Research & Preparing For Meetings

When preparing for an important sales meeting, salespeople will generally do a bunch of research; they'll read news articles, read the company's 10-k, check out the LinkedIn profiles of the people in the meeting, etc. Often, they'll spend money on Hoovers or other databases to gain any edge they can. Of course there's nothing wrong with this, but one thing to consider: how often has the thing that you currently care about most at work (the thing that is going to get you a big bonus) been available in a 10-k or a press release.

Sure, directionally we know that you want to grow revenue or cuts costs or prioritize a new product launch. But I can't learn the important specifics of that in the media or in a 10-k. Further, business has become so much more iterative over the years that, in my experience, by the time the media picked up on an initiative I was working on, we were already onto the next thing.

With that in mind, I would propose that when you do research, you prioritize having conversations with people on the inside. Before a meeting, find someone you can talk to that will help you prepare. It could be a junior person, it could be a personal assistant, it could be anyone that can help you get information.

These people should be happy to talk to you. You're not having these conversations to get inside info you shouldn't have access to, you're having these conversations to make the upcoming meeting more productive.

So when preparing for a meeting, yes, do your research. But more importantly, have conversations with people on the inside that know what people on the inside care about.

Selling To CEOs

Seth Godin had a good post a couple weeks ago titled, The danger of starting at the top where he talks about the downside of selling directly to a company's CEO. They key line is this:

When making a b2b sale, the instinct is always to get into the CEO's office. If you can just get her to hear your pitch, to understand the value, to see why she should buy from or lease from or partner with or even buy you... that's the holy grail.

What do you think happens after that mythical meeting?

She asks her team.

And when the team is in the dark, you've not only blown your best shot, but you never get another chance at it.

I agree and disagree with this. Two thoughts:

  1. Yes, you need to be careful when going straight to the top, but I don't think you need to be afraid of selling to the CEO directly. But you do need to be careful in your approach. In short, don't sell. Have a conversation. Ask about her business, what problems she has, talk about what you do, your industry, her industry, potential synergies, who would be good to talk to, etc. If you're not selling, you should be comfortable talking to anybody.
  2. While you're having conversations, you should also be evangelizing. That is, you should be drip marketing your prospects. I defined drip marketing in earlier posts as:

Regular, short and highly interesting/engaging/insightful pieces of information (most often without an ask) that educate the recipient and — just as importantly — change their perception of what you do in a favorable way.

If you're having conversations and "dripping" the right people, you should be free to navigate your prospect's company to find the person that will be most interested in your solution.

Snapchat & Sharing With Discretion

I've written in the past about the fact that Google+ is trying to fix social networking. While they’re not doing it very successively, the concept behind Circles is a powerful one. It allows users to easily share with discretion; i.e. to share certain updates and photos with selected groups (or circles) of friends. If Facebook favors 'open social networking', and Google+ is promoting 'discreet social networking', then Snapchat is promoting 'private social networking'.

From Wikipedia, Snapchat is:

a photo messaging application. Using the app, users can take photos, record videos, add text and drawings, and send them to a controlled list of recipients. Users set a time limit for how long recipients can view their photos, up to 10 seconds, after which it will be deleted from the recipient's device and the company's servers.

Sounds like something James Bond would use.

Snapchat was started back in September 2011 by a couple of Stanford guys. It now has around 200k monthly uniques, a $50 million valuation and users are sending 50 million 'snaps' a day.

Snapchat's success is a clear indication that there's a market for privacy. Social networks that don't facilitate the ability to easily share with discretion would be smart to take a closer look at Snapchat.

Productivity Tips

I came across some really good productivity tips this past week. One group in a great post from Matt Heinz and the other in a post from Erin Schulte from Fast Company. I'll add two things to their lists that have worked really for me:

  1. Each morning I write down my top three priorities for the day. That is, the top 3 most important things that I need to accomplish that will help me get to where I want to be. I actually capture these in the Chatter app in Salesforce.com, but you could capture them anywhere. Then, at the end of each day, I update the Chatter post confirming that I got them done. You'd be shocked at how productive you can be if you only do the 3 most important things on your list each day.
  2. To prevent myself from spending the day responding to incoming streams of messages, I work 'offline' for large portions of the day. I put on my headphones and close all web browsers and switch to "work offline" mode in Outlook and go to work. These are typically the the most productive parts of my day.

I'm sure I have others but those two stand out as things that have really helped me ramp up my productivity in recent years.

