Paladin Advisors Group: My Own "Stealth" Startup

Over the last four years on this blog, you have seen me talk a lot about hundreds of different startups and dozens of large enterprise companies. I have tried to share with you how I consume information and disseminate it outward to the many social networks. I let you know my thoughts on gadgets and hardware, and we have had open conversations about the culture of Silicon Valley, the future of blogging and social media, and we have discussed best practices and trends. But what we haven't talked about much is my job - because for the most part, this blog is as much about you as it is me. But over the last five to six months, I have been working on my own "stealth" startup, gaining clients - and it is soon coming time to tell you all about it. (Especially as Marshall Kirkpatrick mentioned it last night)


Marshall's Tweet from Last Night Deserved Answers
Paladin Advisors Group is a strategic advisory firm for startups and enterprise companies who are looking for guidance in their marketing, public relations, sales processes, customer influence, Web and social media. For the firm, which is a handful of partners large, I am the Managing Director of New Media.


Follow Us On Twitter at @PaladinAG
Over the last few months, I have been working with enterprise companies including Emulex Corporation, and startups, including Kosmix.com and My6sense. For startups, as I have done informally for years, I have been working with them on product feedback and focus, quality assurance and visibility. For enterprise companies, my focus has been on integrating social media and blogging into their strategies, aligning on messaging with PR, marketing and customer service.

As with the advisory roles I have gained with SocialToo, BuzzGain, ReadBurner and others, I will always provide transparency to you and full disclosure on any relationships - and I hope that over the last few years with my activity here and on the downstream social networks, I have gained your trust to provide clarity.

Why do I call this new venture "stealth"? Because it is new, and I haven't made a lot of noise about it. In fact, our Web site is under development. But you can follow us on Twitter to be notified as soon as we have more announcements. (http://twitter.com/paladinag)

And... if you think our services might be a fit for your business, e-mail me at lgray@paladinag.com.

There Is No "Osborne Effect" In Web Services

In the world of technology, practically no story of warning is better known than that of Adam Osborne's ill-fated promise of his next generation of computer models outperforming the current offerings. The story states that the result of his premature leaking was a dramatic decline in sales that led to the company's death. (Even if truth later proved the story somewhat incorrect) This, in combination with competitive pressures in practically all markets, has led to a culture of secrecy, undisclosed roadmaps and obfuscation in the industry, aimed to prevent a similar fate. But as I look at many of the products we use today, including Web services, which can be updated in line, and don't require a specific point purchase, this mentality is overblown - especially when it comes to the market leaders, for whom users' switching to an alternative is unlikely.

In May of 2008, I said that I believed a simple feature war between sites was "the wrong war." Users of products including top Web services like Google, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and others absolutely benefit from the features offered, but they stick around thanks to their data being on each service, and the many connections they have cultivated - whether you define that as a community, or instead, as an audience.

If you are a hardware manufacturer, like Apple, Dell, EMC or Cisco, it makes a ton of sense to only discuss future products with potential customers who are not going to purchase in the current buying cycle, and do so under non-disclosure agreements, to prevent their whisperings from impacting your sales. But I think users of the many different Web services out there would benefit from gaining greater visibility into these companies' plans and priorities - which would serve as an early platform for feedback, provide guidance into how they could expect the community to evolve, and at the very least, show that they were continuing to improve the platform.

As you no doubt saw at the end of the last week, and from coverage this weekend, Facebook introduced a new look for their news feed. Some people love it, some people no doubt dislike it, and many are in between. But the hardest part for some is the element of surprise. Often when a site has a massive overhaul, they leave up a link to the previous version for those not yet ready to make a move - even if it is clearly outdated.

But if you think about it, are people going to switch from Facebook to MySpace or Friendster because of a UI change? Probably not. Are they going to use the site less often? Maybe, but not in a dramatic way. So Facebook can be pretty secure in knowing that their users are going to stick around.

In contrast to the secrecy, I have been impressed of late as to the transparency seen from Twitter in terms of the company's rolling out feature enhancements, and telling users in advance what is to come. The company has talked openly about their new ReTweet API, and also talked about the addition of Lists. Twitter has learned from its previous mistakes that abruptly made changes, impacting users and creating something like a mob.

Twitter, despite incredible competition for mindshare from Facebook and others, is confident enough that their tipping their hand isn't going to create a competitive problem - and easing users into new features makes it seem much more collaborative. But not everybody believes in this model. During the hubbub around Facebook's future plans for FriendFeed, co-founder Paul Buchheit said "we don't pre-announce things, so for now all I can say is that there's good stuff on the way." His update to the FriendFeed community was both reassuring and not reassuring at the same time - showing they were not asleep at the switch, but giving no clarity at a time when many are looking for some. Would his telling us a few features on their plate for Facebook have upset the apple cart any?

As noted before, Feedly, the next generation start page powered by RSS, has a public roadmap. (Here is their 2009 offering) Feedly is confident enough to show you what they are working on months in advance, even if there is potential slippage, and even if there are competitors who might integrate similar features into their own plans. But there is no potential for an Osborne Effect here. You either use Feedly or you don't. It's very unlikely that you will look at their future plans and walk away because you don't like the product direction - and it's less likely that you will write down their itinerary and make a competing offering.

If I am Apple, I would keep secrets. But if I were running a Web service, and was confident I could deliver on my promises, I would be sure to open up to the users and let them know what my priorities were early, rather than hiding under a cloak of mystery. Users need guidance and confidence that they are part of something that is continuing to improve, and won't be abandoned.

Cheezburger Network Scales Company By Focusing On Happy

The Web simply can't get enough funny cat pictures. Or dog pictures. Or sleeping cat pictures. Or pictures of people failing. Or creative approaches to fix things. The Cheezburger Network has grown dramatically, racing to the point where they are seeing a billion page views every four months, after it took nearly two years to reach the first billion. Growing the company on rapid scale is no accident, as the network has focused its business objectives on its customers, aiming to remove distractions and obstacles that could hinder potential growth.

Ben Huh, CEO of Cheezburger, said the company focused not on how many features they could push into the network, but instead on simplicity - letting the users dictate how the business would grow. And the company is realistic about what it aims to do. They aren't out to make a billion dollars in profit, or to change the world.

"Our mission statement is to make people happy for five minutes a day," Ben said today at Blog World Expo. "We kept hearing from our audience members, 'You make us happy,'. When you allow your users to dictate how your business will operate, and can develop a thick skin, that is how you grow."

If you have spent any amount of time on social networks, or received any e-mail outside of your office, you probably have encountered work from Cheezburger Network. From I Can Haz Cheezburger and I Has a Hotdog to the FAIL Blog, GraphJam, There, I Fixed It, E-mails from Crazy People and It Made My Day, the company is trying to reach a broad audience through more sites and more content, based on user feedback. In fact, today they announced a new site featuring sleeping animals, called Daily Squee, which is reminiscent of the also popular and off network Cute Overload.

The sites' mantras are pretty simple. Post funny pictures with custom captions. Ben said that human nature has a tendency to admire complexity, but rewards simplicity, and that through introducing complexity, it has an inverse effect on your business' ability to scale. Instead of investing in expensive custom software and hardware, Cheezburger utilizes standard products including WordPress, JS-Kit, YouTube, Google Apps, cloud storage and open source applications, keeping costs low.

