Archive for the ‘Business Development’ Category

Product Marketing is More than Ready Fire Aim

Monday, April 18th, 2011

by Steve Dearden  |  Steve is part of the Seattle practice and brings experience in IP licensing and software services, manufacturing and devices sales to the Altus team. Email Steve with questions or comments.

Ready Fire Aim

Ready Fire Aim

Ready, Fire, Aim is a frequent joke among startups. There is some truth to it, of course. A young company cannot know all the ways in which the market and its customer will respond. In this post, I’ll share some thoughts on how to shift that phenomenon to preparation, focus, and execution.

While there are many pitfalls along the startup path, one of the earliest problems new companies face is identifying, acquiring and nurturing the customer base that is optimal for growth. Finding those customers who have a clear need for the product or service, are willing and able to purchase, and ideally become enthusiastic advocates once they become users; fueling the early expansion of the startup. An additional challenge is that many tech products are solving a problem that customers may not even know they have (think about a better contact management or project management or document storage solution).

Finding this best customer is not as straightforward as it sounds. There are several factors at play between a fledgling company and enduring success with a loyal customer base.

Problem: Even with social networking, no one has heard of you.

Often early stage entrepreneurs with great ideas produce products that are new and innovative. Even though friends, business contacts and other engineers rave about the product, the company still fails to get revenue traction. Revenue does not expand as expected, and new customer acquisition turns out to be much harder than anticipated. Those critical early adopters don’t materialize.

Preparation: What are the 3 most important benefits you provide your customers? Just as important: How you are finding these new customers? How you find them is often as critical as finding them. What are you doing to help those customers find you?

Michelle Riggen-Ransom, co-founder and CCO of Providence-based start-up BatchBlue Software (makers of social CRM BatchBook) recommends a two-pronged approach. “Certainly create accounts in Facebook and Twitter and make sure you are engaging and responding there as you build your online network,” she says. “But don’t neglect the power of making connections in real life. Some of our best customers have come attending local meet-ups, conferences, or when we’ve sponsored an event.”

Problem: A “product for everyone” has high value for almost no one.

When the new product or service has many potential customers, in many different industries or groups, there is a tendency to make the product generic to meet the wide range of marketplace tastes. By making the product “generic”, often it does not have enough value to any one group of customers to be compelling. Instead of being adopted by multiple groups of customers, penetration into each segment is limited because the product has not been “honed”.

“There is a benefit to casting a wide net when you first go to market,” counters Riggen-Ransom, “But you should have the flexibility to adapt once you see where you are picking up traction.”

Execution: How do product enhancements get prioritized?  Who is providing input to that process? Of all the potential customer types, do you know who will be compelled to buy the most, who will buy first, and who will buy again? Conversely, are you willing to throw your plan out the window and create a new one if it looks like your initial assessment was incorrect or changes once you’ve launched your product?

Problem: Crawl, walk, and then run.

While long term success for the business may require acquisition of large customers, it is better to prove technology and sales process with smaller companies first. Targeting the so-called elephants in the room (large customer prospects) as the first and only customers can lead to disappointment.

Focus: Regardless of company size, are you asking yourself why you lost a deal or why you won it? The answers can reveal gaps in your customer communication process.

Problem: Drinking too much of your own Kool-Aid.

Just like finding bugs in a piece of code is hard for the person that wrote the code, many companies have their own image of what their products mean to their customers and what value they provide.

Surprisingly this is often without talking to the customer to really understand how the product affects their lives or business. Without truly “getting inside the customer experience”, there is no way a fledgling company can really understand what it is they offer. So they need to develop an understanding what customers think about the product or service and its value to be successful.

Preparation: How do you regularly communicate with customers? Is there a communication process or flowchart guiding what you say and when? Given the social nature of customer service today, do you have a social media plan?

Problem: Jumping into a crowded pool.

Is there an “obvious” customer out there? Many companies go to market believing there is an obvious customer that will be easy to reach. This may or may not be the segment that will be the best in terms of profitability, top line growth and enduring customer loyalty. The “obvious” customer segment may be crowded with competitors, with price competition and margin erosion. There may be so many product alternatives that customers feel no need to be loyal. From the customer perspective the choices boil down to price and availability, there being little or no meaningful or significant feature differences between the multiple offerings.

Focus: How are you segmenting? The biggest segment is not necessarily the best. Early gains and growth are critical. Pick the segment that can give you early gains, not the one that looks like the largest.

Conclusion: As your customer base expands, and you start to take on more customers providing more features and delivering more value, you will find that these preparation and focus questions can keep your execution on track. Ready, Fire, Aim will not be in your vocabulary but replaced with preparation, focus, and execution. Or, as Michelle from BatchBlue says: “Research, Reassess and Repeat as necessary.”

