Non-Linear Growth

A glimpse around the next corner; mind the curves.

The make or break fallacy

It seems inevitable that every startup hits an inflection point; a “make or break moment”. There is no path to success that doesn’t include these moments. You have to go through them; they are not optional.

The catalysts that create make or break moments vary. Sometimes the catalyst is external; perhaps the market meeting your product, an acquisition by one of your potential partner’s competitors. Sometimes the catalyst is internal; a great new product release, a partner deliverable. We all know what these moments look like; we’ve all described a moment in time as “make or break”.

The notion of “making” a business in a singular moment is alluring. But entrepreneurs rarely think about the execution risks they will face after they’ve “made the business”; and the fact that there are likely to be future “make or break” moments where they will also have to avoid breaking. For me, ”make or break” is a fallacy. You can absolutely break a business in a singular moment, but rarely can you make a business that way. The only way to truly “make” a business is to exit it, in which case, future execution risk and future “make or break” moments become irrelevant.

Perhaps we should rename ”make or break”. Lets call it a “don’t break” moment. ”Don’t break” moments comes with the recognition that by not breaking, you create opportunity to execute well in the future so that you can see future “make or break” moments where you must also “not break”. If you make it through the gauntlet of multiple “don’t break” moments, you might just have the opportunity to exit the business for a monumental value at some point in the future.

How would you rename the “make or break” moment?

Filed under: Lessons Learned, Venture Capital, , ,

What we have here is a failure to plan

Well, it’s that time of year; the end of the year that is. Time for holiday cheer, budgets and for a rare few, strategic planning. I say for a few because I’m frequently surprised at how little I hear from the VC community and VC-backed CEOs about strategic planning. When I do hear about planning, it is usually an entrepreneur or VC trying to explain to me why it is not necessary. The rationalizations go something like this:

Planning is for big companies.

Our space moves too fast to plan; if we define a strategy we’ll just have to change it in a couple of months.

We’re small, nimble and well-coordinated so we don’t need to plan.

Everyone in my company already knows what they should be working on.

Sorry to be Scroogy, but to those rationalizations I say hogwash! Go ask five of your employees to define the single most important thing the company needs to accomplish next year. Better yet, go ask your executive team; they should know, right? If you get more than one flavor of answer, you need a strategic plan.

Lets be honest, when you cut to the chase, the real reason entrepreneurs and VC’s object to planning is that it takes time, effort and concerted thought. Planning also implies goal setting and goal-setting implies there are objectives you can measure results against, and that implies accountability. Time, effort, concerted thought and accountability; who wants that hassle?

Planning doesn’t have to be complicated or burdensome. For me, planning is like creating a mental map.

Where am I, where am I going and how to I get there?

The process starts with an honest assessment of where you are. Unfortunately, in our reality-bound world, you don’t get to navigate from where you want to be; you can only navigate from where you are. When you are climbing a mountain, you don’t get to start 100 feet from the summit (that is unless you’ve driven to the top of Mt. Evans, in which case you are cheating in my opinion). Planning forces you to come to grips with where you are on a strategy map.

Planning also forces you to define your destination. If you can’t define where you are going, you are wandering aimlessly in the woods.  The rationalization that your space moves too fast to define the destination is not acceptable. At minimum, you should be able to create a directionally correct picture of the future that you are striving to create (ie. Our destination is to the west). The destination you articulate should be worthwhile and aspirational, yet realistic. Don’t worry if the destination changes in a future planning session; that is natural in an emerging market space. But the notion that the destination may change is a lame excuse for not planning at all.

Finally, planning forces you to create an execution path that closes the gap between where you are and where you want to be. If you can’t define the execution focus that will help you to close the gap between where you are and where you want to be, how can you expect your employees know how to close the gap? Tactically focused, execution oriented people you find in most companies need to know how to get from point A to point B in oder to be effective. It is your job to give them the map and show them how their job fits in.

Planning 101: Keep it simple

Planning doesn’t have to be complicated. To really boil it down, we can dispense with the “soft fuzzy stuff”; mission, vision, strategic intent, etc; although I’m a believer that those pieces of strategy have merit. For an emerging growth company, planning should be about two categories of issues:

  1. The things that you can accomplish that will make you wildly successful and;
  2. The things that you can do to yourself or that can happen to you that will kill your business if you do not prevent them from happening.

My Partners and I at Meritage call these the “Critical Issues”. There should be no more than five to seven of them. If you have ten or more critical issues, you probably don’t have the time, knowledge, resources or capital to execute your plan. Embedded in the critical issues is where you are, and where you need to go (point A and point B on a map). With those points in mind, the next step is to determine the route you are going to take.

For our companies, we like a set of three to five initiatives lined up against each of the critical issues. The initiatives provide tactical guidance regarding what you can to get from point A to B. Initiatives must be within your control; saying that your market must grow 50% next year is not an initiative. Initiatives must also not be prescriptive. “Sell better” is not an initiative, whereas “implement sales training program” clearly is.

Finally, now that you’ve defined the initiatives you are going to execute against, we have our companies establish measurements that define their success against the initiatives. Measurements must be, well, measurable. In other words, use numbers and dates; 10 enterprise customers by year-end, 8.5+ on customer satisfaction survey, version x.x of the product released by June 30, 2009 and on budget. Again, keep it simple; three to five measurements per critical issue is sufficient in our experience.