While some of the network's sites may seem fanciful, they are thoughtfully planned out and new proposals are theorized frequently, and target those who may not yet be avid fans of the network. Ben theorized that half the company's traffic was non-critical and transient, while 30 percent of traffic constituted the regulars, another 15 percent were fans, and an elite 5 percent were people who show up every day, multiple times a day. He suggested that businesses focus on the greatest population that could migrate to higher devoted level (in this case the 30 percent), as that will increase the total number of fans, and discourage targeting the site by scaling to the power users, who are typically edge cases.

Beyond keeping its audience happy for 5 minutes at a time, Ben said the company frequently thinks in small time allotments, saying, "If I had wanted to work four hours a week, what would I have to do?" and asking, "If my users had forty seconds on the site, what would they want to do?" Key to satisfying these short term visitors? Eliminating distractions and removing barriers.

The goal is to keep the company in touch with what the users wanted, and purging common mistakes that come from within, including ego, pride, assumptions, sacred cows, secrets, coverups, and individual reputation. The result is one big fat happy network.

Do You Trust Small Companies With Your Data More, Or Big Ones?

A few of this summer's acquisitions featured a scrappy upstart much beloved by the Web masses getting absorbed by a larger, more-established acquirer - with two of the more prominent examples being Intuit's buy of Mint.com and Facebook's takeover of FriendFeed. And amidst the ensuing responses, I saw two truly oppositional reactions - the first from people who swore they would never use the larger company or service because they hated it or didn't trust it, and the second, from people who now thought it was "safe" to use the smaller service as it finally had some parental supervision.

I recognize that some people have a greater tendency to accept risk in their lives, including risk to their data, than do others. Some lines of business and people operating those businesses are as a rule conservative - not venturing to buy one company's goods until they have done a full background check on the firm's financial stability, or have seen a flurry of similar use cases from peers. Others flock toward a series of early adoptions, where a personal relationship with a site's founders or employees is possible, thanks to the product's newness. And no doubt, the two sides rarely agree on a set strategy.

What are the underlying concerns both parties may have?

For Those Who Favor Big Companies Over the Upstarts

• A small company may not have taken all necessary precautions to protect their data, making it vulnerable.
  
• A small company may not have longevity, and if it expires, so too could your data.
  
• A small company may grow desperate for funds and could sell your personal information.

For Those Who Favor Small Companies Over the Giants

• A large company is more likely driven by sheer dollars than by customer service.
  
• A large company may have a history that contains questionable moves.
  
• A large company may act unilaterally in terms of how your data is used.

In parallel with the two acquisitions I had mentioned, there have been a few isolated cases of the smaller company putting itself up for auction, essentially turning its user base into a marketing list for sale to the highest bidder, whether or not that may contain personally identifiable information, or possibly passwords. But in parallel, you can see people who strongly dislike Google, don't trust Microsoft, or think that Facebook is evil. I even saw a post go up yesterday saying that Cisco was evil. The bigger they are, the bigger a target they are.

I tend to trust companies rather than distrust them. I am an optimist. I think there is a possible point where personal relationships with the founders trumps a robust multi-tier support system or flashier GUI. But it's not for everyone. What are your thoughts, and do mega mergers change the way you perceive your data being protected?

The Era of the Faceless Giant Corporation Is Over

It wasn't all that long ago when the names of companies were more likely to make me think of unfeeling skyscrapers reaching toward the heavens with their steel and glass than I was to think of the people inside who made the brand stand for something, and architected the products to make them do what they do. But the last decade's increased potential for transparency and public visibility of company employees and leadership, culminating in some's active use of social media has made many of these previously faceless giants - Google, Microsoft, Dell, Apple, Amazon... human. And this transformation adds a clear expansion of loyalty between these previously untrusted, unseen companies, and their customers - as those who see the companies as a collection of humans not so much as cogs in a massive machine, but instead as peers.

While many a blog post or Twitter stream has sounded out a screed against a company or a product, I am now more cautious than ever to avoid emotional critical rants against companies and brands I feel may have done me wrong. Some of this is due to the increased transparency of said companies - and no doubt a good amount of it has been my lucky position to gain access to some of the most respected brands in the business, to meet the people who make the decisions and see each day as a challenge with aims to shared goals, just like we do.

In March of 2006, I wrote a post titled "Giving Microsoft a Human Face", highlighting the work of the secretive "Mini-Microsoft", saying the blog helped provide "a clear view into the struggles and triumphs and wishes that are true in any corporation", be it Microsoft or a small business. I was similarly impressed with Robert Scoble's work while he was at Microsoft, and blogs from tech leaders like Jonathan Schwartz at Sun. Two years later, I admitted to you that I have a bias in favor of small companies, and am less likely to give the big ones a pass. But as time passes, I am seeing even the biggest companies as a collection of small units. And the more engaged they are in the blogosphere, or on Twitter, the easier it is to reach them for product feedback and customer service, the more the image of the skyscraper melts away.

In the 2008 post, I used the example of Google as a company big enough that I could still shake my fist in the event of bumps. I said, "The big guys are held to higher standards, and always will be. It comes with the territory." But even in the last eighteen or so months, Google to me has changed. Through interactions with many on the Google Reader team, discussions with Matt Cutts, and getting to know Rick Klau on the Blogger team, Google seems just as accessible as any other corporation, despite its large size.

On Friday, I spent three hours at Google headquarters in Mountain View, working face to face with Rick and a pair of skilled Google engineers, working on making changes to my blog. Though the front end should not have changed in appearance, you can see that posts now display as coming from blog.louisgray.com instead of www.louisgray.com/live as they did before. While the URLs have changed, so too has the hosting. I've been hosted on FTP for four years, and made the big move yesterday, while aiming to avoid any issues. Rick, seeing me as a good test case for an established blog with more than 2,000 posts, wanted to see if we could find any hiccups that could possibly befall other Blogger users in the same scenario. And despite the fact I was in one of the world's most tech-savvy corporations, we definitely ran into issues. Some were possibly my fault. Others were probably due to my old Web host, Register.com. But we worked as a team, and finally got it all figured out, a little behind schedule.

Google (and Rick specifically) didn't owe me any special hands-on effort. In the old way of customer service, companies tend to just post guidelines on the Web, and should you not have all running perfectly, it's either your fault outright, or you need to be hand held with customer support. But the new era of customer service, marketing and sales is transparent and personal - and this should go for every company, big and small.

Before I get any comments saying that Google reached out to me because I'm "A-List" (I'm not) or anything of that note, trust me, I know I was lucky, and I let Rick and his team know I appreciated their elite intervention. I try to provide Google and all other services I work with a good amount of customer feedback, and yesterday was as much about that as it was them providing me aid.

I look at the technology space, and for the most part, companies have made that transition from closed to open, from inert to living. I believe that many other industries could serve to improve and open up. After all, who is the public face of a company like GE? Fisher Price? McDonalds? These companies that would probably sit immobile in the face of a hate-filled rant still look like buildings to me. And I believe that they too will open up. The era of being dark and hidden and untrusted is over.

FTC Disclosure: Google let me eat lunch at their place for free yesterday. It was yummy.

