Bottom-Up Enterprise Software Is Now Mainstream

in , ,

Back in 2012 I wrote about the 'bottom-up' approach to enterprise software distribution. Bottom-up happens when a product is initially procured by an individual employee or group of employees and then, once a critical mass is reached, a seller upsells the product across the organization with additional features, bulk pricing, etc. This has now become a mainstream approach to enterprise software distribution. I recently attended a Go-to market conference held by a prominent venture capital firm and they advised everyone that the first question an enterprise startup should ask before designing a go-to market strategy is: are you bottom-up or top-down?

With successes like Atlassian and Slack and others the bottom-up model has come a long, long way in recent years. 

However, bottom-up doesn't work for every industry -- at least right now. Take healthcare as an example. To sell a product into a large healthcare organization you must get IT approval, work with compliance, promote workflow changes, train staff, potentially integrate into an EHR, address HIPPA concerns and do lots of other stuff before the first user can log-in. The top-down model can be a requirement.

That said, I believe we’ll start to see this change. The bottom-up model will only become more mainstream and will take market share from vendors that don’t adapt. Traditional enterprise vendors should take note and start to evolve.

Some specific implications:

Software vendors need to prioritize the user of their product over the buyer of their product (they're quickly becoming the same person). Engagement and user satisfaction metrics should be equally important as sales metrics. Employees are increasingly demanding that the software they use at work function at an equivalent level to the apps they use on their phone. And switching from vendor to vendor continues to get easier. If a product isn't adored by its users its ripe for disruption.

This change also means that product must play a much larger role in distribution. The product must be remarkable so people will talk to their colleagues about it and it must be easy to spread the word about and nearly effortless to access. If you look at the fastest growing enterprise startups (see below) the one thing you’ll find is that nearly all of them make it extremely easy for a new user to sign up.

Finally, this trend will bring big changes to sales and marketing teams. Marketing (messaging from one to many) will play a larger role in the selling process as it'll be responsible for acquiring the product's early users. This changes messaging and use of channels in a big way. When any employee within a company is a potential buyer your marketing starts to look a lot more like Apple's than Oracle's. And salespeople will need to increase their selling competence to represent both the user (human factor data insights, workflow changes, usability) as well as the enterprise buyer (product context, integration, ROI).

The line between enterprise software and consumer software is continuing to blur. And while there are industries where top-down will continue to thrive, the processes and systems and beliefs that have enabled this approach are beginning to crumble.

In the end, the real threat that bottom-up startups present to top-down vendors isn't just that they may have a more effective way of getting a product into market, it's that their approach requires them to build something that's very unique in enterprise software: a product that people love.

Enterprise User Acquisition & Consumer User Retention

in ,
In thinking about a product's user acquisition, the nice thing about enterprise products is that when you get one customer you get a lot of users. You just need to sell one CIO on your product and you’ll quickly pick up thousands of users.

The not so nice thing about enterprise is that you’re going to lose about 20% of those users every year due to employee turnover. Your entire user base is going to turn over every five years. Acquisition scales in enterprise. Retention does not.

The not so nice about consumer products is that, unlike enterprise, you have to acquire users one by one. You don’t have the scalable distribution channel that you have with enterprise. In consumer, user acquisition is expensive and really difficult.

But the nice about consumer products is that once you get users you can keep them forever (you don’t have the turnover problem).

It’s interesting to note that some companies have figured out how to take the good from enterprise and the good from consumer.

One example is eShares, an enterprise product that digitizes paper stock certificates and options and warrants and rolls them up into an easy to use cap table to help startups and startup employees manage their equity. Employees generally sign up for the service just before their start date when they receive an option grant from their new company (to sign the option grant employees need an eShares account). If the employee leaves the company they keep their account open to manage their equity and they can add subsequent option grants from subsequent companies to keep all their documents in one place.

eShares is brilliant in that they have morphed an enterprise product into a consumer product and have reaped the benefits of both models. This is a super powerful way to quickly build a huge set of engaged users and is a great way to get ahead and build a platform rather than just a useful app. I’m sure eShares investors are taking note.

The Next Big Thing In Healthcare Technology Will Start Out Looking Really Small

in , , ,

Fred Wilson had a great post last week titled, Bootstrap Your Network With A High Value Use Case. He points out how Waze's initial value proposition was to help drivers that like to speed identify speed traps. But it of course quickly expanded way beyond that and now provides lots more value to lots more drivers. It has become mainstream. Same thing with Snapchat -- it started out as a "sexting" app and has now expanded to more applications and is used by the mainstream. This is sometimes called the "bowling ball strategy" in new product development where you focus on knocking down the first pin by being very focused on one segment and one application and then you gradually knock down more pins (segments & applications) over time until your product works for the mainstream. The idea is to find a narrow niche that loves what you're doing, refine the product and expand from there.

Related to healthcare, this blog has talked a lot about centralizing patient data with the patient, as opposed to multiple medical records across multiple healthcare providers. Most would agree we need to get to this place but the path to getting there isn't terribly clear. Patients aren't clamoring for it yet and there will likely be some resistance from software vendors and healthcare providers as it flies in the face of the strategy of owning the data and, by extension, the patient.

My guess is the way that we're going to get there is similar to the way that Waze built a massive maps business and Snapchat built a massive photo sharing business -- it's going to start with a small niche.

