Kuhr Strategies

MENU
  • HOME
Featured

    Featured Posts

Valuation Lessons: Market Makers v Product Sellers

Filed Under: product marketing, strategy, VC on 21 January, 2009 Tom Kuhr
I attended a fantastic presentation at an Access Executive Network event last night. This is a great group of technology leaders who want to better themselves and also give back to the Southern California tech community. The speaker was a former Clearstone VC partner, Phil Ressler, who is now the CEO of BigStage Entertainment, a pretty cool personal avatar company just starting to get some market traction. Phil, as it turns out, is one of the only VC's (or former VC's in this case) that I've had the privilege to meet who understands software company operations, but more importantly understands how to find and appeal to a buyer.

I wrote about buyer personas last week and how I thought most VC's just didn't do enough homework before investing to determine if a company's product is sellable, and if so, who exactly they'd be selling it.

Phil Ressler, in his talk entitled "Communications are Strategic", went into quite a bit of detail about his personal experiences at three different software companies (Nantucket, Gupta and Callidus) and how he was able to transform these companies at a very early stage by changing their focus in the buying process, and using clear messaging and communications to creating a market need. He explained that at all three companies, the founders and early exec teams were very technology focused and understood marketing to be product marketing - talking about products, performance, and features. He was able to add a messaging layer on top focused on creating a bond with a buyer. These communications described the brand and tied prospective buyers to the company emotionally, rather than descriptively. It gave them the 'big picture' of the company.

Phil outlined very eloquently what I've always described as the promise to the customer. When you take away the debate about product features, speeds and feeds, and instead focus on understanding a customer's real problems, you position yourself as a trusted partner to help them solve them. That promise to the customer is something that most tech companies don't have, and can't possibly think of because they haven't identified the real buyer of their product or their motivations for buying. The promise is the 'big' vision that the company has, and it's also usually the most simple and clearest elevator pitch - it's not too detailed and conveys the end benefit to just about everyone.

Ressler provided 14 separate tips to help the audience understand how to become a 'market maker' and create demand, rather than remain a product-centric company selling into an existing, well defined space. A few things really stood out for me:
  1. First, startup success isn't about selling a product really well, it's about creating market value. I've not heard it phrased quite so simply, but companies that have more buzz, more market presence, more mindshare, and more vocal customers get sold for a much higher valuations than companies with great technology or who are building a solid business quietly. That means creating company value, not just product value. It means providing solutions to solve a problem, including product, services, support, and a partner ecosystem. It means keeping that promise to the customer and exceeding expectations.

  2. Next, successful market makers invest about 10% of their resources in engineering and technology and 90% into making the market - public relations, market education, public speaking, business development, awareness and becoming the perceived market leader. Market makers build the perception that their company is much larger than it really is, and talk about a problem as if everyone needs to solve it. If prospects think their peers are working on something, they won't want to be left behind. Creating a market need will drive business to come to you, rather than you having to seek the business.

  3. Companies that are focused on creating value also understand that value has a time limit, and value actually goes down at some point. I think that inflection point is when buzz and mindshare about the company is at its highest. Its at the time of the greatest percentage in growth, rather than greatest real-dollar growth. The growth trajectory is the most important - it will level out at some point, but the most value is right before that when the company is 'hot' and seemingly unstoppable. At that time it becomes an emotional sale for the buyer - they've got to have it - and there's less attention paid to revenue, customers, and products due to this intangible aura of success. Companies who know their end-game is an acquisition must sell at this point and not continue to build an empire in the hopes of getting sold for more. Founders who think they will get more money later because they will have more revenue do an extreme disservice to shareholders.

  4. Lastly, companies that build value offer multiple products. Even if the different products are varieties of the same core product, cutting out features is a great way to create an instant product portfolio and multiple price points. This is interesting because it does a few things: It gives customers a choice, it enables the maximization of revenue , it allows the sales team to close more deals that would have been lost due to price points (improving that growth trajectory), and it makes the company seem bigger than it is. Companies with one product can't go it alone at some point, especially in enterprise software - it becomes to hard and expensive to scale. Companies that have multiple products become a) more appealing to potential buyers b) have a greater chance of stand-alone success which in turn c) makes them even more appealing and valuable to potential buyers. Companies who have the choice to continue stand alone become more coveted, increasing their value in the eyes of a buyer.
Thanks for a great talk Phil, I hope I captured your thoughts accurately!
Read more

Advertising Growth Challenged Because of Social Networks? Rubbish.

