SmoothSpan Blog

For Executives, Entrepreneurs, and other Digerati who need to know about SaaS and Web 2.0.

Archive for the ‘strategy’ Category

You Have to Have an Overseas Dev Team to Scale? Baloney!

Posted by Bob Warfield on September 7, 2013

Baloney1ba·lo·ney 2 also bo·lo·ney (b -l n ) Slang. n. Nonsense. interj. Used to express disagreement or exasperation.

Recently, I was doing something on LinkedIn, and it asked me to endorse various people’s skills like it often does.  One face in particular popped out at me:  Anders Hejlsberg.  I’ve known Anders for many years, so I immediately had to check what it was about.  In this case they wanted me to endorse that Anders knows something about Software Engineering.  Unfortunately, it was a simple Endorse/Don’t Endorse interaction, because I would like to have said that Anders knows about as much about Software Engineering as the Pope knows about Catholicism.  You see, Anders is a Technical Fellow at Microsoft.  But beyond that, he is one of the most brilliant Software Engineers I’ve ever known.  I met him when I was VP of Engineering at Borland and he was the guy that built Delphi, or Turbo Pascal as it was known when I first came to Borland.  He went on to do C# and a whole lot more for Microsoft after leaving Borland in 1996.  Not only is he a brilliant Software Engineer, he is also one heck of a nice guy.

By now you’re wondering, “What does Anders Hejlsberg have to do with Overseas Development Teams anyway?”

Let’s start with why I even bring up the overseas subject.  To put it simply, I needed to pen a rebuttal to Jason Lempkin’s Wall Street Journal article which says essentially that all SaaS companies are probably going to have to have an overseas dev team because its just too hard to hire talented Software Engineers.  In fairness to Jason, he did say “probably”, but he said it so softly it’s clear he doesn’t mean it.  I disagree violently with the conclusion, to put it mildly.

The thing is, most software companies go about developing software all wrong.  They get pushed in all sorts of directions when people who don’t know much of anything about Software Engineering (i.e. non-technical CEO’s, VC’s, and the like) insist things be done a certain way because someone else they’re familiar with did it that way and succeeded.  There may be limited correlation, but there is absolutely no causality.  It’s not like we technical types have a monopoly on that stuff, I’m sure there’s plenty of Technical CEO’s telling their sales and marketing people similarly poorly informed things.  But the thing is, it happens a LOT more often to the technical types.  Plus, we techies often don’t have the backbone and interpersonal skills to stand up very well when a CEO or Board Member gets up a good head of steam about some issue.  Sometimes having technical leads who can’t stand up and disagree is intentional.  I would say that in over half the VP of Engineering jobs I’ve ever interviewed for they were looking for someone who would demurely take stone tablets from some other source–product management, sales, the CEO, or some “visionary”–and just get it done on time and one budget.  And by the way, do it quietly and without disturbing the other functions.  Needless to say, I was “over qualified” for those positions.

A lot of companies do a lot of things wrong, but Software Development is different.  It takes longer to build software.  It’s harder to change direction at the last minute.  And by the way, did you notice?  They’re called “Software” companies.  They’re not called “Sales” companies, “Marketing” companies, or “CEO’s best notion of the moment” companies.  It’s important that you actually be competent at building software in order to have a real “Software” company.

I was recently reading over a list of startup advice (you know how those numbered lists grab the eyeballs) a VC had put forward on Facebook as being excellent.  I got as far as #8:

8) Should you have a technical co-founder if you are not technical? No. If  you don’t already have a technical cofounder you can always outsource  technology and not give up equity.

I quit reading in disgust so I could go on to see just exactly what sort of software this guy builds.  Mostly, he seems to have parlayed a pretty basic web site into a sale to TheStreet.com.  From there, he’s mostly in the business of telling everyone else how to succeed.  There are so many of these Dale Carnegie types out there these days.  He does not appear to be a Software Engineer, though perhaps he has played one on a TV show somewhere.  This stuff makes me nuts.  Companies that think software is easy to build.  A venture ecosystem that needs to invest in lightweight products because the founders have to pay to get it built on their nickel.  CEO’s that couldn’t care less about building something that can actually change the world, they just want to throw something out there as cheaply as possible so they can spend more on this month’s lead generation.  Bubble riding, in other words.

Whatever happened to the days when people actually had to build something of note?  Something that might change the world, even a little bit, and not yet another eyeball aggregator?

Let’s put that rant aside and get back to the question of whether you will have to have an overseas dev team to scale.  I will put my stake in the ground thus:

You have a choice for your software company:  you can either choose to be excellent at building outstanding software or you can choose to build adequate software cheaply.  The latter path will ultimately be even more expensive than the former, but you’ll be left holding junk instead of a real product.

I’ll warn you I’m being very polite when I talk about software being “adequate.”  Software is hard.  It is the most complex stuff we humans build, at least until we start building organisms from scratch by tinkering with DNA.  Many things that people say are harder are basically software, things like CPU chips.  There’s this little problem in the software world–we don’t know how to get lots of Software Engineers to be able to work effectively together.  There are entire disciplines such as Agile Programming that try to deal with this problem.  We’ve known about the problem almost from the beginning of software.  It was well articulated in the relatively ancient Brooks classic, “The Mythical Man Month.”  It turns out, we’re only good at getting 7 to 10 developers working smoothly together.  Any more than that and you’d better be able to break the software down into modules that are very independent.

If that’s the fundamental limit, how do you build great software?  Here’s a hint:  you can’t do it by hiring more people onto the team.   Instead, you must focus on building great software with fewer better Software Engineers.  You must focus on breaking down the software into modules that work and play well together, something that is also very hard to do and can’t be offshored.  That’s hard core architecture that takes brilliant Software Engineers communicating well with all the groups.  I have never seen a product module that couldn’t be built with about 10 engineers provided they’re the right 10 engineers, they’re well managed, and they’re operating in a culture that supports their needs.

Anders, back in the day, built the Pascal software he is famous for almost by himself.  He had a little help, but surely not a giant team half of which was located overseas.  I have done the same with every product built over my career.

When I took over the VP of Engineering job at Borland, it was the darling of the software world.  We had our share of problems, and one of them was profitability.  I was directed to make cuts.  It didn’t take me long.  I zapped all the consultants I could find and reduced the maximum team size to 10 developers or so.  Not one single product slipped schedule as a result of it.

So what’s the deal with this big overseas software push?