Why Would I Say to "Stop Talking About Social Media"?

Two weeks ago, the second in a pair of guest blog posts from me for Brian Solis' PR 2.0 site suggested that people should "stop talking about social media and go do it already". For those of you who know me, and this blog, you know we actually use (and talk about) social media quite a bit. This blog has become something of a jumping-off point for new social services and applications. Sometimes, if lucky, I can even find some valuable tips and tricks to help you find the best places to find information or distribute it. So why the seeming contradiction? And why did my content end up on Brian's site?

Second answer first - Brian is nearing the completion of yet another book, and simply needs to focus, so he reached out to a number of people who he thought could provide value to his site when he was otherwise occupied. FTC disclosure be darned, Brian is a good relationship for me to kindle because not only can he help provide me access to early-stage startups I like to cover, but he also occasionally can find panel opportunities for me to participate in. It's a win-win type of relationship and practically everyone I know respects his work. So when the opportunity came to help a friend out, I did (free of charge).

In July, I wrote the first post: The Influencer’s Dilemma: The Battle For Mindshare Amid Media Turmoil. I hope to talk more about this at length soon. But two weeks ago, I wrote the piece that gained a lot more traction, titled, Stop Talking About Social Media and Go Do It Already. This isn't to mean that we should stop using social and media right next to each other in a sentence, nor does it mean that I am begging people to stop talking about Twitter and Facebook and all their favorite networks. While a dramatic reduction in discussion there wouldn't hurt, I am not saying that either.

Here is what I believe.

I believe that these "new" networks and new activities are becoming essential practices for people in businesses of all industries. I believe that people who are not utilizing social media are going to lose out to people who do. In 1999, at my first job, we had a phrase we used, called "Get Web or Get Out", suggesting that if you were not participating, you soon wouldn't be part of the game. The same is true with social media.

But I also believe that these current "new" practices will be commonplace soon enough. Just like you don't hear about e-mail experts and typists and voice mail specialists in this day and age, so too won't you hear about Twitter aficionados and Facebook Fan page mavens in the years forward. Over time, these skills will blend into the marketplace. This will mean a likely cessation of the discussion of these practices, and more of a head-nodding situation.

Like you, I frown upon the titles of "social media expert" and "social media guru". I'm not all that fond of "community manager" either, which may sound shocking. I get the need, but I fear for those titles in a fast-moving world. (See also: Social Media Experts are the New Webmasters from July '08)

We run the risk of believing our own kool-aid and starving of oxygen in our own bubble if we focus too much on the technologies that enable us to do things than us actually accomplishing these goals ourselves. When I do focus on the technologies and the networks and the services that are in this market, and I bring them to you, it is because that is the role I play as an early adopter and tech geek blogger. But when I take the tools to work, it's all business. Most people won't care how the task is accomplished, only that it gets done. So yes, I love the communities. I love many of the tools. Social media makes sense. But let's focus on results.

My thanks to Brian for the opportunity to guest post. Hopefully more are coming.

On Raising Money: Goals, Valuations and Pressure

For the most part, starting a successful business in Silicon Valley and having to raise money from venture capitalists (VCs) practically go hand in hand. Like most things here in the Valley, there are no guarantees. Raising $100 million doesn't guarantee success. Raising funding from specific venture firms with solid track records doesn't guarantee success. And, depending on the stage of a company's lifespan, raising money can be viewed negatively as much as it can be a positive thing. Meanwhile, if you're curious as to how much attention should be paid to valuations of private companies, well, trust me, that too can vary widely, depending on market conditions, momentum, founders' goals, and individual firm's enthusiasm.

Since starting my career in the Valley back in 1998, I've seen much of this process up close. I've worked at a company that once raised a $1 million seed round of funding, but I've also worked at one that raised $72 million in a single round - part of more than $200 million raised, thus far. I once saw a company I worked at close down because investors stopped funding outright, worked at another that found itself acquired by a big name tech firm months after I left, and also worked at one that filed, and later withdrew, its IPO bid. And while I wasn't sitting across the table from the VCs asking for their funds, in most cases, I certainly helped position each company in advance, and saw the effects each round played in the company's lifecycle. I mention this to add some level of background for why I thought to add my two cents to some of the discussion has been teetering in the blogosphere of late, especially following the news of Twitter's latest round of funding, rumored to be as much as $100 million.

Why would investors put money into a company to begin with? There are a few most-common outcomes:

1. The company could later merge with another firm, or be purchased outright (M&A)
2. The company could eventually go public and have an IPO.
3. The company could remain private and be self-sustaining.
4. The company could eventually close down, through bankruptcy or other means.

Of these scenarios, investors are most interested in potential M&A opportunities or the potential for going public. Obviously, investing in a company that will shut down is not a good way to use one's funds, and a company that has no real "exit strategy" but plans to meander forward, private and independent, will not provide the big returns hoped for by venture capitalists. In the reverse scenario, why would a company raise money?

1. To gain initial capital to start the business.
2. To gain capital necessary to expand the business, be it through marketing, human capital, new product lines, through geographical expansion, or even through acquiring other companies.
3. To avoid running out of money and needing to close its doors.
4. To obtain a level of valuation that sets a mark for potential acquirers.

As tempting as it can be for a company to raise the largest amount of funds possible, to have this cash available in the bank, the greater the amount raised typically also means the greater the reduction in control - as the company's initial founders see third party VCs take a higher percentage stake in the company. They may gain multiple seats on the board of directors, and gain influence that can be used to push the company toward one direction or another. Should they gain enough of a stake, it can be possible they end up pushing out the company's CEO or management team altogether, especially if expectations are not being met.

Thus, many entrepreneurs suggest a company raise as little money as is necessary to run the core business - and no more. In many cases, as soon as venture capitalists are involved, the pressure to reach stages one or two (M&A or an IPO) increases, and as time goes forward, or more capital is invested, the heat can intensify.

In parallel, if a company has determined it should raise a specific amount of capital, and has been fortunate enough to gain access to it, the preference would be to give away as little of the company as possible, essentially valuing the company at a higher rate than if more were sold for less. This valuation can be set based on the company's current sales numbers, its projections for the future, market competition, market dynamics and often, a combination of all factors.

Given this, if you examine the news around Twitter from last week, it has been written that Twitter sold ten percent of the company for $100 million, which valued the company at $1 billion. It has been said that Twitter raised the $100 million despite having a significant amount of money in the bank (up to $30 million) from its previous funds. So why would they raise now, and why this amount? Without having asked Ev, Biz and the team myself, you can see above just why now would be the time. First, the company, despite having little to no revenue to speak of, is in an incredible position. The service's growth over the last two years has been nothing short of phenomenal. Second, the company's internal projections, as we understand them, are aggressive - and third, many different news stories have shown practically all the large players in the Valley, from Microsoft to Facebook to Google, as having been interested in acquiring the microblogging company.

Similarly, we saw Facebook raise a massive $200 million in May of 2009 at a $10 billion valuation, following a $240 million round raised from Microsoft in 2007 that valued the social networking giant at $15 billion. Huge numbers on all counts, from the amount raised to the total valuation - again meaning how much would be needed to buy the entire company at that price.