I can see an application that has built a network of highly engaged users with a very specific and highly sensitive medical condition that shares important clinical information back and forth between provider and patient becoming the starting point for consumer-driven patient data. Big software vendors will likely ignore this application because it impacts a small niche and the patients will be highly engaged because their affliction is such an important part of their lives. Once the product is refined it can be extended to other patient segments with other medical conditions and it'll grow from there.

As Chris Dixon likes to say, "the next big thing will start out looking like a toy".

In this case, the next big thing in healthcare technology will start out looking really small: a simple tool that serves a very small, but highly engaged set of patients.

The Interface Layer & The New Economy

in , ,

I've been thinking a lot about this notion of the "interface layer" in web services and how it's changing the economy and the way money flows. The concept of the "interface layer" is pretty simple. It says that the old economy was about building tangible infrastructure -- cars, buildings, stores, etc. And the new economy is about building really slick and beautiful and easy to use web services (interfaces) on top of that infrastructure;AirBnB for lodging, Uber for ride sharing, OpenTable for restaurants, Expedia for planes, etc. These companies don't own buildings, cars, restaurants or planes, but they make a lot of money by allowing consumers to easily access these things. It's no longer about building infrastructure, it's now about building beautiful, slick, mobile, easy to use 'layers'.

One of the big complaints about these layers (or interfaces) is that many believe that they commodotize the underlying asset. Uber users don't really care which cab company the driver is a part of, they just want the cheapest ride that gets them from point A to point B. This detachment from the brand drives down the cost of the ride and drives down the income that goes to the driver. Uber is commodotizing drivers. And drivers need to think really hard about how they're going to separate themselves from the pack if they want to continue to charge a premium.

Uber's layer is winning the taxi space.

But with the increasing use of mobile and the decreasing use of the desktop web, mobile is quickly becoming a platform on its own. And soon, instead of Uber being the 'commoditizer', Apple's iPhone or Google's Android could easily commodotize Uber.

Let me explain. Today, if I want a ride somewhere I go to Uber or Lyft or Sidecar or some other app to book a ride. This is a bit clunky in that it's hard to know which of the services has the best option for me based on the time of day and where I want to go.  I have to download all of the ride sharing apps and scroll through them to find the best deal.

Of course I'm not the only one that's annoyed by this. Very soon (if not already) we can expect that there will be services that will aggregate all of the top ride sharing apps into one so I can pick the best option for me (just like Kayak does for plane tickets).

This would be really bad for Uber. Now they're the one getting commoditized. 

But when mobile is a platform, it gets much worse.

Apple and Google could easily add their own layer on top of these aggregation layers. At some point soon, instead of going to the Uber or Lyft app, I could just open up Siri and say, "give me a ride to SoHo". And Apple will scan all of the ride sharing apps or ride sharing aggregators (even if I haven't downloaded them from the App Store) and deliver the best result. This is absolutely what Siri wants to become -- the entry point to the web.

In an extreme example, I could tell Siri, "take me to my friend's apartment and let's stop somewhere to pick up a bottle of wine that pairs well with Italian food." Siri then decides which ride sharing app, which business directory app, and which wine app to use to bring me the best experience.

Apple could easily cut a deal with a ride sharing aggregator, Yelp and HelloVino (a wine discovery app) and take a fee from each of them. In this case, not only is the Uber driver getting commodotized, so is Uber and so is the ride sharing aggregator.

This is an important issue for any web based service to think about. The new economy might be less about the battle for the most beautiful interface and more about the service that can get closest to the user. And it's beginning to look like platforms rather than interfaces might win the war.

How Mobile Is Impacting Facebook & Healthcare Strategy

in , ,

Many people used to believe that Facebook was an extremely defensible business and that it would be almost impossible for another social network to compete. It has grown to an enormous scale with massive troves of data and more than 1.5 billion monthly users. The thinking around their defensibility was that because all of your friends and photos and updates are already stored on Facebook, it would be tedious and unnecessary to switch to another social network. Everything you need is there. Why go somewhere else?

Facebook did have quite a bit of defensibility back when the predominant access point to the service was the desktop web. Moving your data to a new social network was painful and impractical. But now that the main access point to social is our mobile phone (more than half of Facebook’s traffic comes through mobile) things have changed dramatically.

We now carry around all of the key elements of a social network on our cell phones. Our phones carry our location, our photos and our address book and allow us to message anyone at no cost from anywhere in the world. With the click of the touchscreen we can view and connect with all of our friends on a new social network and instantly recreate our social graph. We can take a photo and instantly send it to a multiple social networks. We can easily join different social networks with different groups of friends focused around different needs. The friction of leaving Facebook and joining a new network has disappeared. This wasn’t possible with the desktop web, or it was at least much more difficult.

As a result of the increasing use of mobile, we’ve seen lots of new social networks emerge (there are now dozens of social networking apps with 1 million+ downloads in Apple’s app store, including Kik, WhatsApp, Tumblr, Google+, Instagram, Snapchat and many others).

This increased use of mobile has reduced the friction of launching a new social network to near zero and as a result has shifted ownership of data away from the network and back to the individual. Trying to own the data and lock-in the consumer is no longer a viable strategy.

Facebook is well aware of this and has adjusted by rapidly buying up many of these new networks. We’ll likely see more acquisitions like these in the months to come.