In exchange for making the acknowledged weakest link in software development (communication) much worse, we get to hire lots more people.  At one point, Oracle would trade 2 open reqs overseas for 1 open req here on our shores (Redwood Shores to be exact).  They discovered over time what a bad idea that was and ended the practice some time ago.

Companies the size Jason suggests must go overseas, $3 to 4M in ARR, are still way too small to need to go overseas.  They’re still finalizing fundamental architectural underpinnings.

I can already hear the refrain, “That’s nice, Bob.  But I can’t hire enough good Software Engineers, what else can I do but go overseas?”

If you can’t hire, and I don’t doubt there are companies that can’t, you need to look much closer to home to find the problem:

-  Perhaps your company doesn’t value developers and act like the “Software” in Software Company matters.

-  Perhaps the head of your engineering group is not an inspiring figure.  Will walk-on-water developers follow her or not?  Does she know lots of walk-on-water developers who she can bring on?  Why not?

-  Perhaps your product vision is just not interesting to walk on water developers.

I’ve seen all of these problems in varying degrees at various places I have visited.  I went to a video ad company one time that was proud of the density it could pack developers into.  They had long benches and developers were literally shoulder to shoulder.  There was a strong “no telecommuting” policy in place on top of that.  Sales and marketing had conventional cubes, by contrast.  I wonder if management in that company was aware that software development requires intense concentration and focus?  In the heyday of Borland, each developer had their own private office.  Close the door and you could get some serious work done.

By the way, amidst all the hand wringing about there not being enough visas (more evidence we can’t hire enough developers and we must go overseas!), there is more than one study out that says it’s all a sham.  We are graduating more STEM graduates than we can even put to work.  Most of them don’t stay in their field and wages have been stagnant since 2000.  Does that really sound like a market where you can’t hire developers?

I have interviewed at companies where the developers begged me to come on board and save them from Sales and Product Management.  They wanted to be released from dealing with one unrealistic deadline and shoot for the moon set of specs after the other, because they were failing at every single one.  They had no voice in setting any of it up.  I wonder if the VP of Sales turned CEO set his sales quotas up to be unachievable time after time?  If he was, Sales was no doubt failing there too.

Too many customer demands to keep up with?  Hogwash (time for a word other than “Baloney”).  Build an architecture that’s intended to keep up with customer demands.  Build one that is customizable at the outset.  Salesforce did.   I ran engineering for Callidus Software through their IPO.  That companies processes sales compensation for the biggest companies in the world.  If you don’t think sales constantly fiddles with comp plans and that every company does it differently, you don’t know that market.  Our differentiator was that we had the only product that could deal with those customer demands and still scale to the levels giant companies like Sprint and Allstate needed.

Let’s wrap this up.  We will probably agree to disagree, but I want to summarize.

Good software is not expensive to build nor is a good software team hard to hire for.  The reason is simple–you only need 10 really good people to do almost anything.  Once those 10 are working well, start thinking about how to modularize your software for the next 10 person team.  You can start to get real business-changing things done with a lot less than 10 too, that’s just the maximum.

If you have any doubts, try tearing apart the financials for Salesforce.com.  They have managed to build the world’s most successful SaaS company with relatively few developers.  Fewer than their peers according to the numbers: the percentage of expenses that go to R&D is small compared to many other SaaS companies.  The architecture of their product is rich and sophisticated.  That didn’t happen by accident, it happened because they understand what I’ve been trying to say here.  They hired for quality, not quantity.

Bad software, on the other hand, is very expensive.  It is expensive because you’re throwing a wall of bodies at a problem that cannot be solved by a wall of bodies.  They will build something that is ultimately unsatisfying and unmaintainable.  They will not produce good architecture or good user experience.  They will not produce sustainable competitive advantage in one of the few areas software companies can have such advantages.  They will fail and your customers will be unhappy.  Your competition will love it.

Posted in business, software development, strategy | 3 Comments »

The Trend to Part-Timers, Freelancing, and Consultants Over Full-Time Employees

Posted by Bob Warfield on August 8, 2013

FreelancerOffshoring, Outsourcing, the switch to freelancers instead of full-time employees, and all of the other ways big business wants to shed expenses at no apparent cost is a trend that’s well underway.

Shortcuts all have a price of one kind or another. Usually that price is hidden from the bean counters that wanted to do these things for short term profit bumps regardless of the impact on quality, visibility into what was being done on behalf of a company, actually creating value that belongs to a company and is reproducible, making sure that talent is loyal and believes in the company and its goals, and so on.

As for freelancing, when you force someone to stand on their own two feet, when they have to learn to fish for themselves, suddenly, they get a much clearer picture of their real value to the organization and of the organization’s value to them. Successful freelancers are some of the hardest people to recruit on the planet because they know the organization doesn’t bring them much value while they are creating a great deal of the real value.  That’s why you have to pay consultants more.

If you find yourself having to go it alone, it will start out very scary.  You’re going to have to stretch to learn to wear more hats.  You have to learn to market yourself, for example, and to network to find business.  Cast off your fears and welcome those challenges.  Quit trying to join a large organization or get Big VC to back your idea.  You can go it alone more than well enough to come out way ahead.  After all, business wouldn’t be doing this to you unless they didn’t value you all that much.  That tells you something about how they will treat you if they did decide to hire you.  OTOH, you are also undervaluing yourself.

Why make the same mistake as the business whose decision you so disagree with?  Recognize your inestimable value and get to work for yourself.  Enjoy being your own boss.  Embrace the change and use it to improve your life.

Posted in bootstrapping, business, strategy | Leave a Comment »

It’s In Google’s Best Interest to Kill Marketing Channels They Don’t Own

Posted by Bob Warfield on July 24, 2013

The folks at MailChimp recently did an article that analyzed open rates for emails and how they were affected by Google’s new Gmail tabbed user interface.  There’s not a huge amount of data yet, but there are 3 consecutive weeks of reduced open rates in the wake of the new tabbed interface.  Here’s the graph from the MailChimp article:

Gmail tab open rates

There’s no question that open rates are down in the wake of the tabbed UI for Gmail…

This is not particularly surprising.  Personally, I don’t find the tabbed interface useful at all–it just means I have to look in more places to finish reading through my inbox.  If I do run short of time, it is the promotions tab that suffers.  The MailChimp folks say that it is very hard to write email that doesn’t get stuffed into the promotions tab too.  What a pity Google didn’t put Google Reader on a tab instead of Promotions and Social.  It wouldn’t been a lot more useful, but that’s beating a dead horse.