For Twitter, raising the $100 million sets the company up to expand their business in terms of human capital and its technology infrastructure in a big way. While $100 million is not a bottomless trough of cash, it certainly helps. It puts the idea of the company running out of cash far out of the picture, and absolutely succeeds in driving the price higher for potential acquirers, should the service not be aiming to go public in the near future.

For Twitter's leadership, raising money now is a fantastic move. It's improbable that the company could find remarkably better terms in the coming months, and it sets in stone now where potential suitors would need to begin to even entertain discussions. Meanwhile, those investors who just ponied up the $100 million would want to see a positive return on their investment, and thus, would expect Twitter to hold out for an even greater number.

But once the money is in the bank, so begins the pressure. It may not be visible in three months or six months, but outside observers, and no doubt, internal participants are going to want to see plans for that cash, not just in how it is being spent, but in terms of how it will be converted, either into a large acquisition, be it to Google or another player, or if the company finds its way into reaching the public markets.

So what could go wrong? If neither of the above were to happen, and in parallel, Twitter were incapable of growing revenues to approach its level of expenses, the company would remain private, and see its cash balance decrease. Over time, as pressure grew inside the firm, they would be forced to raise money again - likely at a lower valuation, given reduced prospects, meaning the company would have to give up more to get less. You can see this often as you watch companies in the Valley go from the euphoria of their seed and A rounds, followed by less-enthusiastic B, C, D rounds and beyond. And if you hear about a "mezzanine" round, that's the one that truly, finally, should bring the company to break even, or catapult it into position for a near-term public offering. And if it doesn't, let's just say that's not good - as the "burn rate", the monthly expenses that draw down the company's finances, force action, and it won't be at a level the company had hoped for, especially after such lofty beginnings.

In the wake of 37 Signals' tongue in cheek press release that they were valued at $100 billion (with a B) following a brazen 1 dollar investment, one can scoff at revenue-light companies like Twitter saying they should be measured on par with public companies that have real revenues and real growth. But part of being a venture capitalist is that first word, "venture". It's an adventure. It's a risk, and a gamble, and one that relies on promises and potential. Twitter is worth $1 billion dollars, according to these investors, not because of what it is today, as strong as it is, but because of what it is in the future. Had Twitter chosen to sit on its laurels and not raise the money it did, at the valuation it did, the company could not expand to the level it has planned, and it would be at a much higher risk for potential acquisition, something they look disinterested in doing.

Ev Williams and Biz Stone, as well as the other Twitter employees and investors, know they are on to something. Be it vapor or be it real, the company has seized the minds of the Valley in a way unseen probably since the debut of Google on the stock market earlier this decade. Not even Facebook, who is larger and better funded, seems to be as visible as the scrappy San Francisco startup best known for its limitations - 140 characters. With $100 million in tow, the company is set to continue its growth independently, set to work on reducing its burn rate, with a much longer runway.

Meanwhile, don't let the nine-figure number fool you into thinking this is now a slam dunk. The valley is littered with companies that have gone this route. Procket Networks, which raised $272 million from VCs, sold to Cisco for $89 million in 2004. Caspian Networks raised more than $300 million and closed its doors in 2006. And that doesn't even get into the $800 million raised for WebVan or the $250 million for Kozmo.com in the headier Web 1.0 days. (See also: The 20 Worst Venture Capital Investments of All Time)

While we have seen the internal strategy of Twitter "laid bare" earlier this year, we won't be the ones spending Twitter's money, or staving off their burn rate. That's up to them, and up to their board. Gaining the $100 million on top of their preexisting cash horde was the right thing to do to potentially reward some of their founders, who may have sold stock in this round, and also to prop the company up and make it stronger against formidable competition. This Valley is more than just a hub for innovative technology. It's also home for some of the greatest wealth creation the world has ever seen. Now, we get to see, in public, how this particular investment plays out.

For more reading on this, please see:

• Anil Dash: TechCrunch, Venture Capital, Record Labels and Getting What You Asked For
  
• Doc Searls: On value and valuation
  
• VC Freak: Understanding the Mind of a Venture Capitalist

Locking Customers to Your Product? It’s Probably Not Good Then.

Although the world of business development partnerships can be complex, rife with epic contracts with tie-ins and promises, expirations and penalties for all parties, when relationships are struck that reduce customer choice, it is a telltale sign that the product or service being provided is well below acceptable standards. You see, customers aren’t stupid. They will be your product and company’s loudest advocates, more than willing to spread the word on your behalf, if you have a game-changing offering. But if you have to rely on bundling and exclusive contracts just to rope customers in, you probably don’t have something they want all that much anyway.

The recent flare-up of seething and complaining about the quality of AT&T, and the gnashing of teeth for Apple to shed itself of its telecom overlord partner handcuffs is only the latest example of business development contracts and exclusive rights being offered at the harm of customer choice. And any time you are forced to restrict choice, there’s obviously a reason you would – a very real threat that the alternative, your competition, is good enough to take your business away if it were to be played on an even field.

The dichotomy between how Apple’s products are much sought after and AT&T’s services are much loathed could not be more clear. Although I have yet to find a consistent voice of people who enjoy their long distance provider, AT&T’s failings are well-documented, from its frequent shoddy service, to its bungling of feature rollouts, failure to provision for peak loads, and general malfeasance. Meanwhile, in contrast, Apple’s product introductions may have fans sleeping outside their retail stores for days on end, just to say they did.

There’s a reason it’s called lock-in. Because customers are trapped. And being trapped is never a good thing.

Remember the brouhaha only a decade or so ago about how Microsoft manipulated its monopoly position, forcing OEM partners to carry its Internet Explorer browser as the default, over the largely-deemed superior Netscape Navigator? At a time when very few would have selected IE as the technology leader or feature leader, it became the market leader through brute force, trickery and customer handcuffs.

When businesses have a high-quality product, they don’t fear competition the way the mediocre guys do, but instead, compete on their merits. But when threatened, that’s when you can expect the ridiculous contracts to fly – from automated renewals and multi-year contracts, to early exit penalties. And when exclusivity is not threatened, but is instead encouraged, that is when you see a relaxed approach to improvements, and of course, a scale in prices. It’s the very reason there are anti-trust laws and precedents set to stop monopolies in their tracks.

It is one thing to compete through innovation, and quite another to compete through bundling and exclusivity. And even though Apple largely is seen as the better of the two players here, recent developments in Cupertino have us wondering if they too are becoming protective of their accrued market position. One only has to look so far as their recent quashing of Google Voice, their forcing of Google Latitude to be a broken-down Web application, and rumors are now flying that the Spotify application will also face a steep task to make it onto the iPhone, as it potentially competes against iTunes.

I don’t want to sound like a hippy-dippy free markets advocate. But if customers don’t like your product, the last thing you really want them doing is sticking around and bad-mouthing you to everyone they know. If you want to compete in the market, you should not be afraid to let your products win on their merits, on their price, and on their differentiation. If you have to instead do a backroom deal that makes you the default, and there are no other options, maybe you’ve got a lot more work to do in the R&D space instead of in BD.