Image Credit: cliff1066™

4 Reasons NOT to listen to the siren song of the Channel too early

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

Over the last 10 years at Altus, and for many before that, we have seen, or sometimes (unfortunately) been a part of, many misguided efforts to prematurely develop an alternate or indirect sales channel. Entrepreneurs often mistake a channel partner for an armed and ready sales force. Or they are simply in a rush to become a global company before testing and validating the product and sales process in their own backyard.  And in these tough economic times in particular, the compulsion to grow a channel and the factors the effect their success are even more prominent.  Here are the top 4 reasons why I’ve seen premature efforts at developing channels fail.

1.  The Product is not Proven

We worked with one client with a cleaver advertising technology. Early in the initial launch cycle, an opportunity popped up with what could have been a large and strategic partner in taking our product to market.  With very little field results and nothing more than blind faith in the development, we jumped on the opportunity and quickly secured a large and joint customer.

Unfortunately, the product failed to deliver as promised which resulted in a black eye with the end customer and more importantly with the goose that was to lay the golden eggs. The simple truth was that the product wasn’t ready; it hadn’t been rigorously tested either in house or with smaller beta clients.

2.  Lack of Demand

To this day we still get sucked into the trap of beefing up forecasts too high based on the belief that the new market leading channel partner is going to add our widget to their line-up.  More often than not, unless you are the ones feeding the demand (or there are performance guarantees), the partner will likely come up short of your expectations.  The relationship gets strained right out of the gate and the certain success is a big question mark.

The safer assumption is that channels are good for fulfillment, not for demand. Don’t expect your partner to market your product and drive demand.  If it happens, great…just don’t sign them up, check the box as mission complete and move on to the next market or territory.  They may sell it, but they likely aren’t dependent on its success—at least not the way you are. The ideal scenario is you spur the demand and then you channel (pun intended) that demand to your partner, even if you could satisfy it on your own. This way you get your partner started down the right road, give them some experience selling your product, and pave the way for a mutually beneficial relationship. Do not get lured into the trap of selling partnerships instead of customers.

3.  Lack of Sales Tools

We had one client in the Telco space where the CEO was a master at the pitch and demo and was a high-odds closer.  Following a few big wins, they believed it was time to bring on a channel.  However, again the expectations were not met, in this case because the partners did not have the CEO’s talent and experience.  Even more than the company’s own sales team, channel partners are hugely dependent on easy and effective sales tools to close deals.  Unfortunately, most of the time a misalignment occurs in which the company expects the partner to have the tools and skill required and the partner on the other hand expects them to be supplied.  Often more problematic is when the partner does not even ask and the result is an ill-equipped channel team that simply does not deliver.  Have you armed your partner with the tools—an ROI calculator, case studies, PowerPoint’s, demos, white papers, brochures, one-sheets, etc? Have you given them a proven process with proven tools? “Just get people on the phone and talk to them” may have worked for you, but that is not a scalable recipe for channel success.

4.  Lack of Sales Support

Last but not least—do you have dedicated resources to support the channel? One Altus client, a media entertainment company, successfully recruited a number of data partners that were logical and complementary to their offering.  But beyond the initial sales training there were no resources dedicated to supporting them. The results were again a shortfall of expected and planned revenues largely because the follow-up to questions and overall availability of sales and technical support was too slow.  To be effective and meet those forecasts you should have the same level  (if not greater) of customer-experienced support all fully available and prioritized to be responsive and proactive. Ideally there is a period of mentoring and team selling that both helps see how the process is done effectively and builds a strong rapport between the teams created.

So perhaps the adage, ‘Be careful what you wish for’ is a good one to keep in mind as you think about channel expansion. I’ve seen companies desperately wish for a channel partner and then get it, only to find that they weren’t ready. They didn’t have a ready product, or the necessary demand, or the tools and processes and people needed to support their partner. The result is often worse than a failed customer because of the broader reach.  What looked like a boon can sometimes be a bane.

Avoiding wasted Biz Dev cycles

Monday, December 31st, 2007

A saying that many of us have cited is “sometimes the best deal is no deal”. Ed Sims has a good post on how to cut your losses if you are getting the biz dev run-around.

Interview with David Kaefer of Microsoft’s IP Licensing group

Monday, February 6th, 2012

David Kaefer is the Director of Business Development for Microsoft’s IP Licensing group. The Seattle area’s largest A round in the last year went to the first licensee of this new effort (Inrix) to more broadly license Microsoft’s broad base of under-utilized IP. It’s worth taking note when something as significant as that happens so thought it was worth sitting down for a chat with David. The technologies they are making available tend to be “pre commercial” in that they aren’t quite ready for primetime in terms of a final product form in areas that are getting funding. They tend to be standalone products or at least a substantial feature of a bigger product.

Altus: How are you going to measure the success of the program?

David Kaefer (DK): Success of this program is indicated in many ways, but in the short term it is shown with every licensing agreement we sign. Because of the nature of these agreements, the ultimate success and benefits from this program will be borne out over the long term.