Marketers are going to be disappointed by this development because email remains one of the most powerful weapons in there arsenal.  Unfortunately, here is a newsflash:

It’s in Google’s best interest to kill or damage any marketing channels they don’t own.

They don’t really help in any way with email marketing, so anything they can do to reduce its efficacy means you’re that much more likely to shift dollars to areas they do own.  They get nothing when your successful SEO leads to lots of results through good organic search results so they’re only to happy to limit the information you can get about how people found your site and thereby make your SEO that much less effective.  In fact, they’ve basically declared all out war on SEO’s.  They are the enemy because they reduce your need to spend ad dollars with Google.

Expect more of this as time goes on.  Big companies can’t resist using their clout to do this kind of Evil.  In the original PC days, the Evil was perpetrated by controlling shelf space.  If you owned all the shelf space, nobody would ever see the Little Guy’s innovative new products.  In today’s world, they want your eyeballs focused entirely on parts of the Internet that contain their ads.  As their growth and profitability slow down, they’re only going to play these kinds of games more often to try to prop things up.

Posted in business, Marketing, strategy | Leave a Comment »

Don’t Bury the Map With the Treasure: Thin Clients Trump Apps in Walled Gardens

Posted by Bob Warfield on July 10, 2013

FeedlyBugOne of the questions every SaaS company will have to be able to answer for their customers is, “What happens if you go under?”  It’s actually a fascinating question, and one you have a chance as a vendor to think about and turn to your advantage.  For example, one of my SaaS ventures was Helpstream.  We had the unpleasant experience of being shut down by our VC’s shortly after the 2008 crash, but we tried to do well by our customers.  As it turned out, our architecture made it very straightforward for us to offer those folks the chance to host their own Helpstream instance and keep going rather than have to stop cold turkey.  There are still customers live on the software as a result.  I won’t go into all the details of how this was accomplished, but suffice it to say our architecture made us very nimble about being able to create multi-tenant apartment complexes that could house anywhere from 1 to a couple of thousand tenants on standard Amazon EC2 + S3 infrastructure.  Thus it was trivial for us to set up a customer as their own tenant in their own apartment house and hand them the keys.  This is not something you could say about something like, say, Salesforce.com, or many other SaaS offerings.  Building on a commodity cloud like Amazon can have its virtues.

In the perpetual on-premises license days, we had source code escrows.  In the SaaS/Cloud era, it makes sense to codify what happens in the event of a dissolution of some sort.  As the Helpstream example shows, it’s possible to do something that makes enormous sense for customers and thereby give them a greater sense of security, something that the Cloud is not often known for.

Unfortunately, things also go on in the Cloud that have nothing to do with a particular vendor, but that actually make things much worse for customers.  I present the example of Feedly and the Apple App Store.

As most of you will know, Google discontinued Google Reader, forcing those of us who need such a thing to seek alternatives.  I looked at a good half dozen during the warning period and eventually settled on Feedly.  Let me be clear that this is still not a decision I regret, but I am forced to endure a not so pleasant aspect of the way Feedly works on my iPad.  There is a problem in that Feedly is set up to seamlessly transfer you from Google Reader to Feedly.  That part is good.  What is less good is that Google changed some aspects of the API and created a little problem for the Feedly app.  Feedly works great for me on my desktop, because I can access it via web browser as a thin client.  It is dead to me on my iPad because of this problem.  Feedly mistakenly thinks it is overloaded with users, a surprisingly plausible story in the wake of Google Reader shutting down.  In fact, this is not the case.  There is simply a bug that causes the iOS Feedly app to mistakenly report this problem.

Now here is the problem:

Since iOS is a walled garden, and Feedly has to wait until Apple approves a fixed version of the app, they are stuck.  It’s been 7 days and the app still doesn’t work and a fix has not been approved.  As my headline says, the map is buried with the treasure because Apple is presenting them from fixing a very obvious problem.  Feedly has no real answer for this, and Apple isn’t telling them an ETA on approval either.  It’s hard to be impressed with either Apple or Feedly based on how all of this is rolling out.  You’d think whatever process Apple uses would be aware of how many people use Feedly (it’s millions) and could find a way to expedite an obvious fix.  Apparently the Monarchy of Cupertino cannot be bothered with such mundane details as customer happiness.

Meanwhile, I have to ask myself, “Why can’t I run the Feedly thin client in the Safari browser on iOS?”  That would be so handy right about now.  Yet, they seem to have been at pains to ensure that if you are on an iPad, you surely must use their app and are to be prevented from accessing the thin client that works so well on my desktop and that would have prevented this nuisance.

Folks, the next time you’re using your tablet and you go to some website and it offers to download an app, skip it.  That app is not going to improve your user experience enough to be worth the trouble.  You are only going to encourage them not to keep their thin client working well on your platform.  And someday, you may wish the map hadn’t been buried with the treasure the way the Feedly guys did it.  Don’t frequent the Walled Garden.  Don’t encourage it at all unless you absolutely must.

This was all tragically avoidable, and I hope Feedly will take note and pave the way for their thin client to work on iOS so the next time they don’t have to wait on Apple.  Those of you at other companies, don’t let this happen to your customers!

Posted in apple, cloud, saas, service, strategy | 3 Comments »

What If You Fired Your 8 Million Most Influential Users?

Posted by Bob Warfield on June 19, 2013

trumpfiresyouWhat if you were running a big web business and you fired your 8 million most influential users?

Would that be a smart thing to do?  Would your shareholders be happy?  Would your board be happy?  What possible reason could you have to do such a thing?  What perceived advantage would offset the cost of annoying your 8 million most influential users?

Lest you think this is some imaginary scenario, firing 8 million influential users is exactly what Google is doing as it shelves Google Reader in less than a month.  Google is firing the likes of Om Malik, for example, and Seth Godin who says RSS is still the most efficient way of reading blogs.  Google says they’re doing it for lack of traffic, but as I’ve written before, that’s a bogus argument.

Let’s start with how I get to 8 million.  That number is from an email I just got from Feed.ly, who are introducing a Cloud version and say that since the Google announcement they’ve gone from 4 million to 12 million users.  Even better is that these are not just looky-loos–Feed.ly says that 68% are accessing the service on a weekly basis so they’re real users.  That’s 8 million right there, but the truth is the numbers are probably much higher for a number of reasons:

-  There are bound to be quite a few that will wait to the bitter end to migrate off Google Reader.

