tech business eventually would become a successful company that goes public;
• a venture capitalist financed only six out of every 1,000 business plans received each year;
• and bankruptcies occured for 60% of the high-tech startup companies that succeeded in getting venture capital.

Wow. Persistence is paramount.

As you know if you have visited my “corporate” blog, my mission in life is to change that. Start-ups shouldn’t die. They should live, prosper, and grow into healthy businesses that make people happy.

So I tried to identify the most frequent root causes of death, and for each, I created a principle. You will find the result here: http://www.readwriteweb.com/start/2010/03/10-principles-not-killing-startup.php#comment-195260

Please help make the list stronger by commenting and offering additional principles.

Develop, Fund, Lead, Market commercialization, Entrepreneur, entrepreneurship, managing a startup, new business, product management, Start Up, start up mortality, start-ups, starting a business, tech ventures, venture

Tired of the Social Media Hype? Me Too.

A connection of mine just directed me, by good ol’ email, to a new book on social media. My friend knows I am thinking about the topic these days. This yet-to-be-released book puts marketing and social media in opposition, asserting that businesses must stop marketing and start engaging. The author positions himself as the “world’s authority on the topic”.

Yawn.

Here we have it, ladies and gentlemen, yet another guru surfing on the social media hype wave, with thoughts as deep as a Celine Dion’s song. Unsurprisingly, his website also is a bunch of platitudes alongside eloquent quotes from other gurus. You know, that type of quotes that has the word “period” fully spelled out, as in “he’s the interplanetary guru on social media, period.” – and that type of gurus that has published a get-rich-quick book.

Social media is here to stay, no question. I use it every day, and it does occasionally help shape my impression on brands. But let’s curb the enthusiasm and keep our feet on the ground, as its impact is blown largely out of proportion:

#1  – Remember the 2000 bubble. The laws of economics didn’t apply anymore, if you listened to gurus. And now social media is going to revolutionize business and marketing. Sure, social media has a transformational impact, but gurus overstate it because it feeds their purpose: profits – for themselves, not their clients. And by the way, the economic fundamentals haven’t changed. Social media companies need to turn a profit sooner or later to stay in business. So far, none yet does. Sure, Facebook reached cash-flow positivity … What that really means is that they cover all costs except for operational expenditures and one-time costs. Like personnel and new acquisitions, for example. You know, minor ones…

#2 – Social media affects marketing, but its effect on business is not as wide-ranging, radical and fast as gurus predict. While it is great to connect with friends, the influence of social media on purchase decisions is quite limited: according to a 2009 study (referred in http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=106445 – It also compares social media to TiVo – I recommend the read) , less than 5% of social media users regularly turn to these social networks for “guidance on purchase decisions”, and only 16% of social media users say they are more likely to buy from companies that advertise on social sites (some even say they are less likely!). How many purchases did you make last year because of ads or product recommendations on social networks?

#3 – Good luck establishing a new commercial brand through social media. I can’t think of any that did, beside a Facebook game like Farmville that is, built by social media for social media and part of the bubble. Social media helps with conversion, much less with awareness. Social media does not suppress marketing channels, it adds new ones to the mix. To build awareness, there will always be room for one-way communication channels like TV, radio (and podcasts), and billboards, as well as for face-to-face channels like events, presentations. Often, people want to learn stuff without having to “engage”. People need to really care to engage, and that’s why they want to engage with friends, not with the makers of the hundreds of products they consume. Sure, some brand with cult-like status such as Apple can communicate effectively through social media, but it’s as a one-way channel, not much better than TV and other traditional media which Apple still primarily uses to reach the masses.

#4 –Embracing social media too fast may lead businesses to neglect traditional channels, counterproductively. Fancypants marketing heads love to do social media, because it’s new, more fun and attention-grabbing. You would be surprised by how often they’ll spend loads of cash on something just because it’s “cool” and “we have to do this”, although any levelheaded employee could tell them this is not going to generate a cent for the company. Let me say it again to those Silicon Valley marketers: you live in a bubble. The time people spend watching TV, reading papers, and surfing classic web portals dwarfs that spent on social networks – if those even were comparable metrics. 350 millions of active users on Facebook is great, but there are billions of phone users and yet to make money phone companies still have to charge them for usage.