_____________________________

Over the last several years, large healthcare provider organizations and healthcare software vendors have been employing a similar strategy to that of Facebook. Health systems have been growing by buying up ambulatory, community-based sites and employing doctors to build out giant systems that can offer clinical services across the entire continuum of care giving the patient no reason to go anywhere else. In parallel, providers and software vendors have been creating a single patient record (including blood tests, physician notes, imaging and other data) that flows across the entire provider organization and can be easily shared with providers across the system. This avoids all of the classic frustration associated with having to fax your x-rays from one provider to another. Everything exists on the web in one single record. Providers then roll out a patient-facing portal that lays across the patient record where the patient can access all of their data (mostly through the desktop web).

The strategy is simple. Providers are telling the patient to 1.) stay with us because we do everything and you don’t need to go anywhere else and 2.) you can’t go anywhere else because we have all of your data.

But as we saw with Facebook, now that a consumer’s primary entry point to the web is their mobile phone, this strategy has some flaws.

Not only do our phones enable messaging and carry our location and address book and photos, they can also carry data on our movement, our sleep, our heart-rate, the prescriptions we’re taking, our body temperature and, with the use of implanted devices, much, much more. This real-time data that we carry on our phones is arguably more valuable than the data stored in our clinician’s patient record that only gets refreshed while we’re sitting in the examination room.

Increasingly, providers will own some patient data but the patient will own more data and better data.

Like Facebook, healthcare providers are trying lock in their customer by owning the data. But the increasing use of mobile has changed the game. Just like social network users can effortlessly syndicate their own data out to multiple social networks, a patient will be able to syndicate their real-time clinically relevant data out to multiple providers, regardless of which system they’re associated with.

Mobile has put patients in the driver’s seat.

Meanwhile, with the emergence of home care and tele-health and urgent care clinics and apps and implants that manage more serious and chronic conditions, in many ways healthcare has actually become more fragmented. The traditional providers may be consolidating, but new players are creating new channels for care and causing more fragmentation across the industry. Where and when and how care is delivered is being completely reshaped.

But unlike Facebook, large healthcare providers can’t buy their way out of this conundrum. First, because they don’t have enough cash (most are non-profits with microscopic profit margins) and second because healthcare is local. Health systems are no longer just competing with the hospital across the street, they’re competing with web services that are available to the global market.

As a result, large provider organizations are going to have to consider new ways of providing value and will have to select which segments of patients they want to serve.

In short, they can’t own the patient because they can’t own the data.

The idea of locking the patient into one network of providers was always a bit flimsy. But the strategy was somewhat understandable. A lot of this was driven by the trend towards value-based payments and the convenience of 'owning' a patient under that model.

But the lessons of Facebook are clear. Locking up the data is not a path to success.

Social networks and healthcare providers must focus on what they do best and focus on serving the consumer they want to serve and abandon their attempts to win by owning data that isn't theirs to own.

Some Thoughts On Apple & Software For Cars

in ,

The tech world is buzzing about the rumor that Apple's plans to build a car. They bought Beats a while back because they needed talent that knows how to make things that people will wear (e.g. a watch). And now they're hiring talent from Tesla that knows how to build cars and software for cars. Benedict Evans had a great post on this topic on Saturday where he offered lots of ideas on the risks and benefits of such a venture. Please go read it if you're interested in this kind of stuff.

I wanted to point out two key points he made in the post here.  From the post:

...can Apple create new value in the industry in the way that it did in phones?  With the iPhone, Apple created a new price segment and (with Android following) made the phone industry's revenue much bigger - the average price of a phone sold has more than doubled since 2007. But cars are, pretty obviously, more expensive than phones. Many people can find $400 for a better phone or, this year, a smart watch, if they're persuaded that they really want one, but rather fewer can find an extra $40,000 for a better car, or to replace their car every two years instead of every 4 or 8.  If you're in the market for a $20,000 car, there is very little that anyone can do to a car that will put you in the market for a $60,000 car. Cars do not come out of discretionary spending.

This is an important point. The iPhone was such a success largely because, in reality, they created a new (high-end) category that didn't exist before. The beauty of that high-end category is 1.) it's actually a mass market category because most people can afford a iPhone -- lots of people that make $50k a year have the exact same phone as people that make $30 million a year and 2.) people buy a new device every two years (that's a pretty nice recurring revenue stream for a hardware business).

Generally, neither of these factors have existed in the car business (most people can't afford high-end cars and the average driver replaces their car about every 10 years).

That said, these dynamics are changing a bit. Celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio have been photographed driving around in a very affordable Prius (Frank Sinatra wouldn't have been caught dead in a low-end car). And while it's unlikely that the masses will start buying a new car every two years, it is becoming clear that fewer and fewer people are going to need to own their own car -- both because of the astounding growth of on-demand rides and the coming emergence of self-driving cars.

Benedict writes about this later in the post.

...self-driving cars might support both an on-demand model and an AirBnB model for cars - does your car drop you off at work and then roll off into the city to earn you some extra money driving other people around? Would people want to do that? Would that reduce the opportunity for 'dedicated' on-demand vehicles? Who knows. Of course, it's also possible that self-driving technology, said to be a decade away now, will remain a decade away indefinitely, as so many other AI projects have done.