Proxifeed Delivers Automated Tweets and Ads Based on Keywords

Whether you think Twitter is about conversation or about broadcasting, there is no doubt many people use it to help distribute links to share with their followers. Marketers, PR people and spammers alike have also found the social network a strong place to congregate, as they track for mentions of their name, their competition or potential buyers. (See also Travis Murdock's Marketing In the Feed post)

Proxifeed, a new tool released by Stéphane Osmont, who you might remember from his work on YokWay, automates much of the process, creating a Twitter feed built on links related to keywords you feed, including some for revenue - should you be interested.


The Proxifeed Process: A Proxy For Human Input
Upon logging into Proxifeed with your Twitter credentials, the service asks you to provide some keywords for automated postings. The more specific the keywords, the more unique your content could be. You also have the option to present three types of feeds: Content only, advertising, or a mix. You can also add one or more RSS feeds to the mix, be they blogs or from any source.

To complete the feed, choose an update frequency, and Proxifeed will then do the work on the back end to keep your automated Twitter feed going around the clock, whether you publish once an hour or less often.


Three Potential Twitter Feeds From Me Based On My Keyword Choices
Curious what would happen if I turned over my Twitter posting to a machine filled with keywords, I tested Proxifeed with technology terms and sports terms, to see what would happen. Not surprisingly, Proxifeed searched through its bank of RSS feeds and selected specific items to go along my natural activity. By putting in the keyword "Facebook", I had an ad for a dress with the name Facebook. By putting in "Oakland A's", I got an Oakland A's lollipop.


Proxifeed Would Offer My Followers This Lollipop

Proxifeed Also Found a Facebook Dress for Sale
Proxifeed says its offering can create "exciting and engaging" Twitter streams that will get people with similar interests to follow and make your "follower base grow", so I can see how this might be enticing to a spray and pray marketer, or somebody who opts to turn off ads and then becomes a master aggregator on a specific topic. But for people who want to remain personal on Twitter, the most likely option would be to possibly use Proxifeed instead of TwitterFeed to distribute blog posts automatically. Otherwise, the clear non-authenticity of the updates and implied personal endorsement would be quickly exposed.

If you think creating an automated Twitter feed based on keywords and a few RSS feeds is right for you, Proxifeed absolutely fits the bill. But if you want your Twitter to be updated by a human (hopefully you), you can pass.

Venture Capitalists, But In Text Form

On Monday night, during a blogger briefing, I struck up a conversation with Dave McClure (he being the Master of 500 Hats) around the process of blogging, and participating in those social networks where we have put our energy. And during this exchange I said something that I have long held as a driver for me, but hadn't yet quite articulated in this way - that as a blogger and technology enthusiast, be it for hardware gadgets, software or Web services, I sometimes take on the role of a venture capitalist, investing not my own money, as I have little, but instead, my focus, my words, and my time.

Venture capitalists are wooed constantly by companies looking to get off the ground, or to gain a push to the next level, be it greater visibility, higher market share, or profitability. And the VCs have to make a choice. Not having unlimited funds, they need to determine which companies, markets and individuals can get access to those dollars. The VCs, based on their own expertise, their analysis of the products' future, the potential market and the products' uniqueness, invest a percentage of their available portfolio, and then push to help make those investments a success - often helping to connect the founders with partners, customers, or providing guidance through board positions and personnel.

Similarly, whether as bloggers, social media participants or technology acquirers, we too are bombarded with choices. With limited funds ourselves, and limited hours in each day, and limited opportunity for attention, we have to make choices as to which products we will buy, which social networks we will embrace, and which companies' services we will use or cover. And while many bloggers aim to be as impartial as possible, keeping a journalistic line to avoid 'favorites', we all have a bias. And some of us wear our hearts on our sleeve, clearly choosing this route, as I told Dave, of being "venture capitalists in text form".

On Monday, Dave and I talked about the array of social networks vying for our time, and he told me that he had once tried to evenly split his time between a handful, but eventually focused on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. While not shutting off his data flow to other networks, he simply stopped using them, picking up his chips and moving elsewhere. Meanwhile, in my role more as an angel investor (in text form) than a late-stage investor, I am more willing to make more aggressive investments in a wider array of smaller services just getting off the ground. And I will make those investments of my time, not always because I think they are going to be the most popular products of all time, but because I see they have the potential to be the best - even if I know that this potential means my bet is of higher risk, for my chosen solutions have a higher chance of closing and washing my investment away.

If you have read this blog for long, you will know that there are some services I really believe in - ones that I have selected based on their merits, and ones that I choose to invest my own time in to use personally, and to cover often. And should they 'pop' and become successful, leaving my little realm and moving on to the larger stages, like we saw with Socialmedian and TweetDeck last year, I won't get rewarded monetarily in any way, but am rewarded to know that I had some impact, and that I saw a real return on the investment to see people and products I invested time in have their success come to fruition. It's likely the same reason that Mike Arrington, at TechCrunch's 4th birthday party, which I attended, highlighted the fact that many in the room had gone on to make a lot of money since debuting on his blog, more than he focused on his own success. Even if he didn't gain monetarily directly from their success, as a VC (in text form), he had a member of the family graduate.

Not every investment will be a winner. Some of the products I've really liked (on paper anyway) have already closed. Some have flatlined or not gained the momentum I had hoped they would. But just like in the world of VCs, it only takes a few home runs to make the whole thing profitable. I'll keep writing and you watch where I invest my time and my words.

Gmail Should be the Hub of Your Company's Social Media Strategy

Back in March, I talked about how you can cleanly separate personal and work social media personalities, and suggested a list of tools that I use to make sure I don't blur the two. But as I talk with companies getting started in the big world of social media, one thing that keeps becoming clear to me is that they need to be using Gmail as the communication hub for their strategy. By using Gmail, companies can centralize all social media-related communication, make it available to third-party vendors who may be participating, and easily integrate with other Google tools.

One of the major hurdles in most companies looking to take on social media for the first time is their need to relax and reduce the amount of control they have over their message and who is engaging. Similarly, for some, the concept of having company-operated data, in the form of e-mail messages, on a third party site, can be daunting. But realities are that often, multiple hands are part of the strategy, and multiple people, including potentially the PR firm, need to be able to log in, making GMail a logical choice.


GMail Helps Manage the Data Onslaught
Additionally, having a Google Account is a requirement for multiple essential parts of one's social media strategy, including access to Google Reader, the creation of a link blog using Google Reader, and to set up FeedBurner for distributing your blog through RSS and tracking statistics.

By logging into the company's Gmail account, you gain immediate access to Google Reader, FeedBurner and Google Analytics, if you are watching your blog statistics closely.

What I recommend companies do is secure an official company Gmail ID and use that as the hub of their social networking activity. Their Twitter and FriendFeed accounts should use that same e-mail, as should YouTube, SlideShare, and other networks. New connection notifications and direct messages should flow through GMail, as should statistical updates, like those from SocialToo (where I am an advisor). Whether you structure the e-mail address as companyinc@gmail.com or companycorp@gmail.com doesn't matter, so long as it's clearly official, and the "From" data is a company name, not that of an individual.

And yes, from there, you can set up labels that automatically push e-mails from specific sources to the equivalent of folders, bypassing the in box. And with GMail, you never need to throw away any e-mail, finding your conversations threaded, and easily searchable.