2012 Music

I’m not going to post my ‘most listened to music’ list like I did last year. For a variety of reasons my music wasn't syncing to my Last.fm profile for the entire year so the data isn't accurate. That said, here are some great artists that I hadn't listened to all that much (or at all) in the past that I listened to quite a bit last year.

  • The Lumineers
  • The Shins
  • Iron & Wine
  • Hayes Carll
  • Angels & Airwaves
  • Townes Van Zandt
  • The Felice Brothers
  • Whiskeytown
  • Beach House
  • My Morning Jacket
  • Band of Heathens

I also discovered a genre called post rock. It’s very relaxing and great to listen to while you work. Some of the bands I like include The Six Parts Seven, This Will Destroy You and Marconi Union. Check out this somewhat depressing but very inspiring video that recaps the events of 2012 -- the soundtrack playing in the background is a great song by This Will Destroy You.

I also listened to a lot more of the stuff I listened to in past years, including:

  • Ryan Bingham
  • Steve Earle
  • Radiohead
  • Mumford & Sons
  • Micky & the Motorcars
  • Reckless Kelly
  • Bon Iver
  • James McMurtry
  • Bob Dylan
  • Uncle Tupelo
  • The Avett Brothers

Some new, some old -- 2012 was a good year for music.

The Downside Of Good Reporting

It turns out that, even today, nearly all of the big checks in the ad industry are still being written for big, broadcast marketing efforts (television ads, radio ads, billboards on the side of the highway, etc.).  You might find this surprising given all of the conversion-based marketing channels that have popped up over the years. Advertisers no longer have to worry about not being able to track their ad spend. Marketing has become measurable. Google can tell you how many leads they drive to you so the problem of wasted ad spend should be over. So why are marketers continuing to spend on the big, hard to measure stuff? In many cases, the reason is that lots of ad buyers are really out to do one thing: avoid getting fired. So they’re very reluctant to take a risk on something that can be tracked. Many would rather their boss see a beautiful ad on the highway on her drive to work as opposed to a report showing that the new marketing campaign failed to drive a positive ROI.

With that in mind, in your early conversations it's important to understand where your prospect sits on this topic. My take is that high performing companies and individuals want to measure their performance and the performance of their vendors -- so that they can intelligently expand (or limit) partnership growth. If they are reluctant to measure success, they may not be the right partner as growing the relationship will typically be much more difficult.

Be cognizant of the fact that your partner might be hesitant to be measured. Try to get them to open up a bit on the topic -- it'll help you get a better sense of whether or not they're the right fit.

Taxes

The two most significant taxes that Americans pay each year are a tax on their income and a tax on their investment. The income tax is a tax on people's labor. Firefighters get paid for fighting fires. Teachers get paid for teaching our kids. And CEOs get paid for driving their company's strategy. Depending on how much they get paid, they pay a portion of that pay to the government. The tax brackets break down like this for a family:

  • 10% on taxable income from $0 to $12,400, plus
  • 15% on taxable income over $12,400 to $47,350, plus
  • 25% on taxable income over $47,350 to $122,300, plus
  • 28% on taxable income over $122,300 to $198,050, plus
  • 33% on taxable income over $198,050 to $388,350, plus
  • 35% on taxable income over $388,350

So a father that is raising his kids and working as a firefighter putting out fires and adding direct value to society through his work making $150,000 is paying 28% of the value of his labor to the government.

The investment tax -- capital gains and dividend taxes -- taxes something different. That taxes a bet.

When someone invests in Facebook and the value of the stock increases, or the company pays out some of their profit in the form of a dividend at the end of the year, the profit that the investor made is taxed. This is passive income -- the investor is just sitting there watching the money come in. He's not necessarily adding incremental value to society on top of his investment (in most cases).

There's nothing wrong with this -- investment is critical to a prosperous economy -- and the investor should make as much as he possibly can on his investments. But because he's adding less direct value to society, if we're going to tax him, we should tax him at a higher rate than we tax direct, value-creating labor. Simple, right? Right.

But we don't do that. Here are the current rates:

  • 20% on capital gains
  • 15% on dividends

So the investor that makes $150,000 per year in capital gains pays 8% less than the firefighter does for his labor.

And this is why our tax code is backwards. This is why Warren Buffet's assistant pays a lower tax rate than he does. This is why, in 2009, the Americans with the top 400 incomes (who made, on average, $202 million per year) paid a lower tax rate than you did. One quarter of them paid less than 15%, and more than half of them paid less than 20%.

We have to fix this. I'm not going argue what the tax rates should be (at least not today).  But I am arguing that we have to flip the structure so that tax rates on labor are lower than the tax rates on investment. It's just backwards.