Filed Under: advertising, product marketing, social networks on 15 January, 2009 Tom Kuhr
If this is a problem we're all in real trouble. I read this article in the Financial Times yesterday with disbelief and awe that someone could draw such a ridiculous conclusion. The report seems to be asking the wrong questions to come to this statement.
The Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, which will publish the “Social Media Futures” report compiled by Future Foundation next week, has warned that advertising agencies face growth of just 1.2 per cent a year by 2016 if the industry fails to tackle the changes to the media created by sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.
Of course the landscape is changing! Social networking and personal recommendation for products is ensuring that word of mouth "advertising" is becoming a much much larger factor in product evaluation and decision making. That does NOT mean that less money will be spend on brand promotion, but it does mean that agencies that don't know how to market in the new world will get much less of it. Darwin's law will prevail again - there are agencies that have/will adapt and they will thrive and grow on that same hoard of cash. Industry growth will not be hampered, but wealth will be redistributed.

Movie studios have known about word of mouth and its direct influence on product success for years. That's why there is so much drama about release dates, pre-release advertising, pre-release availability, limited distribution, press screenings, etc. If your movie is going to suck, you want as many people as possible to pay and find that out first-hand rather than hear it from another source.

Online, personal recommendations are nothing new either. It started with eBay's seller ratings, CNET's gadget reviews by customers, and Amazon's comment system. It's been going this way for years. Just because social media has accelerated it and made buyer recommendations more trusted and more personal doesn't mean that word of mouth hasn't been influential, it just means that ad agencies are in denial and too comfortable to do anything about it.

Agencies who can't adapt or haven't started to adapt to this should go out of business. Advertisers that think creating a 'brand' is about commercials, imagery, spokespeople, graphics and point of sale communications are done. Even in Marketing 101 they teach you that a brand is the whole product experience, but in so many companies, this is completely forgotten. Branding means spending advertising dollars the "right" way to gloss over any product deficiencies, to ensure that products that are just OK have equal time in the eyes of potential buyers. In the 1960's (or maybe I've watched too many episodes of Mad Men) this worked - products relied on awareness and distribution to be successful. Today, distribution is free and awareness through traditional channels isn't the same - there's too much noise, too much hype, too many Tivo's, and people have become cynical about the promise of a brand. Rarely does a product or brand live up to it's billing, so everything is taken in with filters. And when a brand does keep it's promise, you want to tell everyone you know about it - it's that exceptional!

Where'd the FT dig up this guy? He's clearly clinging on tightly to his pension, and should be canned immediately:

“I don’t think [social media] is a replacement for paid-for media, it is just going to be a challenger for [consumers’] time and attention.” - Moray MacLennan, IPA president and chief executive of M&C Saatchi Worldwide.

Social media is not going to compete with anything - everything online (and soon on TV) will BE social media. There will be no alternative, it will be pervasive - it's already starting. And it will cost just as much to market successfully - but the spend will be on skilled people and interaction, not on broad media buys.

Advertising (promotion of a product) isn't going to stop, it's not going to decrease, but its going to change. Promotional dollars will move out of 'traditional' advertisers hands and to ad agencies that 'get it'. Ad placement is definitely going to go down online, and probably offline - it will hurt both publishers and agencies that make significant income on media buying.

Agencies that "get it" understand that they need to become the first-person voice of the brand, not the third-person. They know they need to become a partner with the company they represent and actually contribute to closed-loop product improvement. Interactions with customers are centered around building trust - building web presences that provide authority and interest beyond the product, that create discussions about the high-level problem with transparency and authority.

Successful brands will become trusted advisers for their domain. Consumers will turn to brands for answers that are honest, even if they means that the brand calls out deficiencies or weaknesses in their product, or actually admits they have competition. This is the transparency that consumers crave, and agencies that can drive companies towards this will be hugely successful. Marketers will get honed feedback about their products that they can then incorporate into the next product version and improve their market share. Customer feedback and iteration will happen much much faster than it does now with CPG brands, much more like the software that makes rapid networked communication possible.

I see a bright future for agencies that understand things are quickly moving toward a "personal" trusted relationship with a brand. Projects will be different (the report the article quotes points to consulting services, creating new forms of web content, and analysing data). Social marketing won't look like display advertising. It won't be interruptive. It will be communicative and transparent, and results will make for better products and more loyal customers. This will in turn lower marketing and promotion cost by reducing brand 'switchers', and make forward-thinking agencies tomorrow's heroes.
Read more

Imaginary VC Investment Criteria: People, Market Growth, and Technology

Filed Under: investment, product manager, product marketing, strategy, VC Tom Kuhr

One of out three is the best you're going to get.