Of course, Gmail can't solve every account. You still need someone to have a Facebook ID to start a fan page, and Facebook messages reside on Facebook. Similarly, you likely need a Yahoo! ID to use Flickr (if you go that route instead of Picasa). But starting with GMail as your hub makes it that much quicker to log into Google Reader and start sharing links, or click over to your FeedBurner and add new FeedFlares. To not use Gmail would mean either starting a unique account at the office dedicated to social media, or polluting the company address you already have. So if you care about streamlining your process and doing it right, point everything at Gmail.

Silicon Valley Shutdowns Mean Quieter Business This Week

The global recession has not spared Silicon Valley, or of course, the state of California, which stares in the face of bankruptcy, forced to grapple with an unprecedented budget shortfall. With a statewide unemployment rate exceeding 11 percent, the nexus for much of the world's tech innovation has been severely strained. The unemployment rate for Santa Clara County stands at 10.8 percent, with San Mateo County looking a bit healthier, at 8.1 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In an attempt to reduce fulltime job losses, companies throughout the Valley have turned to every play in the book to reduce costs - stopping and slowing projects, eliminating contractors, reducing pay for both rank and file and executives, forcing vacations, and the ever-popular move of company shutdowns (which we also saw in the 2002-03 recession following the crushing death of the first dot com era).

With Fourth of July looming, this week will see many companies in the Bay Area have their doors closed to non-essential, non-customer support facing employees. Among the known companies shutting down this week are Adobe, Autodesk, NetApp, and a number of other firms, both public and private, who are looking to draw down on company vacation during a time when some employees' thoughts are toward the beach and barbecues.

(See details from Autodesk and one Adobe contractor)

And for those companies that are staying open at a time when their counterparts are sleeping in, there's no doubt many employees are opting to take the week themselves, so you can expect fewer phone calls, reduced Web traffic, and yes, reduced real world traffic as well. So maybe that drive up the peninsula that used to take 45 minutes in morning rush hour just might take 25.

So if you drove into the office today and wondered why you didn't see the usual hustle and bustle, the shutdowns are why. It's a solution that makes the finance guys on one side of the building happy, and possibly the other side of the building isn't complaining much either, with a much-needed respite from the daily grind.

See Also:

• Good People, Bad Companies: The Intersection of Skill and Luck
• Which Companies Will Blink First and Lead Us Out of The Depths?

Know of any other Silicon Valley companies that are taking the week off? Let me know in the comments.

RakedIn Takes On Portals With Focused Finance Site

Today, a good amount of the news we get about businesses and the individuals at these companies comes from horizontal portals and news organizations that have other priorities - be it search at Yahoo! and Google, or politics and entertainment, like at CNN. Meanwhile, social sites like LinkedIn and business tools like Jigsaw and Hoovers are accruing personal details about many companies. A new site, debuting today, called RakedIn, has launched, trying to interweave the personalities behind the businesses you watch with up to date stock and financial information, as well as company overviews, with key leaders and board members.

RakedIn, launched by Mike Yavonditte, the former CEO of Quigo, who left AOL following that company's $340 million acquisition at the end of 2007, says it now has a collection of more than 200,000 companies and half a million people covered on its site, on day one, a number it anticipates to continue growing over time.


RakedIn's Search Engine Finds Data On LinkedIn


RakedIn's Profile of Twitter, the Company
The site's front page displays featured headlines and an update on the day's stock markets, headlines from across a wide range of industries, and the day's biggest losers or gainers. Aiming to have the most up to date information available, you can dice the information by industry, or even by press releases, company filings, or other news. The site even helpfully tells you if there are more headlines that have loaded as you read the current news - saying they have "raked in" new updates.


A Sample from RakedIn's Financial Data Headlines


RakedIn Also Shows Detail On Individuals Across Companies
Like Yahoo! Finance and Google Finance, you can dive down into any specific company, such as Microsoft, Google, Yahoo! or any of the Dow components. A company page, assuming it is public, will highlight the latest news, insider trades, employee compensation and other personnel highlights - as well as where the company ranks versus its peers. (For example, Microsoft has the highest earnings in Washington State and is the 88th largest employer overall tracked)


RakedIn's Profile of Microsoft's Steve Ballmer
One of the biggest aspects of RakedIn is the benefits of near real-time. During market hours, you can see stocks rise and fall, and headlines slot their way in to company pages. And the site even tracks your most recently viewed pages, giving you fast access should you want to return.


My Recent Activity on RakedIn Is Tracked
And for the largest companies, you can see how their extended families operate. For example, for EMC Corporation, you can see its related businesses, including VMware, Iomega and Documentum, as well as their estimated revenues, profits and employee counts.

RakedIn has a wealth of information, especially for a inaugural debut. And their focus might give people a very real alternative to the portals who are simply aggregating data from everywhere. Check it out at www.rakedin.com.

Would You Night Owls Pay a Premium for 24-Hour Commerce?

If you have a 9-5 job, and any responsibilities at home, be they family, digital, or anything else, you might find the world closed down around you by the time you're ready to go out. In most cities, practically the only things open past 9 or 10 are gas stations, 7-Eleven and possibly a grocery store. Want to pick up something from the electronics store, some new power tools, or even a new pair of slacks? You'll have to wait until tomorrow, but yes, the same hours apply, which means you're pretty much screwed until the weekend, unless you can sneak out on your lunch hour or roll into work late.

I've been a night owl since high school, at least - including a 1:30 to 9:30 a.m. graveyard shift during the summers, and working on the school paper in college starting at midnight. Even now, after putting the twins to bed after a full day, and catching up on all online activity, it's a rare night that we shut down before one - hours after the surrounding city has called it quits.

While I have moved as much of my commerce online as possible, there always remains the elusive item that would be much easier to get in the real world. What would be great is if there were something open for those of us who actually function very well between ten at night and eight the following morning. Whether there is one mega-complex open overnight that hits all the basics - from clothes to food to electronics and house supplies, or a mall in each metro area that does the same, I believe there would be a subset of the population that would flock to it - one that wouldn't mind paying a little bit more for the convenience.

I wouldn't even mind if the store charged one price at 7 p.m. and 20 percent more at 11, so long as they were open when I went. But I hate feeling like a prisoner to somebody else's schedule.

10 Rules for Today's Consumers In the New World of Real-Time

The world of communication and product delivery is changing as the Web evolves and new services are introduced, enabling us to gain faster access to information, download richer media more quickly, and rapidly voice our opinions and feedback near and far in a wide variety of methods, including text, voice, video and imagery. As customers become more savvy and in tune with these new tools, we are also expecting those offering products and services to adapt, and as such, I thought it made sense to put forth what I believe are key tenets of a new consumer manifesto for today's real-time world.

1. We Want Access to Your Product As Quickly As Possible

We have become an "instant gratification" society. Our short attention spans are being rewarded with ubiquitous access to fast food, the rollout of ever-faster download speeds, near elimination of commercials, thanks to DVRs, and the ability to replace activities that were once limited to venues outside the home with in-home equivalents, including on-demand programming and simulated bowling on our Wiis.

When we order your products, or sign up for your service, we want access to them immediately. We don't want to wait for an approval period, and if the product is physical, we want it shipped quickly at the first possible convenience.