#5 – Social media is currently subsidized. Expect normalization and the end of social media subsidization. The main reason the growth in social media users is impressive is that almost all social media companies have focused entirely on growing social media users. At the expense of making money. Now, imagine that TV channels tomorrow could spend tons of money on great programs while getting ads out of the way. It wouldn’t be interactive but surely it would be way more attractive than it is today to most of us, the TiVo-less majority (note: you have to pay a subscription to get TiVo, which makes up for the lack of ad revenues). I suspect that ultimately social media apps are going to have to be commercially more aggressive, and guess what will happen then? The user experience will progressively deteriorate like it did on TV. And hype will be gone. Social media is subsidized, that’s why it seems attractive. Note #2: subsidizing to gain market share is a traditional marketing technique. Those still work.

What is a Business to Do, Then?

#1 – Don’t embrace the hype. When planning your marketing program, start with your target audience and think how they use each channel. The social media rush will open up opportunities for companies that haven’t been so fast at embracing the hype. Of the marketing programs I designed with clients in the past two years, none included a major social media component – that is, more than 5% of spend (half our programs included some sort of small and targeted social media component). The reason for it was quite simply because none of our target segments, mostly B2B decision-makers, made much use of social media or relied on it to make decisions. Some didn’t use computers much beyond email and basic websurfing, others used social media but relied much more heavily on other channels when it came to keeping abreast in their field and making purchase decisions.

#2 – Know what social media is good for, and what it isn’t. Marketing fundamentals haven’t changed, it is still to grow awareness, generate leads, convert them and build repeat business; and when it comes to doing that, lots of potential actions still beat social media hands-down. Social media is useful to build a dialog with users in certain segments. It can work well in conjunction with other channels to seed it. It also has increased the reputational risk as it created a new platform for unhappy consumers, so it is important for businesses to monitor it. All those usages are far from covering the whole marketing spectrum.

#3 – Remember the cost and the risk of social media. The medium might be free, but time isn’t. It takes a lot of time to participate in social media, and lots of that time can often be put to much better uses. Then, the chances of a viral success with social media are also slim, and the risk of backlash is higher than most channels. Run a traditional cost-benefit analysis and give it a test-run before you commit hard currency to it.

#4 – Finally, do kill the messengers (just not physically). Those self-proclaimed gurus by definition tend to be very good at riding waves, but very poor at offering any substance, let alone good advice beyond plagiarized clichés. Somehow, being smart and calling oneself a guru just seems incompatible. A recommended read on this is Social Media Experts Don’t Exist, by Toronto-based Mark Evans. Sure, if you’re in it for the fun only, as some are, then gurus can be more fun than people actually interested in your business’s success. But do your part to clear up the air and help social media reach the end of its hype cycle: refuse to drink the Kool Aid, don’t attend their events or buy their books, and never, never expect actual results from one-inch-thick gurus.

By no means am I collectively discarding social networks. They are game-changing in many ways, and can be very valuable, if used intelligently. But common sense still applies and always will. Period.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Analyst: Email will lose ground to social networks (digital.venturebeat.com)
• Why (Consumer) Social Media is a crappy business (broadstuff.com)
• Social Media Infecting Every Aspect of Business (ducttapemarketing.com)
• Rubbermaid Hones Social Media to Engage Consumers (mpdailyfix.com)
• Social Media Marketing is Hard Work (directmarketingobservations.com)
• Engagement – the new ROI? (proactivereport.com)
• We Still Get Things Done Through Search (conversationagent.com)
• Holistic Common Sense and Social Networking (brandimpact.wordpress.com)
• Social Media Week – a hot air breakfast (speedcommunications.com)

Market awareness, branding, Business, buzz, Communication, engagement, Facebook, hype, hype cycle, Marketing, marketing mix, Mass media, new marketing, social media, social networking, social networks

Last month I gave a presentation at the Research Innovation Center in Mississauga, looking at the topics I discussed in my last post, and presenting some implementation of a CRM system, which I did for a client.