-  There are a lot of other services besides Feed.ly that have gotten their share of defectors.  Feed.ly happens to be my current favorite alternative, but I have no doubt the others are successful growing from the Google debacle too.

-  There are potentially even larger players in the offing, with Digg about to offer up its alternative and there is even a rumor Facebook may make it possible to bring your feeds into Facebook for reading (smart move on their part if so).

With Google Reader shutting down July 1 (just 10 days) and some of these big new players getting here only slightly before the shutdown, it should be no surprise that there’ll be a lot of last minute jockeying before the post-Google Reader market has stabilized.  One thing seems certain–with this many people moving around and this many companies putting forward products, RSS is far from the dead duck Google and some others have claimed it to be.   That’s great news for bloggers, many of whom depend on RSS driven traffic to keep growing their readership through compound interest.

Okay, we’ve established there are millions of people Google is firing, but are they “their most influential users?”  That all depends on how you define “influential”, but I look at it this way:

-  They’re people that consume a lot of content and are savvy users of the web else they wouldn’t bother with the complexity of an RSS Reader.  In other words, these are the web’s power users.

-  They are Bloggers, Journalists, and Influencers.  These people need a power tool like RSS to be able to consume the Firehose of Information they need to be on top of their games.

I don’t know why you wouldn’t call such people the most influential users Google has available to it.  If you have any doubt, go to virtually any post about the Google Reader debacle and read the comments (I should add that the Google Reader audience are hugely more likely to participate via comments and other means).  I just picked a few examples to show:

-  Wired’s Christina Bonnington writes that Google Reader was axed because people no longer consume the news that way.  It’s too old-fashioned.  Instead they want the “push” delivery that services like Google+ can offer.   The comments are virtual explosion decrying that notion and you don’t have to get far before someone says they don’t want to read the news Google thinks they should read, they want to read the news they want to read.  It’s also funny to read in this article an others the guess that Reader had “several million users” when we now now it was much greater than that.  Google simply let people believe the service wasn’t popular because it served their purposes.

-  Andrew Chen says he is dropping RSS and his readers need to sign up to his email list.  His article purports to show the death of RSS in a single graph, which is of the number of people searching for RSS.  It’s telling that the very first comment is from Seth Godin who tells him in no uncertain terms he has a bad idea there (“The patient is dying, and you’re busy telling his loved ones to put their feet on the respirator hose.”).  Godin goes on to explain in detail why Chen is wrong and commented on Chen’s other post about RSS too.  Nearly all the many commenters disagree with his analysis and tell him they’ll miss him and won’t sign onto the emails.  I left him a comment myself on the fallacy of using Google searches for RSS to decide the issue.  As far as I know, he is sticking to his guns though.  If you’re a blogger, you’d be silly cutting off your nose to spite your face like this.  I also think it’s interesting that as I write this, Andrew hasn’t gotten a single comment on any of his subsequent posts.  I don’t know if that means his audience doesn’t find them interesting or if they moved on with his RSS feed antics.

- Moz.com’s Reader-A-Week post in search of alternatives has great commentary on the alternatives and a great comment thread that shows the reactions of ordinary users.  If nothing else, it shows how many alternatives are available and how many readers are interested.

Most of these kinds of articles get more comments and engagement than the average for the blogs hosting them, which is just another indication that these are influential, or at least highly engaged users.

So why would Google fire 8 million of its most influential users?

Many have expressed opinions and many are wrong.

Forget the articles that say it happened because RSS was dying.  RSS is a power user niche offering that is alive and well as the millions of users and dozen odd companies scrambling to take over for Google show.  Google wanted people to believe that usage had dwindled to a few million but in fact it’s much larger than that and likely larger than usage for Google+.

Forget the articles like Bonnington’s Wired piece or How-to-Geek’s piece that claimed the model is old and dying and that there are better alternatives.  The truth is that there aren’t any better alternatives for efficiently consuming large amounts of news, at least not yet.  There are, however, alternatives for people who want to do something other than efficiently consume a firehose of information.  That’s okay, we like choices.  It’s when companies and marketers insist things have to be black and white in order to further their agendas that we should be annoyed.

Here’s the real reason, and it is a simple, typical-big-company sort of thing:

Google Reader is being shuttered because Google thinks that will help a more strategic product (Google+) to be more successful.  They want to force us to chose and rely on inertia and their brand to shift people to Google+.  They’ve convinced themselves that Google+ is so much better strategically, that they don’t care if they lose a lot of people along the way.  They don’t value those people and generating any kind of growth for G+ through reduction in expense elsewhere is a good thing according to the way Big Co’s keep score and run their internal politics.

Writer’s like Victoria McNally call it out like it is, but the majority seem to have bought Google’s story that RSS simply died out too fast.  Keep that in mind the next time some pundit is predicting the demise of a thing.  It may only have entered what Gartner calls the “Trough of Disillusionment”, which is only a trough compared to the ridiculous peak of any hype cycle.

What will this mean going forward?

Watching my own usage patterns, it will mean I spend less time in the Google Empire.  That’ll be a bit of a disappointment for them, because they’re looking to grab more mindshare through this move, but I think they’re going to be rudely surprised.  I used to alternate between shutting down all news and interruption driven sources to get real work done and going through my sources of news and interruption:

- GMail for email

- Google Reader for RSS and specifically for news and information most relevant to my work and interests

- Facebook for casual news and information about friends

- Google News for general news about what’s going on in the world

You can see that Google had me pretty solid except for their arch-nemesis Facebook.  This is where introducing an RSS Reader that integrates in a sensible way with Facebook would be awesome.  I am only too happy to flip between tabs on a single app to access these sources.  If we think about what’s stick or not, Google doesn’t own much that is sticky because they don’t own the sources of the content.  Facebook actually owns the sources of their postings.  So, if they were to add email, RSS, and general news, it would be a pretty compelling news portal.  They could lock up a lot of eyeballs for long periods of time.  The cost to add such capabilities should be fairly low.

Yahoo is another organization that ought to be on top of this stuff, though it isn’t at all clear they can think clearly enough and respond quickly enough to get there.  Newcomers and smaller players like Feed.ly and Digg have an opportunity to land and expand in their ability to give people access to more and more news sources.

If any of these players can actually get together a coherent strategy and deliver, shutting down Google Reader could turn out to be Google’s biggest strategic error to date.  Especially because all those millions of influencers they fired will be telling others who believe in them exactly what the best alternatives to Google are.