After rummaging through quite a few business plans lately, looking at new startup ideas, and chatting with investors about what they're looking for in this crazy market, it became pretty apparent that VC's aren't telling the truth about their investment criteria. They say one thing, but it always turns out differently.

The thing startup executives hear over and over again is that VC's invest in:
  1. The Management Team (first and foremost)
  2. The market and market growth
  3. The technology or product

I hear quotes like:
"If the management team is solid, they can innovate through anything"
"The first version of the product is rarely the version that sells"
"The technology has to be just 'good enough' if the market is the right size"

When is someone going to call BS on VC's when they spew this stuff? Venture capital investors understand financials, leverage, and some even understand technology. Most do not understand how to interview or hire good people, and most (using extreme blog liberty to make sweeping generalizations) don't understand operations or how to launch a new product successfully. How can I say this with so many successful investments? Precisely because there are so many more unsuccessful investments. VCs say they look at people, market and lastly technology - but it's really the other way around. It's apparent as evidenced by their investment criteria and their investment track record.

Market Size
Vetting a typical deal involves market sizing and potential growth - calling on industry analysts, market leaders, and other investors to determine whether they think there's a market and how big they expect it to be in 3 years. 19 times out of 20 these numbers are optimistic (at best) or just plain egregious. The accurate representation of market size or growth for a new technology or new or nascent market is virtually impossible. But having analyst or expert validation somehow makes it all OK.

Speaking with initial customers / reference customers / prospects is also a common evaluation exercise. This is better as a determinant of a company's success, but it's much more complicated than that. VC's call their friends, CTO's they've developed relationships with, and people at big consulting companies to talk about the validity and usefulness of the product. Good investors get some pretty good information. But, calling on these people can also be misleading, since they might not be representative of the market as a whole. Calling on a company's early customers is a problem as well. Any founder worth his salt can sell a product to a friend or colleague or two. Almost anyone can sell one product to an enterprise for less than $50k - under the budget approval radar - and that's the sweetheart deal that so many technologies get 'proven' at.

VC's go back to their board rooms and say "Yes, people will pay for this" because Joe at Fortune 500 bought it, so others will too. This unfortunately doesn't lead to any understanding of whether the sale is repeatable by a non-technical (scalable) sales team.

If investors REALLY and truly cared about the market or market potential, they'd do a ton more work here. Work that takes more than a few phone calls and a few days to complete. They'd have the company do real market research, prospect calls and focus groups, and they'd demand that the company put a product marketing pro in place as part of the executive team.

Understanding a Market
In doing what I call a "360 Degree Analysis" you can really determine whether the market is ready for a new technology, who the buyer is and what their motivation is, what the use case is, and what budgets they can pull from. This analysis is a rigorous, scientific assessment that combine qualitative and quantitative data from surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Without in-depth understanding of potential customers and potential buyers in different departments of target companies - across industries - market readiness will just be a guess.

The most important result of a 360 Degree Analysis is a Buyer Persona. A buyer persona is different than a User Persona, but similarly it's a picture of a "real" person and all the influences on that person. It will answer questions like: Who is the buyer? What do they look like, who do they work for, what problems are they trying to solve? How do they get budget, how big is the problem, and how visible is it inside and outside the organization? How much budget is currently allocated, and where is the project on the year's list of things to do? Most importantly, what are the buyer's motivations?

Market size isn't enough - to really understand whether a technology can be sold, a clear picture of the ideal customer and buyer, the sales cycle, buyer's needs and timeframes must be painted.

The bottom line: if more companies vetted their exact buyer persona BEFORE funding, I would bet a dollar that more than half wouldn't get funding at all. Probably more like 60%. They wouldn't find a repeatable buyer, they wouldn't find usable budget, or they wouldn't find the "problem" they're solving exists or is painful enough (yet) to do something about it.

CAVEAT: In the B2C web space, where there is very little buying cycle involved, its really really hard to do any sort of pre-market testing of an idea. Consumers can't typically understand or explain whether they like something or would pay for something without seeing it first, so the 360 Degree Analysis can only go so far without a Beta product. But for a B2B enterprise software or SaaS solution, there is no excuse.

Executive Team
The most likely reason this exercise isn't done before or during due diligence is the team. Although a strong executive management team is the first on the list of criteria most VC's will say they're looking for, it's almost always the last.