The video of this presentation is now available at http://www.youtube.com/user/RICCentre and the slides are here: http://www.riccentre.com/images/Greg_Boutin.pdf 

Canadian entrepreneurs, Market, Scale Angel investor, Customer relationship management, Mississauga, sales process

If you still read magazines… you might have seen GotoMeeting’s “Do the Math” ad, comparing the cost of their service to that of a business trip. Brilliant.

Companies too have noticed and, in virtually every sector, they are leveraging ubiquitous electronic connectivity to chomp the cost of sales and improve lead generation and conversion rates.

Always be (electronically?) closing

A good way to do that is to map the sales process, slice it into different pieces, and hand each over to specialized sales “agents” – be it a piece of software, an inside sales person or a road warrior. With new online capabilities, it is now possible to keep it all synchronized without losing information between each agent. Additionally, ideal sales paths are created for different types of prospects to maximize the ratio of “sales outcome” over “cost of sales”. The sales outcome is roughly based on the “probability of success” times “sale payout”, over the anticipated life cycle of each prospect.

Over time, by tracking wins and losses electronically, companies develop a nice database that can be mined to create predictive models and used to enhance the sales process.

Of course, the business payoff is in improved efficiency, by getting the most expensive agents (road warriors – in general) to spend more time on what they do best – and having the rest completed both effectively and cost-effectively. At last, road warriors can “always be closing” rather than sourcing and nurturing leads.

For the company, that also means that less field sales reps are needed. Expensive road warriors – where they are still required – are becoming one small part of the process, more the exception than the rule. Most transactional sales can be completed over the web, and consultative sales are greatly facilitated through web support. According to a recent survey by Dr. James Oldroyd, a professor at the Kellogg School of Management, hiring of outside sales reps is almost flat, while hiring of inside sales reps is growing healthily at 7.5%. The recession plays a role in this, but I have no doubt the change we are undergoing is deeper, and will continue to amplify as the web gets smarter and our world gets smaller.

Develop your sales process as you would develop a product

Funneling prospects and clients is nothing new. But the web has taken it to a whole new level, making the entire process cheaper and more precise. And with the bar being constantly raised, a focus on the “whole sales process” is increasingly decisive: established companies must further invest in updating and refining theirs, and early-stage ventures in nailing it through deliberate design and rapid testing.

The sales process needs as much attention as your product – and sometimes more. The sewers of history are filled with dead companies that got their product right but their sales process wrong. Poorly managing the sales process is a sure recipe for disaster. Think of it this way: the sales process really is about creating a “product” around the product.

What we call the product, ultimately, is just a mechanism enticing customers to give us money in exchange for value. But there is generally much more to delivering this value than the product. Apple, for instance, offers quality products, but not just that: it provides excellent support, an intelligent approach to sales by staffing its stores with lots of relatively well-paid and relatively smart attendants, a brand that makes you “cool” by association, an integrated online store, a higher price point that reinforces the impression of quality – and overall, a controlled, consistent, reassuring purchase experience. A lot of the sales process is even built into the product itself, when you think of it (especially for the iPod).

Still, it’s not perfect. There is no follow-up on purchases (or is there?), or little that makes it possible for them to capture expression of interest and categorize them by probability of sales (or is there?), and failed attempts at capturing a more mainstream audience in computers – largely attributable to the narrow reach of their sales process in my opinion.

If engineering the right sales process is tough in B2C, it’s even harder in B2B, because of the cheer range of options available to a company there. Just think about the many different ways one can market a knowledge management solution, for example: pricing (subscription, one-time fee, freemium+consulting),  , delivery model (cloud, on-site, hybrid), market (legal, medical, etc…), audience, lead generation (wherefrom?), follow-up (when, how, what?) etc… Surely getting it right and keeping it right is going to take quite a bit of trial-and-errors. Like developing the product did.