Posted in business, Marketing, strategy | 8 Comments »

Too Many Would-Be Entrepreneurs Are Thinking About Their Ideas, Companies, and Investors All Wrong

Posted by Bob Warfield on April 19, 2013

snake-oilAs so often happens, the serendipitous intersection of one too many notes from the same chord in a short time have prompted me to post.  In this case, I am seeing a lot of evidence that would-be entrepreneurs just don’t think about their ideas, their companies, or investors as they should.

Case in point: I recently had dinner with a friend to do some catching up.  He explained that another mutual acquaintance had an absolutely brilliant idea for a startup.  My friend really wanted to be a part of it, and he confided that they were thinking of going the Y-Combinator route.  I’m sure it’s annoying to my pals (especially the ones who are themselves Angel or professional VC investors), but any conversation that focuses more on the investors than the idea and business models immediately launches me down a set path that the recipient often finds a little bewildering if not downright antagonistic.  Despite all that, I asked my friend why he wanted to go with Y-Combinator?  Why get any invested capital at all?

He spent quite a while, too long really so it only lit my fire brighter, talking about the $30,000 they would receive in exchange for 15% of the company.  I asked him to explain what the $30,000 would allow him to do that he couldn’t otherwise accomplish on his own.  After all, $30,000 is really not very much money.  This goes to the heart of one way Entrepreneurs don’t think right about their plans.  If $30,000 seems like a lot of money to you, if it seems like an enabler of some kind, it’s my belief you’re using it to solve the wrong problems, and that in fact, they aren’t real problems to start.  You’re thinking of using it to quit your Day Job, to hire others, or to pay for advertising.  You don’t need to do any of that, as it turns out.

Let me explain–I’m a firm believer in Bootstrapping ala 37Signals.  Their formula is pretty simple–you can build a company on 10 hours a week while you keep your day job.  David HH wrote a great post on this not too long ago entitled “All or Something “.  The gist is that you don’t need to adopt an all-consuming commitment to get something interesting done.  The intro to his article is worth reading carefully:

One of the most pervasive myths of startup life is that it has to be all consuming. That unless you can give your business all your thoughts and hours, you don’t deserve success. You are unworthy of the startup call.

This myth neatly identifies those fit for mission: Young, without obligations, and few if any extra-curricular interests. The perfect cannon fodder for 10:1 VC long shots.

They’re also easier to rile up with tales of milk and honey at the end of the rainbow, or the modern equivalents, “compressing your working life into a few years” and “billon dollar waves”.

But running your life in perpetual crunch mode until the buy-out or bullshit-IPO fairy stops by your door is not surprisingly unappealing to lots of people.

In fact, what you do might even be better and more successful if you take your time by only working 10 hours a week on the idea.  I’ve seen this for myself with my CNCCookbook bootstrap.  The problem is you think you know exactly the right thing to build and if you could only get it done, riches would be yours overnight.  The reality is that nobody knows exactly the right thing to build in a vacuum.  You benefit by interacting with the market, and it takes time for the market’s message to come back to you and be properly infused in what you’re building.  You can’t infuse it at a 100 hour a week pace because it simply doesn’t come to you fast enough.  It requires a feedback loop and a little more gradual change.  This applies not just to the product itself, but to achieving a content-audience fit and then growing that audience to an interesting stage.  If you think otherwise, then you’re not being realistic.  You’re looking for that long-shot of completely unbridled demand that will seize your company and carry it in the vortex to the Land of Oz.  You’re looking for that 10:1 VC long shot.  Unfortunately, you don’t have a portfolio so that the 10 that didn’t work before the 1 that did doesn’t sink you.

Here’s the other issue–if you can’t overcome the kinds of problems $30,000 will solve without the $30K, you may not have the right idea or you may not have the right team for the idea.  Creating a successful multi-million dollar company is a big accomplishment.  If all it took was $30K, a little advice, and some networking, there’d be a lot more people with their own multi-million dollar companies.  There’s a set of skills your team must have.  There’s a set of qualities your idea and market must have.  Without them, $30,000 won’t begin to fix the shortfall.  $30K is just a convenience, not a solution.  It’s not even aspirin, it’s a vitamin pill.

So $30,000 is actually not really very useful to someone that is focused on the 10 hour a week plan.  Certainly it isn’t worth giving up say 15% of your company and potentially a lot more than that in terms of control and heartache that will still be there long after the $30,000 has been spent.  To his credit, my friend did get off the $30K after a little while and suggest that having all that networking and mentoring would be worthwhile.  That’s actually something I see as being much more valuable, but in truth, it actually isn’t all that hard to come by in Silicon Valley.  After all, the networking is one reason why we put up with so much cost to live here, isn’t it?  If you think you need an incubator to be mentored, to ask questions, and to learn how to do it, ask yourself how that’s any different than signing up for a bunch of the Anthony Robbins-style self-help seminars?  You know the kind–some flashy personality is telling you they have all the answers and they’re willing to share them so that you too can be a multi-bazzillionaire loved by everyone.  All for a price.  Guess what, this works for some people, but for most, they could’ve had the same answers without much effort.  I told my friend I’d be happy to help him understand how to launch and build a business having founded 4 software companies and been involved in 7 software startups.  I also told him the cautionary tale of those making their livings off such advice.

Hacker News is a good place to find such people, and I’m not picking on HN for it, that’s just where the paying customers are for these peddlers.  I call them the Entrepreneur’s Self-Help Gurus.  Don’t get me wrong–there are some dynamite folks out there who can and will help you, but I’m referring to a different sort of group.  These are folks who did something that if examined closely, was not an especially big deal.  Yet now they’re making more than they ever did on the not-especially-big-deal telling other people how they did it.  “I’ve got the secrets, and I’ll share them for just a small fee.”  Perhaps they created a software company in an odd little niche, never cleared more than $100K with it, but now they’re making $200K and more telling others how to do it.  To me, there is something wrong with that picture.  Just for kicks, I signed up for a bunch of the more popular pay-for-content mailing lists.  You can get them on sale all the time from AppSumo, for example.  After going through about four of them promising everything from SEO expertise to how to get 10,000 Facebook followers, I finally quit.  I hadn’t managed to learn a single useful thing from them.  In fairness, if I had been at the very beginning of my journey, they might have helped a little, but everything they had to say that was useful was available for free on some blog somewhere on the Internet that I had already read.  FWIW, I keep a clipping blog of such information I call Firehose Press.