Most technologies are built by technologists who call on one reference point in building a product - their own personal experience or that of a family member. Some technologists have more connections and a broader understanding of users but in my experience there are very few that understand the motivations of buyers. Someone with product marketing or product management experience is required to do this type of extensive market research, and usually those people aren't sought until after an A round, or even after a B round. Many executives expect sales people to have the knowledge to hunt and find buyers armed with only a description of the technology and what it does. It takes a rare salesperson who used to be in a buyer role, or a very experienced (very expensive) salesperson to talk about buyer problems in such depth that they can glean motivations. Even more rare is a salesperson who can talk to 10 prospects and extrapolate commonalities about buying patterns and be able to communicate that back to the executive team, especially R&D.

Not having a strong, senior product marketing executive as part of the founding team adds directly (and significantly) to the time and cost of selling a new product - it takes between 6 months in the best case and 3 or more years of continuous funding in the worst case for some companies to a) find the right buyer and buying situation and b) be able to replicate that across multiple customers.

What about the CEO? you say. Typically a CEO comes with this type of understanding of a market and market motivations, but rarely does a CEO have time to do all the work required for a good 360 Degree Analysis, never mind document a persona and create all the collateral to train and arm a sales team. But, a great CEO will recognize this and will find someone quickly to get it done. Maybe that's what they mean about a "great executive team" - a group that understands what they don't know, rather than what they do.

Great Technology
So, where does that leave VC's? Investing in great technologies. Things that they think are cool, are game changing, market disrupting innovations but aren't necessarily products that can be sold for a reasonable amount of money. And some of them are successful...but not because anyone knows for sure before the investment, but because the VC "feels it" and can convince their partners it's a good bet.

Great technology is why most companies, especially B2B companies, get funded. VC's bet that someone somewhere will think it's as cool as they do, and be willing to pay for it. I'd like to think that the investors that want to build a more solid portfolio will realize this. 'Home runs' in this market just aren't possible anymore, so putting together a portfolio of 'singles' and 'doubles' is the real way to provide a solid return to limited partners. I see venture capital firms moving this way, and I predict that the best ones will start to bring product marketing expertise in house to do formal, rigorous, scientific analyses and create buyer personas to help them understand the real buying cycle before investing millions.
Read more

Tom Kuhr in the News: Articles, Posts, Comments

Filed Under: articles, bylines, Tom Kuhr on 01 January, 2009 Tom Kuhr
Tom's quotes, comments and articles have appears in dozens of
publications worldwide. Below are a few samples.





Los Angeles Times
OleOle! A Beverly Hills company helps you follow the Euro
by Alana Semuels
June 19, 2008

Marketingberater - Web 2.0
Podcast-Interview: OleOle - Das Social Network für Fussballfans
Interview by Sebastian Voss
October 10, 2008

TechZulu
OleOle: Viva Futbol!
Interview by Cristina Cinque
August 27, 2008

Download Squad
CircleUp Answers Your Questions
By Brad Linder
July 13, 2007

Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance Journal
After the Auditors Leave: Demonstrating 404 Compliance On Demand
By Tom Kuhr
April 18, 2005

SC Magazine
Debunking the Security Tool Myth

By Tom Kuhr
September 2004

New York Metro ISSA
Enterprise Security: You Can't Fix What You Don't Know About (PDF)
By Tom Kuhr
December 2004

CNET
The Internet as a corporate power tool? (PDF)
By Tom Kuhr
August 14, 2001

Integrated Solutions
ECM: Enterprise Content Mania

By Jay McCall
April, 2002

Windows / .NET magazine
Planning, Clear Thinking Important to Success of E-Commerce
Initiatives

Tom Kuhr - Interview
May 19, 2002

US Tech
Euro Launch Needed Special Web Attention:
Launch of the European Central Bank's Euro Site

By Tom Kuhr
January, 2002

Transform
"Content Goes Global"

February 2002

Internet World
Spotlight on Day Software

January 22, 2001

ServerWorld & Unisys World
"Key Points for Managing Content"
By Tom Kuhr
April, 2002

Content Wire
"...Like Fishing in a Swimming Pool"
By Tom Kuhr
August, 2001

eCompany
"[CIO's and Unified Business] Information als zentrale
Aufgabe"

von Martin Ardt und Tom Kuhr
April 2002

Information Week
"Click-And-Mail Services Cancel Post-Office Hassles"