Altus: The first licensee (Inrix) was all ex-MS people? While I assume you don’t have to be an ex-MSFTie to license the technology, why would an ex-Sun person (as an example) consider licensing your IP?

DK: Inrix technically wasn’t a part of this IP Ventures program, but rather that agreement occurred as a result of the kinds of inquiries we received on a regular basis and is an example of some of the impetus for the creation of the IP Ventures program. This program is open to all comers, and we hope that it is interesting to all parties regardless of their former employer. The program offers rich, stand alone technology that is best utilized by a party who has the capability of taking it from the prototype phase into the production phase and ultimately to market. We want to talk with any interested party who has those capabilities.

Altus: What’s a typical deal structure? Equity? Royalty? For how long?

DK: Each agreement is negotiated on an individual basis. We can accept cash or up front payments, but we recognize that many start ups need to conserve cash. Equity or royalties or any sort of creative combination of the two are what we expect to see on a regular basis in these agreements. The length of each agreement will also vary on an individual basis and will depend on the parties, the technology, the perceived market for the technology and other relevant factors.

Altus: You have 20 technologies listed on your site that are available. Why these 20? How many others will come out? Are you going to be focused in particular areas?

DK: We started with these twenty based on feed-back we received from the venture capitalist organizations we spoke with. They helped us identify the technologies that are most marketable and the ones that are receiving the most VC backing right now. We expect many others to be unveiled over time, but it’s impossible to predict exactly how many or when or even the particular technology focus of the innovations added to the IP Ventures program in the future.

Altus: What makes these technologies something MS wants to share vs. other R&D that isn’t shared externally? Which do you think are most valuable of what they are licensing? Why?

DK: The main reason these technologies are being shared is that we see a market opportunity for them. They are not currently being used by Microsoft in the manner in which another company could use them. We think that all of the technologies available under this program are valuable.

Altus: What kind of assurances do your licensees get that the IP is defensible? If there’s a dispute where a 3rd party claims infringement, how is that handled?

DK: Each agreement will be negotiated individually to the mutual satisfaction of the parties. There are many ways that the potential liabilities can be borne and distributed amongst the parties and each agreement will factor in the unique indemnities and assurances necessary for the parties involved.

Altus: Has any form of market validation or input taken place for these technologies? Do you know what markets are likely to be interested in the various technologies? Is there an objective person/team providing that validation?

DK: Right now, the primary form of market validation has been the input of the VC’s and entrepreneurs we have been talking with in the last few months. For example, we have had discussions with VC’s like 3i plc, Advanced Technology Ventures, MDV-Mohr, Davidow Ventures, OVP Venture Partners, and Insight Venture Partners. The true test will occur when the technology is released to the market, but we feel confident that the outsiders we’ve spoken to represent a broad cross-section of the market place with a sophisticated business sense about which technologies are best to pursue right now.

Altus: What’s the process once someone sends a mail to the team expressing interest?

DK: The complete details about how to take advantage of this program are available at http://www.microsoftipventures.com.

Altus: With corporate VC investment on the rise, will MSFT ever be a financial backer of these companies in addition to providing IP?

DK: That is not how we envision our participation in these agreements but it isn’t something that we would necessary rule out.

Altus: How will the researchers who developed the technology be available to the startup?

DK: To operate this program successfully, we recognize the need for a high-touch approach. We intend to work with the licensee to provide them with what they need to implement this technology into their products. Access to Microsoft researchers may be important to transfer basic know-how about the products that isn’t well documented in some other form. Access to these researchers will be a consideration for a number of the deals.

Altus: How do you plan to reach out to the entrepreneurial and VC communities to make them aware of what has been developed?

DK: Our outreach has already begun. We have been meeting with VCs and entrepreneurs over the last few months. We have spoken to large groups of VC’s at the NAVC conference in New York last week and the VC summit in the Bay Area this week. Our IP Ventures team is going to Europe next week to continue the engagement we’ve begun with venture groups like 3i plc. Additionally, we’ve issued a press release and conducted many media briefings on this program roll-out.

Altus: Are there any upcoming events where people can learn more?

DK: To this point, we have done 1:1 meetings with VCs as well we are included in forums Microsoft puts on that target VCs. We have also had meetings with established companies looking for specific IP. What often happens is we share some of what we have and they indicate specific areas they are looking for. In some of those cases, we have technologies that are applicable.

Altus: Have you reached out to angel alliances or individual angel investors?

DK: We are experimenting with a variety of different groups to reach out to. While we have spoken with individual investors, it’s an interesting idea that we’ll consider.

Altus: Do you have any technologies applicable to the emerging Smart Energy arena?

DK: The technology behind Inrix is focused on “machine learning” and has been applied in areas ranging from anti-spam to traffic (Inrix) where there are repetitive and predictable outcomes. It’s entirely possible that the same technology could be applied into Smart Energy. In addition, a Utility could use a technology that we call “Zone Zoom” that would allow a utility to drill down on problem areas on the grid. We have also done work in battery cell technologies.