In short, on-demand rides, shared self-driving cars and artificial intelligence are going to lead to massive changes in the way we get around and the way we manage our own personal transportation and the things that we do while we're travelling. And all of it -- I mean all of it -- is going to be driven by software that will become a large part of our day-to-day routine. Apple has to be in the middle of that. Apple has to make a car.

Healthcare Technology: Who Owns The Data?

in , ,

A couple weeks ago I was listening to a panel discussion with a bunch of venture capitalists and someone (I can't remember who) made the point that the value of so many of today's web services comes down to one question: "who owns the data?" For example, while Uber has some nice UI/UX, the real reason they're so valuable is that they own the data. For them, the data is knowing where all the cars are located. I go to Uber because I can quickly locate and communicate with the drivers in my area. I like the app, but the real value is the location data. Same thing with AirBnB. It's not the app, it's the data they have on all the properties that I'd like to rent.

With this in mind, last week I read that Stanford Healthcare announced that they built the first patient facing app that integrates data from devices such as Fitbits and Withings scales into Apple's Healthkit app. Apple can than transmit that data to the patient's provider through the provider's patient portal app (in this case, MyChart, which is built by Epic Systems, a huge health IT vendor that builds software for hospitals and health systems).

This is an enormous step forward for the integration of patient captured health data with provider captured health data. It's awesome news.

But as all of this finally starts to come together, it begs the question: who owns the data?

Or, at scale, which company benefits the most from all of this data floating around?

Stanford? Withings? Fitbit? Apple? Epic?

Well, Stanford is very local, and isn't terribly focused on data collection, so it's probably not them.

Withings, Fitbit and other device makers contribute a relatively small part of human health data so at least for now they're not going to own a large piece of the data pie.

Apple still only owns well under half of U.S. smart phone market share -- and that number is expected to shrink. And they own even less of the market share of the chronically ill patient segment that can really benefit from this kind of data exchange.

So that leaves Epic, the 30-year-old health IT vendor that currently owns a medical record on well over half of the U.S. population. They have long-term contracts with large providers and (presumably) a long-term contract with Apple and will likely cut deals with Android and other smartphone operating systems in the near future.

In short, more than anyone else, Epic will own the data.

But this raises all sorts of new and interesting questions and conflicts. Will Stanford allow Epic to share its patient records with other Epic providers? Will Stanford allow Epic to share its patient records with other health IT companies? Will Epic allow Stanford patient records to be shared with other health IT companies? Will Apple allow Epic to share data captured from an Apple device with data captured from an Android device?

As I've written before, it seems to me that in the long-term, the answer is a Mint.com for Healthcare, where the patient truly owns the data. But in the meantime, the question of "who owns the data?" will be watched closely by investors, app makers, providers, health IT companies and patients. It's going to be fascinating to watch this play out.

The Unintended Consequences of Individual Metrics

in ,

Several years ago when I was working with an e-commerce company we came up with a framework for how to grow transactional shopping revenue. We called it "the Box".

The idea was to get shoppers into the box (acquire new users and get them to come back to our sites regularly). And then, once they were in "the box", to make good things happen (get them to buy lots of stuff).

We setup two separate teams: one team was focused on driving traffic and the other was focused on converting that traffic into dollars.

The "traffic driving" team didn't worry about shopping conversions and the "conversion" team didn't worry about driving traffic. We put the teams in silos and told them to focus on their goals. The thinking was that if both teams did their job, overall revenue would grow.

The beauty of the framework was that when weekly revenue grew, we could very easily determine who deserved credit. Was the increase caused by something that the traffic driving team did or something that the conversion team did?  Very rarely was it both. Neither team could hide behind another's success. We could easily identify the initiatives that we're contributing to overall revenue and those that weren't. It seemed like a great model.

But we quickly saw that the structure we setup caused some problems.

The traffic driving team, in an effort to drive traffic (as opposed to revenue), found some quick, easy and suboptimal ways to drive traffic to our sites. For example, they'd email millions of users with an offer from a high-end car company. The response rate would be great and traffic grew, but nobody bought (low conversions). Users just clicked around and looked at the cars because they were interesting. Most weren't planning to buy, or if they were they were planning to buy offline.

At the same time, the conversion team put brands that converted well (such as Target and Wal-Mart) front and center on our websites. While those brands did convert well, they produced small average order sizes and didn't pay us a significant commission. Combine that with the fact that the traffic driving team wasn't pushing shoppers to the offers that the conversion team was promoting and we quickly found that our user experience was disjointed.

It became clear that we couldn't have our teams operating in silos. To maximize revenue, they had to work together. They had to collaborate. They had to do more than just their own job.

This initiative underscores the challenges around siloed teams and metrics. When high performing people are given clear objectives with quantifiable metrics attached to them, they'll very often accomplish those objectives. And there will very often be unintended consequences from that accomplishment.

All of that said, even after that experience, I still strongly believe that managers must create clear, measurable metrics for every employee in the organization that only that employee can control. It's a crucial part of an accountable, high performing organization.

But at the same time managers need to closely monitor whether or not those siloed metrics are positively or negatively impacting the overall health of the business. Setting up a framework where individuals and teams are focused on producing impactful work week to week is the (relatively) easy part. Getting multiple teams focused on snyergistic activities that add to the overall value of the business is much more difficult. And much more important.