2. We Expect the Product to Work On Any Platform In Any Location

Many of us spend more time in the Web browser and our e-mail than we do in our Operating System software these days. We rapidly grow frustrated with any Web sites or applications that operate differently if you utilize different operating systems or Web browsers, and we expect to have access to your product, or a mobile equivalent, when we are away from our desktops.

3. We Want to See That You Allow for Feedback, Positive and Negative

The time of a siloed product experience is gone. We want to see that you provide a forum or link to a third party site that discusses your business and your products, and connects us with peers, where we can learn from one another in a venue that reaches you as well. And if you do provide a forum or bulletin for us to provide feedback, we will not look kindly on your deleting threads or comments of substance.

4. We Expect That You Respond to Your Customers, Quickly

Customers are talking about your products on their blogs, on Twitter, on Facebook and other aggregation sites. They may send you e-mail or post in public forums. While we can't expect CEOs of the largest companies to respond to every mention, we do expect company representatives to be listening, and for the smallest companies, we do expect founders and entrepreneurs to be accessible.

5. We Expect That You Join and Lead the Conversation

In the absence of communication from you, rumors and negative feedback can snowball. And while you might be coached in handling crisis PR in case something gets out of hand on blogs or Twitter, the best way to get ahead of potential issues is to have a presence in these social areas before problems occur, so that your customers have a place to engage you, and you them, helping to redirect the conversation and react. Additionally, you can use your communication outlets to show thought leadership and teach us better ways to use your product in ways we may not have considered.

6. We Want to See That You Continually Improve Your Product

Thanks to the now assumed two-way conversation with your customers, we expect you will be making incremental updates and improvements that both meet your corporate objectives and satisfy user expectations - beyond fixing bugs. Not only do we now expect instant access and near real-time responses, but we hope for rapid iterations that add to our satisfaction. A stale product will lead to cranky users, and breed disloyalty, as we may migrate to alternatives that appear to be updating more frequently with more agility.

7. We Expect You to Use Your Product and Be Visible

One of the greatest endorsements of your own product is that you use it and make it a part of your own visible activity - making you appear as a peer with a shared experience in parallel to that of your customers. For the smallest companies, including startups with 1-10 employees, we expect to likely see your CEO and founders visibly consuming their own dog food, both exulting in its benefits and suffering through its disappointments. And if you do put up a central example of your employees or founder using your products, don't do it once and never update again, because we'll know about it, and it will a stark reminder of your pandering.

8. We Expect That You Will Embrace or Lead Standards

As we are helping you create a business by selecting your product instead of that of the competition, we expect you will help us, and the ecosystem as a whole, by either embracing existing standards that are agreed upon, or by forging new standards and releasing them to the community for the benefit of all. We reject proprietary methods that don't deliver significant differentiation, or aren't forced by antiquated legalities.

9. We Expect You Are Driven By More than Money Alone

As consumers, we are eager to be seen as your partner, and to contribute to improving the next iteration of your product, or in helping to grow the information base around it, through consistent feedback, formation of user groups, or in creating content related to your product. As such, we do not expect to be seen as blank checks, there to support your bottom line when quarters draw thin. Instead, we want to see that you share a passion for your products and your market, and know that you, as we are, are driven by the potential of what your product can enable us to accomplish. We want to know the story of what you are trying to solve, and how it can help the community, more than we want to hear about your margins and your EPS.

10. We Want You To Treat Us As Informed Consumers and Partners

We have real-time access to news and many of us are rabid information sponges who are experts about you and your product. We don't want to be talked down to, and often have significant history with your organization. We despise the tendency to architect service, support and marketing to the lowest common denominator, and greatly appreciate your expecting that we have a baseline of understanding that includes recent headlines on you and the industry.

---

While books including the Cluetrain Manifesto and Naked Conversations have chronicled the move by consumers and businesses to e-commerce and a new world of online communications, continued advancements toward real-time news and exchanges of ideas lay the platform for a revamped approach to consumer relations with business. We are finding out more about you than you ever believed possible, and we are more than willing to share it just as quickly - both the good and the bad. Embrace the change and embrace us as partners and we can be your greatest ally. Be truthful, transparent and trusted, and you can help us cross the chasm from customers to fans.

Good People, Bad Companies: The Intersection of Skill and Luck

If you have worked at a company that went public or changed the world, you might be given an unfair share of accolades for your part in its success, even if you were actually a pedestrian employee. Similarly, if you happen to have put blood, sweat and tears into an unsuccessful venture, you might be seen as having contributed to that's company's lack of success, or worse, its downfall, giving your resume a black mark. Despite one's best intentions, there is always a strong element of luck in terms of what companies succeed, what products gain share in the market, and, often, if you were hired at the right place at the right time.

In Silicon Valley, the measurement of success and failure can be extremely visible. "Oh. He worked at Google..." says one person in hushed tones to a friend. "And that guy? Let's just say he's on his fourth startup in six years."

But the company name, and the headlines that covered that company's activity over the years, never tell the full story. You don't always know if the person was liked and trusted by their employees. You don't know if they put in 14 hour days or 6 hour days. And you don't know if there was anything they could have done in their role that could have changed the outcome. It's no secret that companies big and small have elite employees, pedestrian employees, and laggards, be they those on the Fortune 500 or ones you've never even heard of.

In a time when the economy is in decline and unemployment is rampant, here and elsewhere, these rapid judgment calls are no doubt having profound effects. How do you explain your way around product failures, hostile takeovers and missed sales quarters? Should the guy whose company chose to go public three months before the market crashed, when yours didn't, giving them $100 million in the bank, and him a nice Mercedes, be considered a better talent than you? Should every former Google employee have a leg up on every former Yahoo! or Ask Jeeves employee, for example?

Watching some industries very closely, it can become clear that people, no matter their role in the organization, will claim the success of their company as their own handiwork. Paraphrasing from a recent release, many of which you've likely seen, a company crowed last month upon getting a new Sales VP, "Prior to joining, (this individual) previously served as a Senior Vice President at (company), where he was responsible for growing sales revenue from $hundreds of millions to $billions." But in the last twelve months, I had actually seen others of this company's alumni report that it was they who had been the driver for the same growth - generating the same similar press release.

Should they all take credit for the same thing, even if one person led worldwide sales, another was a regional area manager, and another oversaw channel efforts in a single territory?

There is something to be said about having been part of a shared experience of success or failure, and learning what to do next, should the opportunity present itself again. In Silicon Valley, where it's well known the vast majority of startups will eventually fail, most of us have two or three companies under our belt that didn't make it. An elite few managed to jump from success to success and not miss a beat. Still others have alternated success with failure, with a healthy mix of effort sprinkled with luck through the process.

It's this knowledge that doesn't get me starry-eyed when I bump into people who played central roles at companies that are household names today - not any more than I look askance at those whose history may be more checkered. All we can do as individuals is deliver our best effort and work to help the company we are at succeed to the level of our abilities. And should that not work, we should take a deep breath, look around, and do it again. Risk is not something to be feared, and with risk always comes the chance that you won't succeed - and it might not always be because of you.

Adobe: Our Products Are Expensive - And Don't Buy the Downloads

Last night I told you that Adobe failed my expectations for an instant download experience of their Creative Suite, looking like the company preferred to review every single software download manually. Now more than 15 hours later, I'm no closer to having access to the product I purchased, and if their support infrastructure is any indication, it might be some time before this gets resolved.