I finally realized, that what these people were selling, was not the information, but the confidence to use the information.  That’s not something I really needed, and I hate to be a wet blanket, but if that’s what you need, are you sure you’re ready to be an entrepreneur?

One more thing on the subject of networking–you can go have coffee with so many extremely talented and successful people in Silicon Valley at the drop of a hat that it’s ridiculous.  People here are incredibly generous with their time.  Heck, if Y-Combinator fascinates you, go look up the Alumni and go ask them what they learned there and what they got out of it.  You just need to find a friend of a friend to introduce you and most decent people will share a cuppa joe with you.  Why not?  I often do.

Okay, so maybe the networking mentoring isn’t the thing.  What about all those juicy introductions to VC’s?  I have several problems with this one too, being the VC Curmudgeon and all.  It isn’t that I haven’t dealt with the VC’s.  In fact, they’ve been involved with every company I’ve been with until this latest one.  Let’s start with the intro process.  It’s not hard.  You need a CEO who they would want to talk to and an intro from someone they know.  If you have such a CEO, they can get that VC intro from someone they know.  VC’s actually want to meet people, they just want to meet people who won’t waste their time.  Same with Angels only it’s even easier to meet one of them and you might not need that CEO quite yet (but you will, so may as well find them so they can help you from going too far astray).  You don’t need Y-Combinator to meet these people.  What you need to meet a VC is pretty simple:

-  A product finished enough to be sold.

-  Real paying customers who will say extraordinary things about your product.

-  Traction.  The amount varies with the space, but there needs to be evidence that pouring gasoline on the fire will make it bigger in a hurry.

Too many entrepreneurs think investors want to give them cash to make some or all of those three things happen.  I won’t say it can’t work that way, but it works less and less that way every day in the Valley.  Y-Combinator, for example, used to invest more than $30K.  Most of the VC startups I’ve done raised a couple million dollars on a slide show and a team.  Those days are long gone.  You’re going to have to bootstrap to a greater or lesser degree (and mostly greater) anyway, so you may as well get started learning how to do it, even on 10 hours a week.  In fact it’ll be better if you limit yourself to 10 hours a week–it will teach you to focus.  The realization that I had to bootstrap to raise VC is what set me on the bootstrapping path, by the way.

Too many entrepreneurs think they need something to be able to be entrepreneurs.  They need money, advice, connections, confidence, permission, or at the very least, a guru they pay to tell them how it’s done.  But here is the amazing thing: you don’t need any of those things.  You can do everything that needs to be done in 10 hours a week to build a very successful multi-million dollar a year company.  Do that first, ahead of worrying about investors, and you will be 10x better off.  Because, here’s the thing, if that company explodes with a growth rate beyond your wildest dreams and you need a lot of capital right now just to keep the site up and running, that’s not a crazy home run extraordinary case for the VC’s.  That’s what they expect to see.  That’s what they’re looking for to get their checkbooks out.  That’s table stakes and we’ll see where it goes from there, whether you can monetize it, whether you’re the right ones to run it, and whether it is a passing fad.  If you have a deal at that stage, congratulations.  You’ll have to beat the VC’s off with a stick, and you’ll be able to dictate your terms.

But what if you don’t have one of those?

Don’t despair.  Remember:  an Enterprise Software Company that puts together a steady-but-not-sexy business and manages to get to $100M in revenue and an IPO is often seen as a failure in VC portolios.  They want the $1 Billion deals.  But you?  Heck, you’d be thrilled to be the 100% owner of a $15 million dollar a year software business with 20 employees that was throwing off cash like crazy and whose customers loved you.  That is unless you are that rare Zuck/Gates/Ellison/Brin type that really does care more for power than money or lifestyle, of course.

One last reference to recent influences that spurred this post.  I saw Jake Lodwick’s post in Pando Daily, “An Acquisition is Always a Failure.”  I understand exactly where this guy is coming from having had 2 of the companies I founded acquired.  Surpass was acquired by Borland and that was the Quattro Pro product and Integrity QA was acquired by Pure Atria.  Surpass was a great acquisition.  I joined Borland, we sold over $100M of Quattro Pro the first year, I moved up through the ranks to eventually run R&D for Borland in its heyday, and it was a fabulous company to be a part of.  I learned a lot.  Pure Atria was a great company too, but it didn’t last.  Six months after I got there it was gobbled up by Rational.  They already had a product with a brand that competed with Integrity QA’s product and it was based in Boston, not Silicon Valley.  Despite Integrity’s product being one of the most innovative things I have ever worked on (Genetic Algorithm-Based Software Testing), it basically never went anywhere because politically, it was stuck in a closet where there was no light.  It exists today as an IBM product called TestFactory, but it’s growth was stunted and it never recovered.

It’s fascinating to read the comments in Lodwick’s article and contrast them with where Jake is coming from.  He says:

Whereas we’d once been free to work on whatever seemed interesting, we now found ourselves in vaguely defined middle-management roles, sitting through pointless meetings where older doofuses who didn’t understand the Web challenged our intuitions and trivialized our ambitions.

That was basically my experience working for Oracle, where I learned a lot, but couldn’t accomplish much.  Similar with Rational.  Big Companies do work much differently than smaller ones, or as Jake says:

They’re another class of entity entirely, more concerned with sustaining their own rhythms and control structures than experimenting with strange ideas from acquired ex-founders. It wasn’t long before I was ejected like a virus.

Then he describes the frustration of being loose with money, but without company all founders who get acquired feel:

With a fat bank account, I was pretty set to do whatever I wanted for a long time. The sale afforded me the ability to make art, invest in other companies, and unwind. But it didn’t take long to realize that my new life was a hell of a lot less exciting than running an independent company had been.

So true.  Then we have the commenters, and as I read through them, it’s hard to see them as being focused on much but the money, whether this is an indictment of what they need to do (investors need an exit/cash out), or whether there aren’t a few examples where an acquisition made a thing far greater than it otherwise would have been (Android).  Most of them missed Jake’s message and wisdom entirely.

Here’s the thing.  At one point Jake talks about getting $50,000 checks each month.  Do the math carefully before you decide you need a VC-scale company to make enough money.  I went through one of those VC-backed Enterprise Software IPO’s, and while I made good money, it was #3 on my hit parade of exits.  Owning a business 100% that plops $50K checks on my desk each month would’ve been a much better deal, and this is to say nothing of all the deals that crash and burn because the VC was driving for a 10:1 Long Shot.  You have to live through a lot of Ramen noodles on the long shots, then maybe you’ll see that big payoff.  Or maybe you’ll have been diluted out of your mind and it won’t be such a big deal.  I’d have been much better off owning that $50K/month business that I could keep on running that doing the IPO I did.