So why have dedicated product development and management people, and not a sales process development and management function in your company? The only reason I see for that is that most tech ventures are started by product-oriented people. So the solution is simple: think about the sales process in terms of a product and have it managed likewise. Ultimately, you need sales process experts in your company, and functionally those are not much different from product experts. It’s just the subject of their attention that differs.

Illustration with some sales process innovations

At a small, fast-growing cleantech venture I worked with recently, we introduced changes and innovations to improve their sales process.  We developed a Lead Generation and Client Satisfaction Manager role to qualify and learn about prospects prior to handing them over to a sales rep, created an online CRM system with Lead Scoring, added automatic Google Mapping (when completed, all prospects will be visible on the map – reducing the cost of visiting a particular area) as well as a “Nurture Marketing” capability (grouping leads and customers into different clusters based on precise criteria, each going through a different sales path). They’re even creating a demo video that – together with an inside sales phone call – will replace sales rep visits to low-potential prospects.

(This is the complete version of a post published on the RIC Mississauga blog)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Lead generation metrics should emphasize opportunities not just leads (thecustomercollective.com)
• New Survey: The Impact of Sales 2.0 Tools (thecustomercollective.com)
• The information gap between marketing and sales – and how to fill it (thecustomercollective.com)
• SaaS and the Evolution of Inside Sales (thecustomercollective.com)

Develop, Market Customer relationship management, lead conversion, Lead generation, Marketing, Marketing and Advertising, sales funnel, sales lifecycle, sales process

Image via Wikipedia

To any current or would-be entrepreneur, I highly recommend the following video of a presentation this month by Aaron Patzer, CEO of Mint, which was recently sold to Intuit for $170 million.

At first I thought it was a bit long, at 22 minutes, and so I figured I’d only watch the first few minutes. 23 minutes later, I am writing this blog post. Aaron goes over the start-up creation and growth process in practical details, even presenting slides from his own original pitch.

One thing, I’m not a fan of the first advice he gives, about focusing entirely on the product and hiring only engineers when you start, which has some truth to it in a number of situations but can lead to complete trainwrecks in others. Someone on the team needs to tie your development to a market need and a winning revenue model – it may not have to be a business person, and a well-atuned engineer can do that as Aaron shows, but it’s got to be someone with a certain ability to think ”market”. Leaving that detail aside, his advice is a gem.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Aaron Patzer lays bare Mint’s numbers (vator.tv)
• Making a Mint (kevinsgreatadventure.blogspot.com)
• Startups 101: The Complete Mint Presentation (techcrunch.com)
• Mint CEO unveils global expansion plan (vator.tv)
• Intuit to buy Mint for $170 million (vator.tv)
• Intuit to swallow Mint for $170 million (news.cnet.com)

Develop, Fund, Market, Scale Aaron Patzer, entrepreneurship, Fundraising links, growth stages, Mint.com, Start Up

To Revenue has a new address! I have decided to rename To Revenue into Growth Times, to better convey this blog’s core concept: assisting growth companies in their journey towards explosive growth. Additionally, most of my clients have already achieved revenues, so To Revenue was a bit of misnomer.

A little more profoundly perhaps, in this time of recession, I also want it to express my belief that the ultimate antidote to all crisis is human creativity and  innovation, targeted towards solving real problems and driven by a sense of financial, social and environmental purpose.

And lastly, it’s a better-sounding and more attractive domain name. Let’s not underestimate the power of packaging and marketing!