Along the way, I learned the company still has a long way to go before embracing true e-commerce and satisfying savvy customers.

Support Experience #1

Having seen my order still labeled as "Pending" in the Adobe Online Store, I called their "Purchase by Phone" toll-free number listed on the site, to see if I could push the order forward. After exchanging pleasantries with the support personnel on the line, I explained this morning...

Me: "I ordered the download version of Creative Suite last night, and the order shows as Pending. Can you see if it can be fulfilled or canceled, or what I have to do to get it moving forward?"

Them: "Has it been more than 2 hours?"

Me: "Yes. I ordered it last night, and it still shows pending."

Them: "Then the order is dead. I've seen that a few times today."

Me: "Dead? So what do you recommend?"

Them: "Well, first I would recommend never buying the download version. Always get the disks. You get an authentication code, can install on two computers, and can uninstall from the disk. I would never get the download."

Me: "But the disks and the box take up a lot of space."

Them: "No they don't."

Me: "Well, I would prefer the download version. What should I do?"

Them: "I don't deal with the online store. Let me transfer you."

Support Experience #2

I get transferred to a main customer service line. The quality of the call noticeably decreases, and a man named "Jerry", with a clear Indian accent, picks up.

Me: "I made an order on the Adobe Online Store last night, and it is showing as pending. I can give you the order number."

Them: (takes number... puts me on hold)

Them: "Your bank probably stopped the order. It was a big order - more than $1,000."

Me: "That's what your products cost. And I don't think it's the bank. I used my credit card."

Them: "Let me check while it is still pending." (puts me on hold again)

(Hold music warbles in with more static than notes)

Them: "Sir, it is your bank. We have released it. You should call your bank."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense."

Them: "Is there anything else I can help you with?"

Me: "No."

According to Adobe Online, my order is still pending. In theory, it could resolve this afternoon, or tomorrow, or next week. I can't cancel it. I can't move it forward. I can maybe call the credit card company, but I expect to get nowhere. But what I have learned (again) is that big companies that let bureaucracy get in the way of their customers will never win the customer service game.

Hey Adobe, I have the money. If you think this order is too big, lower your prices. If you think I shouldn't download your product, don't offer it. And if your phone sales team can't see the online side, you should find a way to get them talking.

Dinosaur Adobe Manually Reviews Download Purchases

After years of working on outdated desktop software, I was all set to bite the bullet tonight, and upgrade to the latest Creative Suite family from Adobe. Not interested in cluttering our already-cluttered home with boxes of software and CDs, I was pleased to see I could order a download version of the suite, and potentially have it tonight, installed and running while the twins slept. But for some bizarre reason, probably having to due with an overwrought insecure obsession with piracy, Adobe says it will review the order manually, in the next business day, and then, assuming I pass, I'll get permission to download what I bought.

Crazy. Dumb. Antiquated.


Seriously, Adobe? You're Reviewing a Download?
It's one thing to order a physical item from Amazon.com, the Apple Store, or Zappos, and expect it to ship in a few business days. But downloads? Instant or not at all. This is part of why iTunes has been so successful. Click to purchase, and you are downloading immediately. Same goes for Netflix's "Watch Instantly", and practically every other legitimate software download service.

What if I absolutely needed Adobe's software tonight? What if I were in a creative agency on deadline working the weekend? Could I tell a client that no, I would be unable to open their project in the latest version of InDesign or PhotoShop because Adobe was going to review my order the next day? It's almost enough to make me check out BitTorrent.

There's a reason Web services are replacing the old dinosaur software companies. They are more agile and more forward thinking. Maybe I'll get approved and get the software I paid for by tomorrow. But this is completely ridiculous. The world is moving to a real-time Web, and this is anything but.

Conquer Information Overload at the Inbound Marketing Summit

Earlier this week, I mentioned I am scheduled to speak at the Inbound Marketing Summit, featuring Chris Brogan, Tim O'Reilly, Tim Ferris, John Battelle, Loic Le Meur, Brian Solis, Charlene Li, and others. But it turned out that O'Reilly and I actually were on so close a wavelength that we practically submitted the same speaking topics. Aiming to be flexible, and let O'Reilly close strong, I thought we would revisit one of our favorite topics - how to avoid proverbial information overload, and find the right data at the right time, no matter where it is.

On Wednesday at 4:25 p.m. in San Francisco, just before O'Reilly finishes up, I'll be speaking on the topic, "There Is No Information Overload. Finding a Signal in the Noise".

The topic description leaves you with a little tip on what's coming:

"With a nearly constant stream of information related to you, your product and company from all corners, it can at times seem overwhelming. How can you break through the noise and find out all you need to, without being overwhelmed with a data tsunami? Don't just look to a chief information officer. Look to be a chief signal officer, by selectively finding where to listen, when to listen, how to listen, and if you should engage."

I've talked before about tackling information overload, and I'm looking forward to participating at the conference.

I do have a pair of VIP tickets available if you want to go, so send me an e-mail if you're interested.

IT Trade Show Attendance Down Sharply. Is Quality Improved?

During the last recession, especially in 2002 and 2003, our experience showed that attendance at technology trade shows was very poor, to say the least. If vendors weren't canceling their sponsorships outright, or dramatically reducing booth space, the scarcity of end-users saw marketers desperate to hit target lead counts, even if it meant randomly scanning those who just wanted the give-away of the day. But in this go around, having attended a fair number of events so far this year, while I see attendance is once again down significantly, the quality of those end users who remain might actually be better overall.

As mentioned yesterday, I am spending the week at the NAB conference here in Las Vegas. This show, expected to draw tens of thousands of attendees, if not a hundred thousand, as once estimated, clearly doesn't have as many exhibitors as in previous years. The hallways are less jam-packed, and wait times for services like taxis, shuttles and the monorail are greatly lessened, compared to other times I've attended.

Any trade show veteran knows that the first and second days of a show typically drive the lion's share of activity. Often, a 3-5 day show can be like molasses as all the exhibitors pace upon their well-carpeted square booths, and watch the clock by the end of the week. So getting a big number on day one can be critical. While today's activity was very busy through the first portion of the day, by the second half of the eight-plus hour shift, I could have sworn it was Wednesday already - and I know we were not the only ones with serious gaps in visitors.

But interestingly, despite the relative quiet, as I also experienced at Storage Networking World in Orlando at the beginning of the month during parts of that show, those attendees who are making the visit and the inquiries are those who we should be talking to. It could be that companies who lived through the last recession have learned to save money by not sending more than the critically necessary attendees to said events, effectively aiding them and the vendors who see them by improving the signal while lessening the noise.

If you are a technology marketer deciding whether or not to spend your money on trade shows this year, I wouldn't recommend outright pulling the plug. If you reduce your presence, end users will understand your desire to save money. But if your competitors go and you don't, they've got a beeline to deals that should be yours. And if you're a technology purchaser wondering if you should go to a show, ask around the office, and see if somebody with better focus can go on your behalf. It will make sense for your budget and for the vendor ecosystem as well. I hope that what I'm seeing so far this year displays this is already happening.