In the end of the Day, as an Entrepreneur, you need to get crystal clear about a few things:

-  How much money do you need to get from your venture?  If $1M a year is a happy number, the chance is a bootstrap is much less risky than a VC deal.  Remember, income equates to investment portfolio about 20X.  That $1M a year income stream requires a $20M liquidity event after taxes before you can live like that without working.

-  How much control do you have to have?  Hey forget whether you’re an ego maniac.  I’m talking of control more akin to artistic control.  The control to deliver on what you do well.  On why everyone always says they love you, but that Boards, CEO’s, and Professional Managers are only too quick to override if it suits their agenda.  If that artistic control to do what you do best is important, adding people who own significant parts of your company can only dilute that control and maybe even result in your being “ejected like a virus.”  OTOH, if you want Bill Gates or Steve Jobs-style control over an industry, you’re gonna need VC’s.  If you want to change the world with Electric Cars and Private Spacecraft like Elon Musk, you’re gonna need VC’s.  Just be really honest with yourself about what you need versus what might be nice to have.

-  Most importantly, how will your venture change your life?  What does it have to accomplish to make you happy?

Too many entrepreneurs get signed up for the promise of (to quote David HH’s article), “compressing your working life into a few years.”  Sounds great, but it better be just a few years to put up with the amount of BS that kind of pressure cooker entails.  And the truth is, it is never just a few years.  It’ll be 10 long years to reach the conclusion, assuming it is a happy one.

Why not start out with a venture that makes you happy every single day you pursue it?  If it has VC potential, you’ll know soon enough and you can decide then what path to take.  If it doesn’t have VC potential, you may still wind up realizing everything you’d hoped for and more.  Even better, it may be at much lower risk.

 

Posted in bootstrapping, business, strategy, venture | 6 Comments »

Om Malik Boycotting Google Keep Because of Google Reader

Posted by Bob Warfield on March 21, 2013

Om’s boycotting Google Keep, and he’s damned right–every word he wrote.

Here’s the money quote for me:

It might actually be good, or even better than Evernote. But I still won’t use Keep. You know why? Google Reader.

I spent about seven years of my online life on that service. I sent feedback, used it to annotate information and they killed it like a butcher slaughters a chicken. No conversation — dead. The service that drives more traffic than Google+ was sacrificed because it didn’t meet some vague corporate goals; users — many of them life long — be damned.

Looking from that perspective, it is hard to trust Google to keep an app alive.

Google is now squarely in the Evil Doing Business, and it will cost them over time to get back out of that penalty box.  Regardless of how well Google Reader may have been doing in terms of revenue and strategic objectives, it was doing what it did for the wrong people to be messing with, starting with Om Malik.  I say that because the primary users were the very people who write the news on the web.  That’s a tough audience to make angry.

If Google was as smart as they claim to be, they’d issue an apology to everyone involved and make Google Reader promise to keep Google Reader happy and healthy for at least 5 more years before evaluating the decision again.

Posted in business, strategy | 4 Comments »

Google, If You Think I’ll Move From Reader to Another Google Product, Drop Dead

Posted by Bob Warfield on March 14, 2013

rssJust got the news that Google Reader will be turned off July 1.  Realistically, I should’ve moved after the first time they brain-damaged it and I railed about it, but I stupidly stuck to it.  Now I’m sorry.

I’m not the only one, Om Malik says it is his second most used Google application after Gmail.  Ditto for me.  I’d like to see Google publish the real figures on the supposed decline in Reader usage.  I bet it was still huge.  This is just a typical big company move to push their customers, I mean products, into toeing the line they’ve drawn.  They want us to go to Google+ or some darned thing where they can sell more ads or beat some competitor into submission.

What will be next, Google, turning off GMail?  Or are you too intent on bashing Microsoft over the head with it?

I’m tired of companies treating me like the product instead of the customer when they’re ad-driven.  It’s a sham and a bait-and-switch.  It is the root of all the evil Google claims they will never do, and keep doing with ever increasing frequency.

If you think I’ll move from Reader to some other Google product, drop dead.  It ain’t gonna happen.  From here on out, I will look to minimize my involvement with anything new from Google.  In fact, I’m shutting down my PPC advertising as soon as I am done here.  At least where that is concerned, I am a customer, and I can vote with my pocket book.  Learn how to save your data out of reader here.

This is bad news indeed for bloggers all over the world, who should find their own ways of letting Google know they’re not pleased.

A Modest Proposal

What Google should have done, is ceded Reader, source code and all, to a company that actually values Blogs and Bloggers.  How about the WordPress folks?  They should take it up, or failing that, create a WordPress theme that emulates reader and make it available for free via WordPress.com.  Matt Mullenweg, are you listening?

Failing WordPress, either Microsoft or Yahoo should dive onto this just for the customer goodwill.  I bet both companies would get back folks who haven’t been enthusiastic about them for years if they could field a good replacement within 3 years.

Postscript

A quick perusal of the comments in these various blog (blog == duh!) posts about Google Reader tells me there are lots of unhappy products, um customers, out there when it comes to this latest Google decree:

GigaOm

Techcrunch

Gizmodo

LifeHacker

And, here is a list of potential alternatives:

OldReader:  Very slow as I write this.

NewsBlur:  Down as I write this.

Rolio:  Awesomely slow as I write this.

GoodNoows:  Performance not too bad.

There are likely more, but I am too disgusted to root around for them right now.  Notice I’ve commented on site status, which has been poor this afternoon, no doubt due to the tiny few who still used Reader (yeah, right, there are zillions of us) looking for alternatives.  I haven’t looked into any of them yet, so I have no favorites to recommend.  These sites are all about to get a huge windfall of users as they choose alternatives, but it remains to be seen which ones can really take up the exodus.

There’s also things like Feedly, NetVibes and Flipboard, but I don’t want that ilk.  I don’t want a magazine.  I subscribe to nearly 200 blogs and need a power tool that lets me triage minimalist summary lists the way Reader did so I can get right to the good stuff.  I also don’t need an iOS or other mobile app.  While I often access Reader via my iPad, I also want desktop access without the nuisance of an app.