(Stamps.com competitive overview)
July 24, 2000

Read more
« Newer Posts Older Posts »

Great Reads

  • Vice Sports / Soccer
  • Great Real Estate Advice
  • Find the Best Realtor

Popular Posts

  • Complete List of Flash Sale / Private-Sale Sites for Travel
    Last Update:  March 19, 2012 More flash sale sites focused on travel & hotels every day How easy is it to start a flash sales site o...
  • Imaginary VC Investment Criteria: People, Market Growth, and Technology
    One of out three is the best you're going to get. After rummaging through quite a few business plans lately, looking at new startup idea...
  • How to Start a Flash Sale Website
    It seems that everyone and their brother is starting a flash sale website - why can't you? Well, there's the issue - there are SO ...
  • Top 10 Must-Have's When Hiring a Product Manager
    Hire the Right Product Manager: Skills and Experience to Look for Beyond a Job Description or Resumé A smart man asked me last week, "...
  • Good Feedback is a Product Managers Best Friend - UserVoice
    I ran across a company called UserVoice today and it looks like they've got their act together. I don't know how long they've ...
  • The Family Travel Blog for Families That Want to Travel Off The Beaten Path
    There are so many family travel blogs out there. Apparently, there are quite a few mom's and dad's that can write, and also travel w...
  • Marketing Your Brand on Pinterest - Better Than Facebook?
    There's a lot of talk about Pinterest lately due to it's crazy-fast growth (faster than Facebook): What is it good for? Why is it g...
  • Is Mobile Video Advertising More Effective Than TV Spots?
    Mobile video advertising, and short-form video advertising in general, is and will continue to be more effective than most TV ad spots.  Thi...
  • New Flash Sale Site for Travel: Orbitz Insider Steals
    Only a matter of time before all the OTA's get into the travel flash sale game. They have emails of millions of customers, why not put ...
  • Distribution & Conversion: The Fusion of Marketing and Product
    Chief Marketing Officer: What’s in a Job Title? The Product Management function for Internet companies is a Marketing function. If it’s n...

Categories

  • advertising (1)
  • analytics (1)
  • android (1)
  • Apple (1)
  • apps (1)
  • articles (1)
  • blackberry (1)
  • blog (4)
  • blogging (1)
  • Browsers IE6 (1)
  • bylines (1)
  • citizen journalism (1)
  • CMO (1)
  • data (1)
  • dogmative (1)
  • Facebook (4)
  • fans (1)
  • Fantasy Football (1)
  • flash-sale (6)
  • g1 (1)
  • gphone (1)
  • hiring (1)
  • how to (1)
  • HP (1)
  • investment (1)
  • iphone (3)
  • links (1)
  • media (1)
  • media relations (1)
  • MySpace (5)
  • new media (5)
  • new technology (1)
  • old media (2)
  • OleOle (1)
  • online marketing (2)
  • personas (2)
  • pinterest (1)
  • product management (2)
  • product manager (4)
  • product marketing (4)
  • product strategy (1)
  • search engine optimization (3)
  • SEO (3)
  • social applications (1)
  • social media (15)
  • social networks (9)
  • social publishing (1)
  • Storm (2)
  • strategy (2)
  • Tom Kuhr (3)
  • travel (3)
  • Truviso (1)
  • usability (1)
  • use case (1)
  • VC (2)
  • viral marketing (1)
  • Yahoo (2)

Hey Kids, it's Me

My Photo
Tom Kuhr
I'm a marketing + product strategist for software companies of all types. A 20-year industry veteran with experience in product-market fit, international growth, AI, SaaS, mobile, ecommerce, product management, product strategy, and consumer branding. I love building products with great user experiences. I really love driving revenue and creating momentum with early-stage software companies.
View my complete profile

Blog Archive

  • ►  2019 (1)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2013 (1)
    • ►  February (1)
  • ►  2012 (5)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2011 (4)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  June (3)
  • ►  2010 (2)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (1)
  • ▼  2009 (14)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (1)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ▼  January (4)
      • Valuation Lessons: Market Makers v Product Sellers
      • Advertising Growth Challenged Because of Social Ne...
      • Imaginary VC Investment Criteria: People, Market ...
      • Tom Kuhr in the News: Articles, Posts, Comments
  • ►  2008 (19)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (6)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2007 (1)
    • ►  December (1)

www.CodeNirvana.in

GTM

Back To Top
Copyright © Kuhr Strategies | Blogger Templates | Designed By Code Nirvana