The Consumerization Of Procurement

in , , ,

The other day I was talking to a founder of a B2B software startup about how hard it is for big companies to buy things. Even at a super low price point (a couple hundred bucks a month) software purchases still have to go through a litany of approvals. I was telling her how almost exactly two years ago I wrote a post titled, Individual Employee Budgets, where I predicted that employees would have their own discretionary budgets that could be used to buy things that would make them more productive and profitable employees. With the growing trend towards the consumerization of enterprise and the ability for anyone in their basement to build and distribute a great productivity application to millions of employees, individual budgets, I thought, would be a requirement for companies to succeed and retain employees. For smaller purchases, traditional procurement eventually has to get out of the way.

I still believe this will happen, but it's moving much slower than I predicted.

That said, two years after writing that post, when I think about the software I use to get my job done, much of it is 'consumerized'. That is, it's sold directly to me and in order for me to use it my company doesn't have to go through a painful procurement process. Software like Wunderlist, Google Maps, TripIt, Sunrise, Feedly, Evernote and Google Docs, to name a few. There are only a couple of applications that I use that were procured through a traditional procurement process -- and most of those aren't as useful or as easy to use as those that I procured myself. Self-service software has to be really, really good as the switching costs are near zero.

It's disappointing that the way companies buy hasn't become more flexible as enterprise software has become more consumerized and easy to procure. Employees are ready for self-service productivity tools and software makers are ready to build and distribute them. The only thing we're waiting for is for big buyers to let it happen.

Enterprise Software For Patients

in , ,

Most readers know that an EMR (electronic medical record) is the back-end software that runs a healthcare organization (think ERP for healthcare). EMRs have been around for a while. Recently most large hospitals and health systems have begun building out the patient-facing version of their EMR; allowing patients to communicate electronically with their doctors, refill prescriptions, schedule appointments, view clinical information, etc. I've written at length about the differences between B2B software and B2C software and how B2B software is generally not very good (particularly from a usability perspective). And it's not very good simply because it can get away with not being very good. B2B companies really just need a good salesperson that can lock-in long-term contracts to be successful.

B2C companies, on the other hand, need an incredible product to be successful. If your user experience isn't flawless, you cannot survive in the B2C space. The switching costs for consumers are near zero -- the user experience must be incredible. Product is much more important than distribution.

Applying this to healthcare, if you're a hospital and your EMR is hard to use, your employees will still use it because they have to.

But if your patient portal is bad you will lose patients instantly. It's too easy for patients to switch to something else.

The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) published a good report last month talking about patient portals.  They noted that despite the difficulty of building a wonderful online consumer experience and the totally different skill set required to execute on it, 80% of hospitals surveyed chose their patient portal vendor simply because it was the same vendor that provides their EMR (the top three portals are made by Epic, Cerner and McKesson). All of these vendors have been building B2B enterprise software systems for more than 30 years. They're all wonderful companies. But they have no idea how to build a patient facing product. Their management, engineering talent, sales force, culture and DNA is all about B2B. They have almost no chance of building a world class consumer product. That's not a knock on these companies, it's just reality. You can't be really good at both.

As we transition to a world where the patient is in the drivers seat, exposing patients to old fashioned enterprise software code is a terrible idea. Hospitals shouldn't let a piece of software touch their customers unless it's been vetted and tested fully and it's clear that patients love it. If you check out the satisfaction scores for most patient portal apps you'll find that most patients despise them (one of them had 2,000 reviews in the iOS app store and more than 1,500 of them were only 1 star).

Patients are becoming consumers. They want slick, easy, mobile, beautiful, simple and seamless web experiences. If the software that touches patients doesn't give them that they're going to go somewhere that does.

Now, in defense of these hospitals let it be known that there aren't a lot of great consumer-focused software companies building out patient portals. So in the short term they might have no choice. But I'd encourage CIOs that are making patient portal investments to consider the consumer, and to cautiously enter into flexible and short term contracts with these patient portal vendors.

You wouldn't buy groceries from the company that washes your car and you shouldn't buy a patient portal from the company that built your EMR.

Should Amazon Be Profitable?

in , ,

I've been meaning to write a post about Amazon and its strategy to never make a profit in a given year, but Benedict Evans beat me to it in this great post and podcast from a couple of weeks ago. I recommend reading the post. After looking at Amazon closely, there are three things that really jump out at me:

1. Revenue has grown every year since 1996 and net income has remained flat, at near zero.

Amazon Growth

2. Every dollar in profit goes directly back into the business. They're investing most of the profit into capital expenditures such as new warehouses and Amazon Web Services but they're also using it to rapidly enter new verticals in e-commerce. There literally must be someone whose job is to make sure they don't make a profit in any given year.

3.  A lot of people are asking how long Amazon will continue reinvesting their profits instead of passing them onto investors (even a great innovator like Apple pays out a nice dividend). How long can Amazon keep investing in themselves? Benedict uses a Wal-Mart comparison. Currently, while Amazon is an enormous player in e-commerce, they still only make up around 1% of North American retail sales. So asking Amazon if they should continue to invest in their growth is a little like asking Wal-Mart if they should've kept investing in new stores back in the 1960s. The answer for Wal-Mart was yes in the 1960s and it's yes for Amazon in 2014.