In his controversial New York Times article, Buffet suggested the following solution:

I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.

Of course this won't fix the entire fiscal mess and I think we need to go a step further and flip the tax structure so investors pay a higher rate than workers regardless of their income. But Buffet's plan is a step in the right direction of creating a fairer tax code that incentivizes the activity that leads to greater prosperity for the country as a whole.

CEO Pay

According the AFL-CIO, the average Fortune 500 CEO made $12.9 million in 2011. After taxes, that's about $430,000 per month -- or $198,000 every two weeks. CEOs at big companies get paid a lot of money -- and my sense is that the top priority for most of them is to do whatever they can to keep those checks coming.

That's an important thing to remember the next time you're asking one of them to take a big risk on your product.

Margin Call

Margin Call Over the holidays I watched the movie Margin Call (for the second time).

The movie is a fictional depiction of an investment bank crumbling during the 2008 financial crisis (it was likely inspired by the real life Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers). The story revolves around a brilliant, young analyst in the company's risk management group. One night he discovers that the company has over-leveraged itself through an over-investment in synthetic CDOs and MBSs. Throughout the night and into the early morning the analyst's discovery makes its way to the highest levels of the company. The movie is a depiction of how the company handles the crisis.

Margin Call is a phenomenal movie. It's brilliantly acted by some excellent actors (Kevin Spacey, Jeremy Irons, Stanley Tucci, Zachary Quinto, Simon Baker and Demi Moore to name a few). And the suspense around watching management learn what has happened and how they handle it elegantly depicts what were probably real events inside many investment banks at the time. The more senior you were, the less likely you were to understand the financial mechanics behind the crisis.

In what is probably the best scene of the movie, the young analyst (played by Zachary Quinto) is asked to explain what he has discovered to the CEO of the company (played powerfully by Jeremy Irons). Irons' character says to him:

Maybe you could tell me what is going on. And please, speak as you might to a young child. Or a golden retriever. It wasn't brains that brought me here; I assure you that.

That line just about sums up much of the cause of the financial crisis of the late 2000s. The people on the ground were packaging and selling a product that management at our largest and most reputable financial institutions did not -- and could not -- understand.

If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend renting Margin Call.

New Year, New Design

You may have noticed that I’ve redesigned my website. I decided to move to this new theme (the Ari theme) for a few reasons.

  • Much cleaner look (lots of white space and fewer widgets).
  • Larger font size for easier reading.
  • Wider main reading column allows for less scrolling.
  • Brighter, more conspicuous hyperlinks.
  • Clearer navigation – it allowed me to put the monthly and category archives on the same page.

I’m pretty happy with the change, I hope you like it.

5 Years Of Blogging

Last month marked the fifth year that I've been writing on this blog. As I did last year, I thought I'd post a graph showing the number of posts I've written each month. I wrote 77 blog posts in 2012 (6.4 per month), the most since I started writing -- and the trendline shows that I'm definitely writing more over time, which is a good thing.

One of the challenges I've had with writing more frequently is that I'm always concerned that the quality of the posts will suffer. I'm going to try to worry a little less about that this year and plan to commit to writing 15 posts per month. That's a big increase over last year -- we'll see how I do.

Post per Month Graph

The Problem With Google Health

Google Health, the self-managed patient portal that launched back in 2008, shut down on December 31st. According to Google's blog post, they made the move due to a lack of user adoption:

Now, with a few years of experience, we’ve observed that Google Health is not having the broad impact that we hoped it would. There has been adoption among certain groups of users like tech-savvy patients and their caregivers, and more recently fitness and wellness enthusiasts. But we haven’t found a way to translate that limited usage into widespread adoption in the daily health routines of millions of people.

Google Health faced the same challenge that EHR (electronic health records) faced in driving adoption among physicians: everyone sees the long term benefit of getting patient information online, but in the short term, it's a lot of work.

In order to drive wide-ranging engagement and adoption of a self-managed patient portal like Google Health, there has to be an instant piece of value in return for the patient's time and effort. That value can be money, time savings, or some other functional piece of value -- the greater the value, the greater the adoption. Case in point: EHR adoption finally picked up after the government provided high value, short term financial incentives to physicians that reached an acceptable rate of usage.

Because Google didn't offer some kind of immediate, tangible benefit to their users they weren't able to drive the wide-ranging adoption they expected. It may sound a bit simplistic to claim that companies have to offer some kind of tangible reward to drive real adoption of a patient portal. But in some cases, it really is that simple.