Putting critical issues, initiatives and measurements into a three column table gets your entire strategy map on one piece of paper. That is remarkable because it provides a simple communication tool to use with employees, Boards and shareholders. Some of our companies use the three columns as the first page of their Board reports and add a red-yellow-green light next to each critical issue to reflect the CEO’s overall assessment of progress against the critical issues. This format makes for an effective visual representative of progress.

This may sound old school, but its my experience that management teams that are honest about where they are, who know where they are going and are able to outline the key steps to get there perform better than management teams that can’t commit these things to paper. If you don’t have the vision to anticipate where you should be by the end of next year, shorten the time-frame; do quarterly or semi-annual planning.

Choosing not plan at all is a massive failure of leadership. So get your management team in a room and hash it out; you will all be better off for it and so will your company’s performance.

Filed under: Uncategorized, Venture Capital, , ,

Why cash is such a tough competitor; last cash markets

I’ve been spending a bunch of time recently thinking about last cash markets – markets that are still dominated by cash payment – and how electronic payment can penetrate these markets. Some of these markets (vending, taxis, paid parking) are huge (measured in billions). The lack of connectivity with the point of acceptance is a huge issue for some of these verticals; low cost “back-channel” the point of acceptance is an absolute requirement for electronic payment to crack some of these markets.

I was grateful when my friends at PYMNTS.com put me on the hot seat with five questions about the topic. You can find their full Briefing Room on last cash markets here.  My answers appear below. I’m interested in your thoughts.

1.       Smaller ticket sizes, among other factors, in the taxi and vending industries have resulted in their being the last cash markets in the U.S. What barriers still exist on both the consumer and merchant sides to continue to migrate these markets to electronic-based payments?

In order to understand why cash markets still exist, I really think you have to think about cash is an incumbent competitor to electronic payment. Like any competitor, you have to evaluate the value proposition relative to the competition. For the merchant, cash is fast, reliable and low cost (although not costless) to accept. For the consumer, it is accepted ubiquitously, and requires no trust of an institution. When framed this way, it becomes clear that just how fierce of a competitor cash is.

The value proposition differs by vertical market; each with different needs. In some verticals, like the taxi and vending verticals, near-zero cost and near-immediate acceptance are absolute requirements. For electronic payment to crack these verticals, the cost of acceptance for the merchant must drop below the cost of accepting cash and the immediacy of collection must match the near-instantaneous immediacy of accepting cash.

 2.     Consumers have more payment options than ever at their fingertips. Why are consumers still loyal to cash?

For some consumers, particularly the credit challenged and the unbanked, cash will remain king. Some don’t have access to the classes of services that would enable them to pay electronically. Some choose not to access electronic payment services because of skepticism of the institutions that facilitate electronic payment. Whether by lack of access or choice, fundamentally this class of consumers has no other way to pay.

3.     Payments is all about cracking the chicken and egg problems of changing consumer behavior and changing merchant behavior. From your perspective, what side of the chicken and egg debate is the hardest to solve for?

I’m a big believer that the chicken and egg “choice” is a false choice. Said differently, any solution that wants to displace cash must have a simultaneous value proposition for the consumer and the merchant. If the value proposition is weak on either side of the market, the solution will not take hold, no matter the strength of the value proposition on the other side.

Cracking these markets is about solving a problem for both sides of the market simultaneously and getting them to adopt the solution in lock-step.

4.     Pundits have been telling us that the cashless society is right around the corner for the last fifty years. What’s taking so long?

In verticals where the point of acceptance is highly distributed, the availability and cost of connectivity required to facilitate electronic payment is a huge hurdle. For example, I think about every parking meter in the world as a point of acceptance. The up-front and recurring cost to network every one of those points of acceptance makes the economics of accepting electronic payment infeasible. Taxi’s and vending machines suffer from the same “lack of connectivity”. The more distributed the point of acceptance and the lower the collections per point of acceptance, the bigger the barrier to adoption.

Only now are solutions becoming available that leverage “nearly-ubiquitous” connectivity; the mobile phone. The mobile phone provides an already in place back-channel that costs the merchant nothing, because the connectivity is already in place and is paid for by the consumer.

5.     What cash-based sector will be the last to convert from cash – why and when?

Without delving into illegitimate or illegal business activities that will always be dominated by cash, the sectors that will be last are those with the most fragmented and infrequent point of acceptance. In addition to taxis and vending, I’d add paid parking, charity events and even panhandling. In these verticals, it is just unrealistic to think that electronic payment can ever fully displace cash. Cash is too strong a competitor to be easily or fully displaced.

Filed under: Payments, , , , , ,

My Twitter Feed

  • Boy that Zynga IPO sure is under-performing they say. After all, its only a $7 BILLION MARKET CAP COMPANY!!!! What a failure. #sarcasm 1 month ago
  • I've pocket dialed about 15 people in the past 24 hours. Sorry to all targeted... 2 months ago
  • Just out of Warren Miller movie "... Like there's no tomorrow". Winter on! 2 months ago
  • Trapped in steerage at Laguardia. Time to get off the plane folks. 3 months ago
  • Long week; my fumes are running on fumes. 3 months ago
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.