Some Thoughts On Competition

in ,

I've written about this a bit in the past with regard to sales tactics, but I'd like to discuss this topic from a broader perspective. Here are some thoughts on competition:

  • When a company starts or a product launches, you'll often hear talk about how they're "better than the competition." This is a bad approach. It minimizes the product's unique value.
  • With the exception of super mature, commodity-based industries, there is no such thing as competition. Each company has built their product in their own unique way and others have built their products in their own unique way. If there is real competition then the product isn't unique.
  • Companies should be bold about what their product doesn't do or does do poorly. It's not good at doing X because the company hasn't prioritized X. And that a good thing. What a company decides to prioritize and deprioritize is what places them in a non-competitive space.
  • For the most part, companies shouldn't stress out about keeping secrets from the competition or trying to figure out what their competitor will do next. They should watch what others are doing so that they are experts on their own space and they should look out for new ideas but the vast majority of energy should go back into their own product and story.
  • Andy Grove said "only the paranoid survive" but this shouldn't be translated to mean that companies should be paranoid about their competition.  They should be paranoid that their product isn't unique and that if it is unique that customers aren't interested in that uniqueness. Companies should obsess about their own product and their product's story.
  • Basic economics tells us that the market is trying to get prices down to zero marginal profit. Companies that are in competitive industries quickly get to zero profit.
  • Companies should be bold that if a buyer is looking for X-feature and their company doesn't prioritize X-feature, then the buyer shouldn't buy from them. And if the company knows someone else that does X-feature well, they should recommend that company.
  • When I worked in e-commerce, people would ask me about our competition. My answer would always be that we have no competition. There is no other company addressing the problem that we solve in the way that we solved it. Of course, if you're asking if there are other places to shop online then there are tons of other companies. But none of them are competitors. They're solving a different problem in a different way. Great companies compete in an industry of one.

I heard that Peter Thiel talks extensively on this topic in his new book, Zero to One. I haven't read it yet but plan to in the coming weeks.

It's Always Been About Trust

in , ,

Sherpa Ventures released a comprehensive presentation on the “on-demand" economy the other day. It’s worth flipping through it if you have some time.

Slide 8 contrasts the “village economy” with the economy we have today and it got me thinking...

We’ve gone from:

  1. The general store where everyone in town knows and trusts the owner to...
  2. Large, main streets with lots of stores with less intimacy and less trust to...
  3. Larger, big box retailers with much less intimacy and much less trust.

As stores have become less intimate and less personal, retailers realized that, in order to compete, they had to try to maintain the level of trust that the owner of the general store had with his or her customers. That led to massive investments in brands – Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Macy's etc.  They have built brands so that you know they’re low cost, high quality, reliable, etc.  

Every customer couldn't know and trust the owner but every customer could know and trust the brand, the thinking went.

But in the new economy, constant connectivity, new payment platforms and reputation management programs (ratings and reviews) have recreated this high level of intimacy and trust, without the customer knowing the owner or knowing the brand.

"I don’t know that restaurant but it has a great rating on OpenTable."

"I don’t know this artist, but people on Etsy like her."

"I don’t know the guy that owns this apartment in Paris, but people on Airbnb trust him."

The point of this post is that, regardless of the mechanics that drive our economy, it’s always been about trust. Whether your’e relying on your personal relationship with the owner of the general store on the corner, or you’re relying on Best Buy’s brand when buying an expensive flat-screen TV, or you're relying on a five-star review rating when accepting a ride from a stranger on Uber -- it’s always been about trust.

Innovation & CEO Tenure

in , ,

Vinod Khosla interviewed Larry and Sergey from Google a couple weeks ago. I recommend watching the entire thing when you have some time.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdnp_7atZ0M&w=560&h=315]

At one point Larry explains the fact that the average Fortune 500 CEO's tenure is approximately 4 years. He notes that it's really, really difficult to solve big problems in 4 years. Twenty years, maybe. But 4 years, no way. So as a result we have a system where our largest companies are acting in a way that is very short-sighted.

We all know the stories of the giant, successful companies not seeing how things were changing and ignoring the little upstarts only to eventually get toppled by them. We've always chalked this up to naivety and arrogance on the part of large companies. Polaroid is a great example. They ignored the digital camera and didn't recognize what its impact would be until it was too late and eventually found themselves bankrupt.

But when you consider Larry's point, that CEOs are only focused on 4 years out, you can see how it actually made sense for Polaroid's leadership to ignore the digital camera. New innovations move slowly, the best thing for Polaroid's stock price (in the short-term) was to continue to focus on their core business -- not to pivot and get ahead of a trend.

We're about to see the same thing happen to big car companies. Self driving cars are the future. And they're going to operate much differently than the cars we have today. But it'll take a while, maybe 10 or 15 years. If you're the CEO of Ford or General Motors, why should you redirect your resources away from regular cars, if you're really only worried about the next four years? You're much better off focusing on the here and now. Very logical, but also the thing that will wipe them out of the self driving car business. We can see it right now, it's going to happen, but they won't do anything about it.

I'm not arguing that companies should have 20 year terms for their CEOs, but companies do need to recognize that their short-term focus paralyzes the company in dealing with trends and getting ahead of the small upstarts. Companies would act very differently if they were looking further around the corner than the tenure of their leaders allows.

SaaS & Minimizing Buyer Risk

in , ,
Andreessen Horowitz had a podcast recently on software company valuations. All of their podcasts are excellent by the way and definitely worth listening to when you have some time. This one discussed the fact that, traditionally, big enterprise software deals were sold as "perpetual" licenses. This meant that the enterprise would pay big money upfront for software that could be used forever. This was a nice thing for the seller from an accounting point of view. You'd get big bucks on day one that you could use to pay your engineering team and sales force. Your financials would look really good in that period. The software as a service model (SaaS) is much different. With SaaS, the license is sold as a subscription and revenues and costs are spread out over the life of the agreement. At first glance, the SaaS model doesn't make a seller's financials look so good. When the deal is closed the seller has to pay their engineering team and sales force upfront. All that cash is out the door but the revenue is collected and realized over several years. This is why Castlight Health was called the most overpriced IPO of the century when they went public a couple months ago at a valuation of $1.4 billion on only $13 million in revenue (an outrageous 100x revenue multiple). I don't have a strong opinion on the company or their valuation but what many people in the media missed is the fact that most of that multiple was being driven by the company's "deferred revenue" -- or deals that have been closed but not yet realized from a revenue recognition perspective. Deferred revenue is a critical measure of a SaaS company's health.

I say all of this to make a related point. One of the challenges in selling enterprise software is the buyer's concern about risk -- e.g. a buyer might say "what if we make a big investment in your product and we find that it doesn't work for us, do you provide a guarantee?" When you're selling SaaS (as opposed to a perpetual license) it's important to explain to your buyer that you are totally aligned on risk. The entire SaaS model is built around getting renewals. During the initial contract period, the cost of selling the software likely exceeds the revenue collected so it's critical for the seller to get the buyer to renew. The good news for the seller is that over time the costs are amortized and when the client renews the relationship becomes quite profitable. So the entire model is setup to drive customer renewals -- in many cases, most of the risk is actually on the seller. It's worth explaining some of this simple accounting to a buyer when they push back on risk.

Unlike a perpetual license, the buyer and seller's interests are completely aligned: the buyer needs great software and the seller needs a renewal.

4 Things That Big Healthcare IT Companies Must Do To Stay Competitive

in , ,

The healthcare IT space is possibly the most exciting and dynamic industry in the United States right now. Healthcare is going through a total transformation driven by massive regulatory change, the “consumerization” of healthcare and the important shift from a system that manages sickness to a system that manages health. Underlying all of this change is the software that runs large healthcare organizations -- specifically, the big EMR systems. Given all of the rapid change in healthcare, the EMR industry -- and the dominant players that lead it -- are ripe for disruption. It's not unlikely that there'll be some big names dropping out of the race over the next several years.

With that in mind, here are 4 things I think the large EMR players should do to remain competitive amidst all of this change.

1. Move to the cloud. Healthcare IT is all about big data. And the large EMR companies host loads of it. In the traditional database space, Oracle and SAP waited much too long to move their data to the cloud. And it seems that some of the big EMR companies appear to be waiting too long as well (though, it's possible they could be making this transformation behind the scenes). Regardless, the fact is that health information is going to have to live on the cloud in the long-term. There is no way around this. Patients are going to demand interoperability of data between their primary care doctor and their gastroenterologist and their dermatologist and their dentist. And there is no way that all of those providers are going to be running the same EMR – the space is way too fragmented. I'd argue that not moving to the cloud is a bigger risk for EMR companies now than it was to the large database companies ten years ago. Patient advocates and regulators are simply not going to allow a big EMR vendor to keep their data in house. Larry Ellison said it took 7 years of development to get Oracle on the cloud. EMRs vendors can't continue to put this off.

2. Open up platform APIs (I mean, really open up platform APIs). I've used the BlackBerry versus Apple's iOS example in the past when discussing this topic. Apple opened up its app store early (effectively employing hundreds of thousands of app developers) and as a result made the iPhone 1,000 times more valuable. Meanwhile, BlackBerry dragged their feet and eventually ended up near bankruptcy. There are a number of reasons why the analogy isn't perfect (EMRs aren't consumer products, there are HIPAA restrictions around exposing personal health information, etc.) but EMRs should take a close look at what caused BlackBerry's demise. Part of the reason they dragged their feet on opening up was that their corporate customers were hesitant to allow their employees to download apps. They let their own customers slow down their development. Now some will tell you that the EMRs have created APIs and are adding services on top of their products all the time. This is not true. Even the most open EMRs are tightly policing the products that plug-in to their platform. The first EMR that takes a true "app store" approach will have a massive advantage. There are a ton of well-funded developers building amazing things that these EMRs can tap into if they open up.

3. Focus on usability. I'm not a doctor and I don't work in a doctor's office. But I've seen enough of these systems and I've heard enough complaints from users of them to know that the usability of most EMRs is not up to par with high quality B2B software tools. This is the classic case of B2B software being bad because it can. These companies have high talent sales teams that only need to sell a handful of executives and the rest of the health system is forced to use it and deal with the usability problems. With the emergence of B2E2B (business to employee to business) sales strategies a lot of this is changing. Staff members expect B2B software to work the same way their consumer tools work (Facebook, Gmail, Amazon, etc.).  Granted, due to high switching costs, the big EMRs can get away with poor usability for a while -- it'll be a long time before EMR software is sold the way Yammer is sold but when big contracts come due in a few years, usability will be a massive competitive advantage.

4. Get out of the B2C business. Many big EMRs are rapidly creating direct to consumer products, mostly in the form of a patient portal. This is being driven by 1.) the belief that consumers will continue to be more and more engaged in their care and 2.) the government is requiring it as part of meaningful use; though it’s mostly being driven by the latter, which is a recipe for really weak consumer products. Take a look at the app store ratings of many of the big health IT apps – consumer expectations of what makes a good app are much too high for an enterprise-focused vendor to meet at this point.  To compete in the consumer space you have to be totally focused on the consumer. It has to be an obsession. Take a look at a company like Oscar Health that has built their entire business around consumer experience. This isn’t a criticism of the EMRs, they do lots and lots of things really well. The point is that they should focus on those things and double down on them. Moving to the consumer space is too hard and too competitive and too much of a distraction.  The better approach is to buy or partner with an organization that is built around the consumer.

Facebook's Defensibility Is Gone

in , , ,

Traditionally when people have thought of Facebook and their defensiblity, they've pointed to its ubiquity and the size of its network – at last check they had something like 1.1 billion active users. People reasoned that Facebook would continue to dominate social because it's the one place that has profiles for all of your friends. All other social  networks would be forced to plug-in to the Facebook ecosystem. But as Facebook’s defensive purchase of WhatsApp shows, this is no longer the case. Users are bouncing from social network to social network. Social apps are much, much less sticky than initially thought.

Benedict Evans and others have pointed to the seemingly minor but incredibly impactful fact that any newly launched social app can easily tap into your mobile phone's address book and instantly build out a network equal to -- or better than -- Facebook's.

This wasn't a big a issue when most users accessed Facebook through the desktop site, but now that most users access it through their mobile app, Facebook's unbundling has accelerated.

More and more users are migrating to WhatsApp for messaging, Vimeo for video, Instagram for photos, Foursquare for location sharing, etc. And there are niche players internationally that are focused on badges, stickers and other features valued in those communities.  There are now dozens and dozens of social apps in the app store with more than one-million downloads.

Facebook's strategy of running the social ecosystem seems to be shifting more rapidly than they had planned. Because of the mobile phone's address book, the approach of plugging social apps into Facebook may be losing steam. Instead of just letting them plug-in, the better approach, it seems, might be to buy them.

Attackers & Defenders

in , ,

A few years ago I had the pleasure of meeting Steve Case -- the original founder of AOL and current CEO of Revolution. He was considering an investment in our company and I was lucky enough to be able to pitch him our business. In the short time that I spent with him I could tell that we were dealing with an extremely savvy investor. He got right to the key issues surrounding our growth and his questions were extremely challenging and relevant.

I came across an interview that he did recently with Adam Bryant from the New York Times. In talking about different types of businesses, he said this:

...I realized the world of business really separates into these two groups. The attackers are the entrepreneurs who are disrupting the status quo, trying to change the world, take the hill, anything is possible, and have nothing to lose in most cases. They’re driven by passion and the idea and intensity. Large organizations — and it’s true of Fortune 500s and it’s also true of governments and other large organizations — are defenders. These guys aren’t trying to pursue the art of the possible, how to maximize opportunity. They actually are trying to minimize the downside, and hedge risk. They’re trying to de-risk situations. Entrepreneurs can’t even think this way. It’s not even a concept they understand.

For the traditional executives running these large companies, of course they want to grow, of course they want to innovate, of course they’d rather have revenue grow faster than slower, but they mostly don’t want to lose what they’ve got. But entrepreneurs are deathly afraid that they won’t be able to change the world, and that somebody else will. Again, these generalizations are a little unfair, but corporate executives are all too often deathly afraid that the business they inherit will be less valuable when they leave than when they started.

This is so true and exactly why no company will last forever. Even the best eventually flame out. The cycle of disrupt >> succeed >> defend is unavoidable and, frankly, perfectly logical. When companies reach a certain level of success, innovation becomes too risky and the smarter, rational move is to protect your turf.

This is why companies like Apple are so impressive and so rare. They somehow continue to attack and innovate despite their immense success.

Internet Marketplaces: Buyer Utility & Seller Reviews

in , , ,

Charles Hudson had a good post this week titled, Marketplaces, Rating Systems, And Leakage. In it, he talks about leakage in online marketplaces. Leakage defined as a user coming to a marketplace to transact and then completing subsequent transactions off of the marketplace.

Once they’ve acquired a new customer through a service, there’s a significant financial incentive for sellers (Open Table restaurant owners, Uber drivers, Task Rabbit workers) to try to get the user to make their second transaction offline – to avoid paying the marketplace a commission.

But these marketplaces aren’t seeing this type of behavior. They’re seeing that subsequent transactions are staying in their marketplace.

The reason for this is twofold:

  1. The user values the utility of the service (it’s much easier to book a restaurant reservation on Open Table than it is to call, wait on hold, and find they don't have any tables tonight).
  2. As Charles points out, sellers place a high value on reviews from the marketplace. A commenter notes that he once offered to pay for his Task Rabbit project offline and the seller declined. The seller would rather the transaction happen on Task Rabbit so a review gets logged for his work, improving his Task Rabbit reputation. For savvy sellers, a good review on a trusted marketplace is like gold.

Internet marketplaces are always at risk of becoming a lead generation service instead of the central spot where transactions happen. To keep people transacting in the marketplace, it’s important that buyers value the utility of the service and sellers value the reputation gained through post-purchase reviews. Open Table, Uber and Task Rabbit do both of these things well.