Please update your RSS feed subscription to this one: http://feedproxy.google.com/growthtimes

Market Blog name change, Domain name, entrepreneurship, growth, growth company, growthroute ventures, tech venture, To Revenue

I have just added a reading list on Growthroute’s website, to help clients, prospects and would-be entrepreneurs quickly identify some key reference frameworks that drive our actions. If you exclude the all-time classic of Peter Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, which deserves its own section, this list is divided in 6 parts, inspired by the Develop/Market/Fund/Scale framework Growthroute uses to classify the type of actions and projects we work on with entrepreneurs:

• Broad guides on entrepreneurship: those books attempt to cover the whole entrepreneurial process, from generating ideas to building them to marketing them and financing them. Some of those books, such as Richard C. Dorf’s Technology Ventures: From Idea to Enterprise, are used at MBA and commerce programs, while others are established general references.
• Develop: books in this category primarily help readers figure out where to start, what market to target, what product to launch, and what go-to-market to pursue. This category includes thesis books such as Crossing the Chasm (my personal favorite), Blue Ocean Strategy, or the Innovator’s Solution, and other strategy pamphlets.
• Fund: this contains guides to raising money from VCs and Angels. There are generally less references in this category, I think primarily due to the more limited consumer appeal of the topic, and the general focus on learning by doing rather than by reading in that field. This said, I think the books listed here are excellent introductions to the topic.
• Market: it’s one thing to build a great product and another to get it spoken about. Or is it? In my opinion, an integrated promotional strategy using the product at its very engine and a select channel mix works best. Those books focus on that, i.e. making your product as “word-of-mouthable” as possible and effectively leveraging the right delivery mechanisms to amplify the buzz. If you read only one, then I recommend Chip Heath’s Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die. By all criteria, this is the bible of buzz.
• Scale: so you have a great product and some market traction? What next? These books help you structure the organization for exponential growth, keep the momentum going and reap the dividends. Blueprint to a Billion: 7 Essentials to Achieve Exponential Growth, by David G. Thomson, is probably the most straightforward and useful reference on this topic.
• Lead: this really is a sub-chapter of the “scaling” section, but the importance of good leadership cannot be underestimated once your organization starts to grow and founders have to rely on others to get stuff done. Those books make excellent points on management practices and are designed to make you think about your own approach and style. Chris Bradford was my professor at Stanford and his book Power Up: Transforming Organizations Through Shared Leadership, is the one that made me the most about leadership styles.

Lastly, I also listed a must-read for anyone planning to rely on business book theories to drive their companies: the Halo Effect, which argues that business book authors often confuse the causes and consequences of the business “best practices” they advocate. In our reading list, I have tried to avoid authors who do that, although even some of the books I listed fall for the halo effect at times. But one thing is certain, you won’t find Good to Great here!

Let us know what you think of those books and please do ping me if you feel like I missed any that should figure here.

Develop, Fund, Market, Scale business classics, business reading list, Entrepreneur, entrepreneurship books, Publications, start-up books, top business books, venture reading

I am glad to report that Canadian Business decided to reprint the main part of a post I wrote in May on this blog, pointing out the weakness of their argument against the Green Energy Act.

It’s not online so I can’t point to it, but you will find it on P8 of the August 17, 2009 issue (they pre-date their magazine), the first comment on the page, entitled “California Dreamin’” (unfortunately this title misleads the reader about the nature of the argument, but let’s not be too picky…)  The fact that they publish a pretty strong critique like this one speaks volume about the willingness of the magazine to show all sides of a story. Kudos to Canadian Business!

Canadian entrepreneurs, Market Canadian Business, cleantech, commercialization incentives, green energy act, innovation incentives, innovation policy, public support, R&D incentives, renewable energy

Related articles by Zemanta

• Crash Course in Venture Capital (dividendsandpreferences.blogspot.com)
• Show me the customers! (marsdd.com)
• Ask the VC Live – Raising Venture Capital and Beer (feld.com)
• VC Model Is Not Broken: Insights from Brad Feld of TechStars and Foundry Group (xconomy.com)
• Want VC? Then Be Ready To Go Big (markpeterdavis.com)
• How bad is it for startups seeking financing? (vator.tv)
• Venture fundraising: Going, going, gone? (venturebeat.com)

Fund, Market business case, customers, Revenue model, technology commercialization, venture capital