Posted in strategy | 9 Comments »

Charging for Your Product is About 2000 Times More Effective than Relying on Ad Revenue

Posted by Bob Warfield on February 22, 2013

BootstrapsI was reading Gabriel Weinberg’s piece on the depressing math behind consumer-facing apps.  He’s talking about conversion rates for folks to actually use such apps and I got to thinking about the additional conversion rate of an ad-based revenue model since he refers to the Facebooks and Twitters of the world.  Just for grins, I put together a comparison between the numbers Gabriel uses and the numbers from my bootstrapped company, CNCCookbook.  The difference is stark:

Ad-Based Revenue Model CNCCookbook Selling a B2B and B2C Product
Conversion from impression to user 5% Conversion to Trial from Visitor 0.50%
Add clickthrough rate 0.10% Trial Purchase Rate 13%
Clickthrough Revenue  $      1.00 Avg Order Size  $ 152.03
Value of an impression  $ 0.00005  $      0.10 =     1,976.35 times better

Let’s walk through it.

Both sites have visitors who convert to something more.  In the case of the Ad-Revenue model, presumably it is a person who creates an account on a Facebook or Twitter-like site, thereby becoming a user.  Gabe says that conversion rate for a really strong property might be 5%.  It can be much lower, like 1 to 3%.  I went with the optimistic 5%–the model is already too hard to contemplate 1%.  In the case of CNCCookbook, the conversion is from visitor to Trial user for the software.  We have a 30 day free trial on all our products.

From becoming a User or Trial User, the next conversion rate is monetization.  For the Ad-Revenue model, I did a quick search for clickthrough rates on display advertising and came up with 0.1%.  Sure, you might get your Users to click on more than one ad over time, but let’s just keep these numbers simple.  They’re not going to click on 2000 ads to even the score, after all.  For CNCCookbook, we have a very high conversion rate from trials–about 13%.  I view that as a commentary on the high quality of our software–people like it if they try it.  I understand conversions in the 5% are more common, so you may be forgiven for deciding the ad revenue model is only 1000 times less effective than charging for a product.

Okay, given those conversion rates, we take the average revenue per transaction and multiply all that on through to find the value of an impression.  What is it worth to you to bring another visitor to your site?

In this analysis at least, it’s pretty easy to see why bootstrappers need to be charging for their products and not relying on ad revenue.  Unless you just happen to have an amazingly viral product, it’s just too hard.  You have to rack up way too much traffic to get to interesting revenue levels.

Or, to put it like 37Signals:  Charge for your products, Dummy!

Posted in bootstrapping, business, strategy, venture | 2 Comments »

How Many Software Companies Monitor Their Software as Well as Tesla Monitors its Cars?

Posted by Bob Warfield on February 14, 2013

The unfolding story of how the New York Times’ negative review of the Tesla Model S may have actually been faked is a cautionary tale for software vendors.  Basically, there is enough instrumentation and feedback built into the Tesla S that Elon Musk was able to “shred” the review, as Dan Frommer writes.  The graphical plot of exactly what was happening with annotations is particularly damning:

NY Times Tesla Speed Chart

It’ll be fascinating to see how the NYT responds.  Hard to imagine how they do anything but investigate Broder and ultimately move him along elsewhere.  To do much else would imply very little journalistic integrity.

My question for you is that since you’re reading this blog and are likely somehow involved in high tech hardware or software at some level, how does your product compare in terms of how well it can monitor what your users are doing with your product?

I’m fascinated with the idea of closing the feedback loop for the good of customers.  Yes, it’s great Musk can catch the NYT in a bogus review, and perhaps you will catch a reviewer too, but the potential for improving your customer’s experience is of much greater value to your product.  This may seem like a Big-Company-Only idea, but I’m pursuing it with a vengeance for my SaaS bootstrap company (CNCCookbook) because I need precise feedback that pinpoints where I can do the most good for my users with the scarce resources I have available.  I can tell you from experience that the tools are available and straightforward.  You can have the data for very little effort invested.

The next thing I am after is to automate responses to that data.  I’ve been reading the blog of a company called Totango with some interest.  They essentially want to provide SaaS automation for a Customer Success team.  Various folks have written about the importance of Customer Success and I’m also a big believer.  My thoughts at this point are to start out relatively simple.  I want to understand the early lifecycle of my products and be able to trigger automated actions based on that cycle.  For example:

Step 1:  Installation

Monitor the first time the customer has successfully logged into the product.  Offer increasing amounts of help via emails once a day until they achieve this milestone.  The emails can start with self-service help resourcs of various kinds and eventually escalate to offering a call or help webinar.  The goal is to get the customer properly installed.

Step 2:  Configuration

This seems like part of installing, but in fact there is significant post installation configuration needed for CNC Manufacturing software.  Same sort of thing: provide daily emails with increasing levels of help until the system determines that the user has properly configured the system.  Also, this is an opportunity to collect information.  We provide canned configuration for the most common cases and finding out what the next tranche of cases to target should be is very helpful.

Step 3:  The Path to Power Usage

It’d be great if everyone who signed up for our 30 day free trial actually got to see and understand all of the features that set our product apart.  I’ve seen some other products like Dropbox (Full disclosure: they give me another 250MB of storage if you use that link and then sign up. If you’d rather I didn’t get the extra storage, use this link instead. If you sign up, they’ll give you a link where you can get 250MB free too.) walk customers through a usage maturity exercise.  They’ve somewhat gamified it by giving out some of their “currency” in the form of extra storage if you complete the tasks.  My goals here would be to get everyone to see as many of our unique functions as possible during the 30 day trial.

Step 4:  The Holy Grail: Referrals

If all this goes well, the customer gets through the Trial, understands the unique capabilities of our products, and likes the product well enough to buy it, then the final stage in this incarnation is to ask them to refer others they know who might like the product.

That’s a pretty simple roadmap for how to create some closed-loop feedback of telemetry and drip email that improves your customer’s experience.  So I’ll ask again:

Is your company setup to monitor your users as successfully as Tesla monitors its drivers?  Why not?  I’ve used a lot of software where it is pretty clear they’re not monitoring much at all.  I’ve even talked to some of them to encourage change, and they seem receptive.

If you have a story about what sort of work along these lines you’re doing, please share it in the comments below.  I’m very curious.  I think we have the potential to personalize the experience for our customers like never before.

Posted in business, cloud, customer service, software development, strategy, user interface | 6 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 322 other followers

%d bloggers like this: