October 2020

love the   page

love the page

Photo by Dima Pechurin

This guest post is authored by Guy Raz (@guyraz), the Michael Phelps of podcasting. Guy is the creator and host of many popular podcasts, including How I Built This, Wisdom from the Top, and The Rewind. Guy is also the co-creator of the acclaimed podcasts TED Radio Hour and Wow in the World, a podcast for children. He’s received the Edward R. Murrow Award, the Daniel Schorr Journalism Prize, the National Headliner Award, the NABJ Award… basically all the awards. 

His brand-new book is titled How I Built This: The Unexpected Paths to Success from the World’s Most Inspiring Entrepreneurs. Past podcast guest Adam Grant has this to say about it: “[This book is] the mother of all entrepreneurship memoirs. It’s a must-read for anyone who wants to start a business, grow a business, or be inspired by those who do.”

What follows is an exclusive chapter — “Go In Through the Side Door” — from How I Built This.

Enter Guy

A funny thing happens when you start to find success with a new business. You suddenly find yourself face-to-face with a host of people who are none too happy to see you. These people have a name. They’re called competitors. And whether they’ll admit it to you or not, many of them will try to do everything within their power to legally — and sometimes not so legally — shut you out. It’s a strategy deployed by the big fish in every pond once they notice a new, young fish swimming around and getting bigger by gobbling up the scraps they previously considered too small to care about.

In 1997, as the personal computer business approached 100 million units in annual sales and the dot-com bubble began to grow in earnest, Microsoft was one of the biggest fish in a pond that was about to swamp the world. Late that summer, a Microsoft group vice president named Jeff Raikes sent a now-famous email titled “Go Huskers!” to Warren Buffett, a fellow Nebraska native, describing Microsoft’s business in an effort to get him to invest in the company. In the email, Raikes likens the sturdiness and growth potential of Microsoft’s operation to that of Coca-Cola and See’s Candies (which Buffett had owned since 1972), in no small part because Microsoft’s revolutionary flagship product — the Windows operating system — had created a “toll bridge” that every PC maker would have to cross if they expected consumers to buy their machines.

The graphical user interface that made Windows revolutionary also made it wildly popular, which had the additional effect of creating a “moat,” as Raikes described it, between Microsoft and its competitors in the marketplace — one it was able to widen considerably with a 90 percent market share in productivity software applications (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access, etc.) that were built on top of Windows and were equally popular. This, in turn, gave Microsoft tremendous “pricing discretion,” not just for its applications software but also for the licensing fees the company charged to other computer makers for Microsoft’s operating system software.

What Raikes did not say in his email, but what Buffett surely understood from his decades of experience, was that the wider the moat and the longer the toll bridge, the more aggressively Microsoft could wield its pricing discretion in order to cement its growing advantage in the software industry. They could use it as a carrot, by lowering the licensing fee for Windows as an incentive to get their browser and applications software preloaded onto as many new PCs as possible. They could use it as a stick, by withholding volume Windows licensing discounts to punish PC makers that refused their sweetheart deal, or by offering their applications software at cost or below in order to drive competitors such as Lotus, Novell, and Corel (remember them?) out of business.

Microsoft employed each of those strategies to great effect. A year after Raikes’s email to Buffett, Microsoft would surpass General Electric as the world’s most valuable company and stay in that position for five consecutive years.

Toll bridge. Moat. Pricing discretion. These are euphemisms for the economic term barriers to entry, which is itself a kind of euphemism for all the ways existing businesses shut out competitors and make it difficult for new businesses to compete in a given industry. These barriers are not just conscious strategies deployed by old guard blue-chippers; they are also natural forces that rise and shift within a market as competitors enter and exit, grow and shrink, evolve and pivot. They can become the biggest obstacles you will face as a new business looking to grab, secure, and expand your foothold in a market, because they are the mechanism by which you will either be crushed (if your competitors see you coming) or ignored (if the market doesn’t).

This is why if, like most new businesses, you aren’t doing something completely novel or you aren’t doing it in a totally new way or new place, you should be thinking long and hard about how else you might enter your market besides knocking on the front door and asking for permission to come in. This is something that female and minority entrepreneurs have long had to contend with, whether it means breaking through glass ceilings or breaking down walls built by prejudice. All of which is to say, figuring out how to sneak in through the side door is not new ground you will have to break. A legion of resourceful geniuses have come before you. And what many of them have discovered is that the side door isn’t just less heavily guarded, it’s often bigger. Or, as Peter Thiel put it in a 2014 lecture at the Stanford Center for Professional Development titled “Competition Is for Losers,” “Don’t always go through the tiny little door that everyone’s trying to rush through. Go around the corner and go through the vast gate that no one’s taking.”

A year earlier, in Chicago, without fully realizing it, this is precisely what Peter Rahal had begun to do with his idea for a minimalist Paleo protein bar. Peter hadn’t started out looking for a side door per se, but he knew that with RXBar he was trying to enter a very busy space. Remember, Peter had already conceded that “the market didn’t need another protein bar.” It was a conclusion that was more or less inescapable when he and his partner, Jared Smith, did their initial fact-finding tour of Whole Foods. If there was one fact they were sure to find, it was that protein bars were among the most crowded sectors in the entire food business. Long gone were the days when only one main brand existed in this segment, as Gary Erickson had found in the early 1990s when he developed Clif Bar to go up against PowerBar. Even a decade later, ample opportunity was there for someone like Lara Merriken in a way that did not exist for Peter in 2013.

Can you imagine what the shelves of that Chicago Whole Foods looked like when he and Jared walked in? How many linear feet of shelf space were choked with multiple flavors from how many different protein bar manufacturers? Can you envision Peter even being able to secure as much as a hello from a Whole Foods regional buyer the way Lara Merriken did? Especially when the buyer learned what Peter was pitching? Yet another protein bar?

Peter knew he wasn’t getting into Whole Foods through the front door. Fortunately, that was never his plan. “From the early days, the whole strategy was to make a product that is for CrossFit and for the Paleo consumer, and build it online,” he said. “We’d build a web store and sell directly to gyms. Consumers would be coming directly to us.” That meant a bar with no grains, no dairy, no peas or bean protein, and no sugar. Nothing quite like it existed.

It was just the kind of advantage that a startup could identify and exploit but a larger competitor couldn’t (or wouldn’t) see. “A lot of people look at niches, or look at a small segment, and it’s not big enough for them,” Peter explained. “But we would rather have a CrossFit customer in California than a local Chicago independent grocery store, because in the grocery store we’re among the sea of competition. Whereas in a CrossFit gym, we were by ourselves. RXBar was literally engineered and designed for that occasion. It was perfect.”

It was his side door. Those niches — CrossFit, Paleo, and direct-to-consumer — which were then on the verge of exploding and truly becoming the kind of vast gate that Peter Thiel was talking about, were the combination that unlocked opportunity for Peter Rahal and allowed RXBar the chance to take root, to stand out, and to grow, before his direct competitors could notice and stamp him out. By that point, those competitors included major multinationals like General Mills and Nestlé, which had acquired Lärabar and PowerBar, respectively, and they could have easily shut him out by erecting any number of barriers to entry into the protein bar market.

For Manoj Bhargava, the founder of 5-hour Energy, his side door into the energy drink market did not take the shape of a small niche, but rather of a small product. In early 2003, a few years removed from his retirement from a plastics business he’d turned around and made profitable, Manoj was attending a natural products trade show outside Los Angeles looking for inventions he might acquire or license in an effort to create a business that would generate an ongoing residual income stream for him in his post-plastics years.

Walking the floor of the show, he stumbled upon a new sixteen-ounce energy drink that produced long-lasting effects he’d never experienced with other energy drinks. “Well, this is amazing,” he said to himself, exhausted from a long morning of meetings and now energized enough to continue walking the trade show floor. “I could sell this,” he thought. The drink’s creators disagreed. They were “science guys with PhDs,” while he was “just a lowly business guy.” They refused to sell their invention to him or even offer him a license on their formula. When they effectively told him to hit the road, Manoj decided to hit the lab instead and to create his own version of the energy drink that had fueled him up and blown him away.

“I looked at their label and said, ‘I can do better than this. How hard can it be? I’ll figure it out,’” Manoj said. With the help of scientists from a company he’d founded for the express purpose of finding inventions just like this one, he had a comparable energy drink formula in a matter of months. It would turn out to be the easiest part of the process.

The hard part would be getting his invention into stores. “If I make another drink,” Manoj said of his thinking at the time, “I’ve got to fight for space in the cooler against Red Bull and Monster [Energy]. I’ve also got to fight Coke, Pepsi, and Budweiser for space. So you’re pretty much dead if you want to try that.”

He was dead because he would be fighting for a finite amount of space in brick-and-mortar stores, against the competition not just in his own niche but in the entire beverage industry, which is dominated by some of the biggest companies in the world. If you own a 7-Eleven, or you’re the general manager of a grocery chain like Kroger or Tesco, are you really going to turn over a Diet Coke, Mountain Dew, or Snapple rack to a new energy drink that no one has ever heard of ? Especially when, in 2003, energy drink sales had yet to really spike and there were already two major players — Red Bull and Monster Energy — in the nascent market. Even if you were inclined to give a little guy like Manoj Bhargava a shot, once the regional sales reps and distributors from Coca-Cola and PepsiCo got wind of your decision, they would likely wield their Microsoftesque price discretion against you like a baseball bat, or just pull their products from your store altogether.

Those were the barriers to entry that Manoj was looking at. If he was going to get into this market, he’d have to find some other way. That’s when it dawned on him. “If I’m tired,” he asked himself, “why am I thirsty also?” By which he meant, why should we have to chug ten to sixteen ounces of a cloyingly sweet liquid in order to get an energy boost? “It would be like Tylenol selling sixteen-ounce bottles,” Manoj explained by way of analogy. “I just want to do it quick. I don’t want to drink this whole thing,” he thought. This is how Manoj arrived at the idea of shrinking his product down from the standard sixteen-ounce drink to a two-ounce shot.

Quickly, everything changed. In less than six months, he’d hired a designer to make his distinctive label, and he’d found a bottler who could produce two-ounce versions of his energy formula. “And at two ounces,” he said, “it’s really not a drink, it’s a delivery system.”

This was 5-hour Energy’s side door. It wasn’t a drink, so it wasn’t an immediate threat to Red Bull or Monster Energy. At two ounces, it also didn’t need to be refrigerated or given a large, dedicated shelf, so retailers didn’t have to worry about space. They understood that the perfect spot for it would be at the cash register, right next to the Slim Jims and pickled eggs!

“It just belonged there,” Manoj said. “You could tell it just looked that way, that it should be there.” Moreover, because the ingredients that went into 5-hour Energy were actually less about energy and more about focus — “vitamins for the brain,” Manoj called them — he could position his product beyond the beverage verticals and outside the grocery or convenience store channels. In fact, the very first place he went with 5-hour Energy in 2004 was the largest vitamin store, GNC, which decided to put the product in a thousand of its stores.

GNC turned out to be a genius side door into the energy “drink” market for a couple reasons. The first is obvious — there was much less competition compared with grocery and convenience stores — but the second is more interesting. “It turns out GNC is always looking for new products, because once a product gets mass distribution, GNC is sort of out of it,” Manoj explained. “If it’s in Walmart, nobody’s going to buy it at GNC.” Essentially, GNC was an easier route to retail distribution than a place like 7-Eleven or Safeway, and thankfully the tolerance for a slow start was higher as well, because in the first week they sold only 200 bottles. “Which was horrible,” Manoj admitted. But they waited it out, manufacturer and retailer together, “and at the end of six months it was selling 10,000 bottles a week.” From there Manoj went to drugstores like Walgreens and Rite Aid, which snapped it up, and now 5-hour Energy is near the cash register in most stores basically everywhere.

Today, RXBar, which was acquired by Kellogg’s in 2017 for $600 million, is one of the fastest-growing brands in the protein bar space, and 5-hour Energy has a 93 percent share of the energy shot business. It is a market dominance that Manoj has enjoyed from nearly the beginning, with only a brief dip to 67 percent when all his competitors — Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Monster Energy, Red Bull — flooded the market with their own two-ounce-shot offerings . . . and failed. “Whenever people ask me what product are we like, I say we’re WD-40,” Manoj said near the end of our conversation, as we talked about 5-hour Energy’s phenomenal success. “We own the category. We’re the guys.”

This is the great irony of circumventing the barriers to entry that your competition’s apparent monopoly power constructs and then fighting your way in through the side door. If you’re successful, you stand a very good chance of achieving market domination of your own. Of digging and widening your own moat and building the toll bridge that crosses it. Of massive, unbelievable success. For many entrepreneurs, that is the goal.

Four days after Jeff Raikes sent his famous “Go Huskers!” email, Warren Buffett responded. His reply contained the normal conversational pleasantries, glowing commentary on Raikes’s analysis of his position on investing in Microsoft (Buffett wouldn’t), and an envious description of the company’s monopoly power: “It’s as if you were getting paid for every gallon of water starting in a small stream, but with added amounts received as tributaries turned the stream into an Amazon.” At the very beginning of his lecture in 2014, Peter Thiel echoed this sentiment in his own way. “I have a single idée fixe that I am completely obsessed with on the business side,” he said in his characteristic, hitched speaking style, “which is that if you’re the founder-entrepreneur starting a company, you always want to aim for monopoly, and you always want to avoid competition.” You want to be the only one directing traffic and collecting tolls across the widest moat possible.

I mention all this because being really good at going through the side door is an amazing, and sometimes necessary, skill. But it can also be a double-edged sword. It can get you off the ground and set you up for fantastic growth, but it can get you in a lot of trouble, too. Indeed, that tension is present whenever you search for the Raikes-Buffett emails online. They are often held up by aspiring entrepreneurs as brilliant examples of business acumen and strategic analysis, but what many of those people don’t realize is that the entire reason they are able to read those emails at all — most often in the form of pdf versions of a printed-out email chain — is because they are part of the public record, submitted as deposition and trial exhibits in a class action antitrust lawsuit brought against Microsoft in the early 2000s by consumers in multiple American states. This email exchange became a key part of the plaintiffs’ opening statement in that suit, which was settled not long afterward for more than a billion dollars.

All of which is to say, Go through the side door, please! Do everything within your power to find your way into the market where you are likely to have the most success. Just make sure when you get inside and set up shop, you avoid becoming what you fought so hard against in turning your dream of starting your own business into a reality.

###

Did you enjoy this post? Check out the rest of the book here.

Excerpted from How I Built This: The Unexpected Paths to Success from the World’s Most Inspiring Entrepreneurs by Guy Raz. Copyright 2020 by Guy Raz. Published and reprinted by permission of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.

love the page Read More »

who else really loves learning ?

who else really loves learning ?

Small and mid-sized businesses (SMBs) are the primary source of jobs and innovation in both the US and abroad today, yet they are consistently underserved by technology companies. This has long been the situation, with smaller businesses left to use watered down enterprise tools that don’t meet their needs. But SMBs represent an incredible market opportunity.

And increasingly, SMBs are proactively searching for technology solutions that will help them:

  • Adapt to changing business models
  • Serve more exacting clients
  • Grow effectively across all channels of business

Technology companies have an opportunity to provide value to small and medium businesses, but in order to serve the SMB sector effectively, tech companies have to consider SMB needs in their approach to delivery. With an understanding of the SMB segment and a genuine approach to solving problems and delivering value, technology companies can gain traction in a whole new market segment.

technology companies

3 Tips for Serving Small Businesses

Here are three tips for companies looking to better serve the SMB sector:

1. Lead with support

Over-investing in customer support can help a new tech company build loyalty and advocacy quickly. It can also help large, established software companies significantly expand their marketplace by building a loyal customer base. If you’re making a tradeoff decision between investing more in support to get your SMB product up and running and investing more in marketing, choose support. You can deliver support through a platform that helps SMB customers drive sales, reach out to their customers and deliver products and services on an automated basis. Just make sure you back up automated support with traditional human customer support resources too.

SMB entrepreneurs and employees are a passionate audience. If they become users and advocates of your product, they will become your marketing engine. But SMBs don’t have a lot of time and patience for learning curves, especially when what they were already doing appeared to work. To get around this, remove the barriers to usage and adoption. Not only are you reducing the “innovation risk” burden that prohibits SMBs from trying new software, but because you invested in them, they will return it back to you in the form of positive word-of-mouth marketing.

technology companies

2. Understand SMB complexity

One reason tech companies tend to shy away from supporting SMBs is that the business models and needs of smaller companies are so diverse. They could be a two-person team running a rapidly growing business through Shopify, or a team of physical therapists with an online blog and three locations.

These two companies have different-sized teams, different sales models and different engagement patterns. But many B2B software providers will sell those two businesses the same exact product. Unfortunately, a one-size-fits-all approach rarely solves all the problems, and SMBs end up with sunk costs in overloaded enterprise “light” products that still don’t meet their needs.

By creating a product that connects across a business’s existing toolsets, smaller companies have the services they need when they need them and can scale up at their own pace.

To solve this issue, tech companies must recognize that “small business” doesn’t equal “simple business” and invest as much time and energy in building for SMBs as they do for larger segments. It’s not enough to scale down the enterprise product. By creating a product that connects across a business’s existing toolsets, smaller companies have the services they need when they need them and can scale up at their own pace. This approach is something that more tech companies should emulate. It would be beneficial for companies at both ends of the size spectrum.

3. Solve big problems for a big payoff

From my own experience as a tech entrepreneur, I’ve learned that smart, strategic business moves don’t always have to make sense on paper. SMBs appreciate service more, need it more and rely on the handshake and personal connections more, so going above and beyond solves their resourcing problems. They don’t have a lot of time to invest in learning how to use new technology solutions. They need something intuitive and flexible that they can use without having to learn a ton of new things, and tech companies should make it easy for them.


Tech companies have an amazing opportunity to serve and work with small businesses to meet their demand for solutions. https://bit.ly/35GpcDD
Click To Tweet


Sometimes, providing unscalable experiences for customers not only drives growth, it delivers a “wow” factor that keeps paying off after the sale. Impressing small business customers can build organic excitement that can’t be bought, not even with a huge marketing budget. This is always true, but it’s especially critical in uncertain times.

As SMBs transform and entrepreneurs step up to create new startups, the need for Customer Experience Automation is growing. At inflection points in the past, tech companies that focus on enterprises either missed the SMB market opportunity altogether or offered scaled-down products that weren’t thoughtfully designed to meet SMBs’ unique needs.

SMBs are demanding best-in-class solutions, and technology companies have an amazing opportunity to serve and work with SMBs to meet that demand and take a larger market share. Those that do so will help SMBs thrive and contribute to a growing economy and more prosperous future.

Jason VandeBoom, Founder & CEO, ActiveCampaign

.bk-author-box{display:none;}

 

The post 3 Ways Technology Companies Can Serve Small Businesses appeared first on SmartHustle.com.

who else really loves learning ? Read More »

Who else  thinks learning is cool

Who else thinks learning is cool

I’ve been busy lately working on the company I co-founded, InboxDone.com. At some point in the future I’ll have to put together an in-depth report on what I’ve learned working on this business for the last few years, however today I want to share something else with you… As part of our organic SEO strategy […]

The post 5 Resources To Help You Become More Productive appeared first on Yaro.Blog.

Who else thinks learning is cool Read More »

loving the   fanpage

loving the fanpage

Revised and updated Oct. 27, 2020

Smart leaders understand how powerful having different personality types in the workplace can be. Personality tests like Myers-Briggs and Enneagram can measure a person’s specific personality traits in multiple ways. Many companies have begun using these evaluations to help them better understand potential and current employees, providing them with valuable insights they may not have obtained any other way.

As with all approaches, however, there are a number of positives and negatives to using personality tests. To help us understand the extent to which employers should rely on personality tests for their recruitment or employee development efforts, we asked 13 entrepreneurs from Young Entrepreneur Council (YEC) the following question:

What’s one pro or one con for using personality tests for recruiting and/or developing employees? Why?

Pro: They serve as great conversation tools

Personality tests are not a one-size-fits-all tool to identify and recruit employees, but they can be great conversation tools for existing and new staff. When used in addition to staff training and growth tools, personality tests can serve as a tool to discuss aspects of your team members’ behavior or their sense of self, helping them to open up and discover more about themselves. —Darby Cox, Darby Cox LLC

Pro: They can help match people to jobs they’d enjoy

Personality tests can be extremely beneficial in the hiring and development process for employees. I’ve found the DISC personality test to be beneficial for matching people with jobs they’d enjoy and likely be successful at. It also allows you to communicate with others more effectively, as it gives you a better understanding of how people process information. —Kevin Getch, Webfor

 

Pro: They can eliminate unqualified candidates

I think that you can use personality tests when recruiting employees, but that’s about it. Red flag questions on the test can help you eliminate people who are not qualified, which helps you save time and money. You’ll also improve the chances of hiring someone who will fit into their new role. —John Brackett, Smash Balloon LLC

 

Pro: They may offer better perspective on past experiences

Personality tests are useful in hiring because they can test what people will do in specific situations, so you can get a true perspective on their past experiences. Candidates will tell you great stories about how they handled certain situations, but a personality test will give you better insight into why they behaved that way since most people can’t fake their responses. —Josh Kohlbach, Wholesale Suite

Pro: They can identify how employees can be integrated into the team

Understanding how someone operates best is just as important as the education and skill set they carry. The Gallup CliftonStrengths assessment is a great test to gauge where a candidate stands in their natural state and how they will integrate into your existing team. It can be used to identify what candidates and personalities will fill gaps in the company culture that you might have. —Matthew Podolsky, Florida Law Advisers, P.A.

Pro: They may be more relevant to an employee’s inner self

I think personality tests are interesting and possibly useful, but they are also limited, especially when it comes to the workplace. They are fairly abstract and probably indicate more about an employee’s inner self and potential than how someone is actually going to perform on a day-to-day basis. You can use them, but also look at more measurable factors, such as what people have actually done. —Kalin Kassabov, ProTexting

Other Articles From AllBusiness.com:

Con: They are not a final testimony of character

The important thing to remember with the Myers-Briggs or Enneagram tests is that they are not ironclad reports that give you a final testimony of a person’s character. They are meant to help you understand what a person’s preferences are. This will enable you to help people find work and tasks that they’ll love to do, which will help you create a great workplace with high productivity. —Syed Balkhi, WPBeginner

Con: They could set employers up to be biased

I think a significant con of using personality tests for recruiting is it sets you up to be biased. You may attribute a candidate’s behavior and words to what the test says, rather than actively listening to people. It’s important to be aware that you could misjudge a person. Keep an open mind and rely on your experience to help you understand a candidate’s fit with your business. —Blair Williams, MemberPress

Con: It’s possible they will generate false positives

I don’t like personality tests because they’re not always accurate and often measure a person’s state of mind at the time they take the test. Many people aren’t comfortable during the hiring process, so you’re getting a false positive. If you insist on using these tests, make them only one factor in your hiring decision. —Thomas Griffin, OptinMonster

 

Con: They risk pigeonholing employees to generic norms

A personality test pigeonholes employees to standards and norms that apply to a trend of people, but should not be used to judge the individual. The risk with these tests is that we seek to derive too much data about a person, and instead they should just be an indicator as to strategies and ways to manage and motivate individuals to improve. They should be used to provide a guiding checkpoint and start more conversation. —Nicole Munoz, Nicole Munoz Consulting, Inc.

Con: They fail to sum up an individual as a whole

The main con of using a personality test is that it fails to sum up an individual as a whole. People are complex and it takes more than a test or a few tests to understand what they would be like to work with. You’re better off contacting their references to get the most accurate, current information about how they are in the workplace. —Jared Atchison, WPForms

 

Con: They don’t truly show if an employee is a good fit

One con of using a personality test for recruiting employees is that it will not accurately tell you if the employee is a good fit for the position. Personality tests are good, but you have to combine them with other tests. Listening to the candidate and seeing how they react and handle a stressful situation is just as important. —Alfredo Atanacio, Uassist.ME

 

Con: It could offer an inaccurate reflection of their personality

One con would be that people may try to guess what you want them to say, so it could turn out to be an inaccurate reflection of that person’s true personality. Then you are tempering your interactions, goals, etc. off information that is not relatable to the person. —Brad Burns, Wayne Contracting

RELATED: The 4 Types of Questions to Ask Candidates in a Job Interview

The post Using Personality Tests as a Hiring Tool: What Are the Pros and Cons? appeared first on AllBusiness.com. Click for more information about YEC. Copyright 2020 by AllBusiness.com. All rights reserved. The content and images contained in this RSS feed may only be used through an RSS reader and may not be reproduced on another website without the express written permission of the owner of AllBusiness.com.

loving the fanpage Read More »

who else really loves learning ?

who else really loves learning ?

Today we’re announcing that my partner Kara Nortman is becoming Co-Managing Partner at Upfront Ventures and I can’t tell you how thrilled I am to welcome her to her new role.

As with all promotions, the reality is that Kara was already acting as a senior leader at our firm and also in the industry at large. She had all of the skills and traits we sought — leadership, mentorship, competitiveness, communications, relationship-building — and of course a relentless pursuit of helping founders succeed.

I’ve become fond of saying “if I had a dollar for every person who told me just how much they loooooved Kara Nortman, I’d have a 10x fund.” So mostly we just had to listen to customer feedback from founders, VCs and LPs.

Why Kara?

Kara is a natural leader and loves taking ownership of tasks and over-performing. She has an amazing ethical compass with heart, compassion and drive. She’s empathetic and brings great humor to her work as well.

I remember years ago trying to recruit Kara. It took me three years to persuade her to join. I called an (ex) LP to tell him about her and my goals for her. He said to me (only 9 years ago), “I hope you’re not just hiring her because she’s a woman.” (I promise you, he really said this out loud.)

My literal response was, “She went to Princeton undergrad and has a Stanford MBA. She worked for 5 years as a VC at Battery Ventures and co-headed M&A at IAC working with Barry Diller. She took an operating role helping run Citysearch and Urbanspoon. On paper she’s more qualified than Yves or myself so with that out of the way can we now just focus on her skills and how you help me recruit her?”

Kara said “no” because she wanted to start her own company, which she did and I backed. At the end of that journey she joined Upfront as a partner where she’s been for > 6 years so she now has walked in the footsteps of the people she will back. She made the right decisions not joining back then because that founder empathy is the “++” that makes a difference in this business.

But if you know Kara, you likely already know all of this. So why now? And what does that really mean for the firm?

Why Now?

In any job you either find leadership opportunities for your best people BEFORE they ask or other people start asking them to become leaders somewhere else. Leadership is about recognizing your next generation of talent and helping lift them up. Or, maybe it’s just about getting out of the way and watching what they can achieve.

Our industry needs more female leaders and they shouldn’t have to all quit their respective firms and raise their own funds to get a shot at running things. The fact that Kara doesn’t have what my wife likes to refer jokingly as my “Y chromosome problem” is beside the fact. She’s more qualified than I and I know she’ll eventually eclipse the things that Yves and I have built over the past couple of decades.

Venture capital is about backing the leaders of tomorrow who imagine the world as it should be and aren’t constrained by what it is today. As an industry we’re not always as good as we could be about our own “creative destruction” to create the tomorrow of venture capital. It’s time to prepare Kara to help smash some more glass ceilings.

So What Does All This Mean?

The core of the investing job of course is investing dollars into startup companies and helping as a mentor, advisor and board member on the companies in which you’ve invested. But there is so much more that goes into running a successful fund, including:

  • Planning reserves for follow-on investments
  • Building portfolios of risk by sector, geography and stage
  • Raising capital from LPs and then communicating and reporting back to them
  • Recruiting and training staff at our firm
  • Handling legal issues, accounting and annual audits
  • Regularly reviewing the competitive strategy of your firm to make sure you don’t become complacent
  • Oh. And all the platform stuff. Marketing, recruiting, building data products & tools, event management, analyzing the portfolio, etc.

In reality we have an amazing team for which we have dedicated staff who manage many of these functions but as a leader, as a Managing Partner, you have ultimate responsibility. Kara will now be really involved with what goes on to successfully create and run a firm but while still handling her core duties of funding great entrepreneurs.

Does This Mean You’re Retiring?

Fuck no. I’m only 52! I’ll still work with Kara managing the next few funds, but I’ve already been pushing for our firm to do more to diversify our activities and this will allow me to focus on some of that. For example, we’re now already well into our third growth fund that we started in 2015 (the first returned 2x cash in 3.5 years). So beyond running our flagship “Series Seed / A” fund there is much more to be done and I’m confident Kara will step up to that task.

Wait, What About Yves? And Greg?

Just as Yves mentored me when I became his co-managing partner in 2011, he didn’t seek to ride off into the sunset either. Instead he championed our investment themes into sustainability and food technologies having invested in companies like Apeel Sciences and Ynsect. He’s helped me run the Upfront holding company activities for all of these years and will continue to do so. Yves enjoys the same things I do — investing in the brightest and most driven entrepreneurs we have access to and helping guide them as they build amazing companies and industries. So Yves thankfully isn’t going anywhere either! We’ve worked together for more than 20 years now. And it would be my great pleasure to work with Yves for another 20 years. Just you watch.

And that Greg Bettinelli chap? What’s he doing? Listen, I think most of us if you gave us a choice would prefer “just” to be great investors and to spend all of our time on portfolio work. Greg has always been clear that he loves investing the most and he’s been incredibly successful having led our investments in GOAT, Ring, ThredUp and now more recently in companies like Rally. Greg is part of our executive leadership team and already helps run the firm. He launched our scout program as an example. But when we sat down one-on-one 18 months ago and talked about what the firm should look like in the future he proactively said “Kara is the best person to help run the firm. I’ll help own functions but I mostly just want to back great founders and not have to own all the other BS.”

So There You Have It

We have an amazing team including our newest Partner, Aditi Maliwal, who runs our FinTech investment practice and is based in San Francisco. In fact, Kara led the effort to recruit our newest partner and it was then that it was first clear to me how amazing she would be at the role.

Please help me welcome Kara into her role as Co-Managing Partner. I am truly thrilled to see what she makes of it.


Kara Nortman Was Just Promoted to Co-Managing Partner at Upfront Ventures. Here’s What it All Means was originally published in Both Sides of the Table on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

who else really loves learning ? Read More »

Who else  thinks learning is cool

Who else thinks learning is cool

Today we’re announcing that my partner Kara Nortman is becoming Co-Managing Partner at Upfront Ventures and I can’t tell you how thrilled I am to welcome her to her new role.

As with all promotions, the reality is that Kara was already acting as a senior leader at our firm and also in the industry at large. She had all of the skills and traits we sought — leadership, mentorship, competitiveness, communications, relationship-building — and of course a relentless pursuit of helping founders succeed.

I’ve become fond of saying “if I had a dollar for every person who told me just how much they loooooved Kara Nortman, I’d have a 10x fund.” So mostly we just had to listen to customer feedback from founders, VCs and LPs.

Why Kara?

Kara is a natural leader and loves taking ownership of tasks and over-performing. She has an amazing ethical compass with heart, compassion and drive. She’s empathetic and brings great humor to her work as well.

I remember years ago trying to recruit Kara. It took me three years to persuade her to join. I called an (ex) LP to tell him about her and my goals for her. He said to me (only 9 years ago), “I hope you’re not just hiring her because she’s a woman.” (I promise you, he really said this out loud.)

My literal response was, “She went to Princeton undergrad and has a Stanford MBA. She worked for 5 years as a VC at Battery Ventures and co-headed M&A at IAC working with Barry Diller. She took an operating role helping run Citysearch and Urbanspoon. On paper she’s more qualified than Yves or myself so with that out of the way can we now just focus on her skills and how you help me recruit her?”

Kara said “no” because she wanted to start her own company, which she did and I backed. At the end of that journey she joined Upfront as a partner where she’s been for > 6 years so she now has walked in the footsteps of the people she will back. She made the right decisions not joining back then because that founder empathy is the “++” that makes a difference in this business.

But if you know Kara, you likely already know all of this. So why now? And what does that really mean for the firm?

Why Now?

In any job you either find leadership opportunities for your best people BEFORE they ask or other people start asking them to become leaders somewhere else. Leadership is about recognizing your next generation of talent and helping lift them up. Or, maybe it’s just about getting out of the way and watching what they can achieve.

Our industry needs more female leaders and they shouldn’t have to all quit their respective firms and raise their own funds to get a shot at running things. The fact that Kara doesn’t have what my wife likes to refer jokingly as my “Y chromosome problem” is beside the fact. She’s more qualified than I and I know she’ll eventually eclipse the things that Yves and I have built over the past couple of decades.

Venture capital is about backing the leaders of tomorrow who imagine the world as it should be and aren’t constrained by what it is today. As an industry we’re not always as good as we could be about our own “creative destruction” to create the tomorrow of venture capital. It’s time to prepare Kara to help smash some more glass ceilings.

So What Does All This Mean?

The core of the investing job of course is investing dollars into startup companies and helping as a mentor, advisor and board member on the companies in which you’ve invested. But there is so much more that goes into running a successful fund, including:

  • Planning reserves for follow-on investments
  • Building portfolios of risk by sector, geography and stage
  • Raising capital from LPs and then communicating and reporting back to them
  • Recruiting and training staff at our firm
  • Handling legal issues, accounting and annual audits
  • Regularly reviewing the competitive strategy of your firm to make sure you don’t become complacent
  • Oh. And all the platform stuff. Marketing, recruiting, building data products & tools, event management, analyzing the portfolio, etc.

In reality we have an amazing team for which we have dedicated staff who manage many of these functions but as a leader, as a Managing Partner, you have ultimate responsibility. Kara will now be really involved with what goes on to successfully create and run a firm but while still handling her core duties of funding great entrepreneurs.

Does This Mean You’re Retiring?

Fuck no. I’m only 52! I’ll still work with Kara managing the next few funds, but I’ve already been pushing for our firm to do more to diversify our activities and this will allow me to focus on some of that. For example, we’re now already well into our third growth fund that we started in 2015 (the first returned 2x cash in 3.5 years). So beyond running our flagship “Series Seed / A” fund there is much more to be done and I’m confident Kara will step up to that task.

Wait, What About Yves? And Greg?

Just as Yves mentored me when I became his co-managing partner in 2011, he didn’t seek to ride off into the sunset either. Instead he championed our investment themes into sustainability and food technologies having invested in companies like Apeel Sciences and Ynsect. He’s helped me run the Upfront holding company activities for all of these years and will continue to do so. Yves enjoys the same things I do — investing in the brightest and most driven entrepreneurs we have access to and helping guide them as they build amazing companies and industries. So Yves thankfully isn’t going anywhere either! We’ve worked together for more than 20 years now. And it would be my great pleasure to work with Yves for another 20 years. Just you watch.

And that Greg Bettinelli chap? What’s he doing? Listen, I think most of us if you gave us a choice would prefer “just” to be great investors and to spend all of our time on portfolio work. Greg has always been clear that he loves investing the most and he’s been incredibly successful having led our investments in GOAT, Ring, ThredUp and now more recently in companies like Rally. Greg is part of our executive leadership team and already helps run the firm. He launched our scout program as an example. But when we sat down one-on-one 18 months ago and talked about what the firm should look like in the future he proactively said “Kara is the best person to help run the firm. I’ll help own functions but I mostly just want to back great founders and not have to own all the other BS.”

So There You Have It

We have an amazing team including our newest Partner, Aditi Maliwal, who runs our FinTech investment practice and is based in San Francisco. In fact, Kara led the effort to recruit our newest partner and it was then that it was first clear to me how amazing she would be at the role.

Please help me welcome Kara into her role as Co-Managing Partner. I am truly thrilled to see what she makes of it.


Kara Nortman Was Just Promoted to Co-Managing Partner at Upfront Ventures. Here’s What it All Means was originally published in Both Sides of the Table on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Who else thinks learning is cool Read More »

Nice info  I really love making money

Nice info I really love making money

With every startup or business idea, there comes a dream to scale it to the moon. I am a journalist with two small startups under my belt. Being in the startup world for years, I have been on both sides of the spectrum. On one hand, I have mentored many startups due to my association with incubators and accelerators, and on the other hand, I have done extensive research into possible resources, mentors, guides, investors, and backers that I, personally can utilize for my own startups.

When you are a programmer, the reality of your idea is just behind some lines of code; but, if you are a non-technical founder like me, things become difficult. What do you do?

You collaborate with entities like a startup studio.

The recent trend of startup studios is giving non-technical founders access to resources that help them “build” their idea. These resources can be in the form of mentorship, specialized teams, and technical leadership as well.

If you have never heard of a startup studio then here is what you need to know. It is a setup that is built to enable and support other startups. It can also be called a startup factory. The three aspects that define a startup studio are:

– internally generated ideas,

– the singular goal of supporting other startups,

– and a proper infrastructure of idea enabling resources.

The question is, does it help?

Companies such as Dollar Shave Club came out of the Science startup studio in Santa Monica, California, and prove to be a good case study for what’s possible.

As a non-technical founder, collaborating with a startup studio can provide you with the following benefits:

1. It can act as your CTO/Co-Founder

Startup studios are more invested in your business than a web design agency. This is because startup studios build you from the ground up, they help you launch the idea and watch it grow. Hence, they are motivated to provide guidance, support, and resources for a longer period of time.

Startup studios also act as your co-founder and CTO to “build” your product and later also work on the growth of your startup and devise strategies for the future. The key interest of any startup studio is the success and growth of their startups, its valuations, and its future.

2. It helps to create blueprints or prototypes

In the startup world, if you are stepping in with just a passionate idea without proper resources, guidance, or backup. There is little chance that your startup will succeed.

However, with a startup studio, you can raise your success rate significantly. It is because they provide an almost foolproof blueprint on how to launch and develop your idea. With the help of a startup studio, you can build a prototype you can use to move forward with your idea, validate it, do risk analysis, or calculate possible lacks and failures.

3. It can help you validate product/market fit

When you come up with an idea, initially that is all it is. No matter how great, how innovative, or problem solving an idea is, it is just… an idea. Until you roll up your sleeves and work on it. Once you get started on bringing your idea to a reality that’s when the first pool of obstacles, failures, and problems arrive. This is the first test of your endurance and the validity of your idea.

With a startup studio, you can do just that. You can take your idea, create a prototype, launch it, and validate if it can withhold in the real world.

4. It gives you access to idea pools

Startup studios go through several businesses, ideas, potential startups on an everyday basis. Their exposure, to new ideas, technologies, and possibilities, is immense. The individuals in the studio are also tech-savvy and innovative which leads to even more solutions and ideas.

It is a high possibility that when growing your startup you will reach a dead-end, a failure, a u-turn, or crossroads. When faced with such situations, you can bounce ideas, discuss, evaluate, and analyze each opportunity or solution with the startup studio. The diverse set of mindsets will allow you to make a suitable pivot for the future of your company.

5. It lets you tap into a pool of resources

With a startup studio, you have easy access to tech-savvy, diverse minded, experienced, professionals. A startup studio has a team of designers, developers, marketers, and administrative staff for the early-stage startups they are associated with.

Having access to a pool of resources, startups can get all the help they need in launching their idea without hiring and thus, saving the expense of salaries during its prototype phase.

Conclusion

While a studio startup can be highly impactful for non-technical founders, it can be highly beneficial and enabling for technical founders as well. To run a business you need a whole team of experts and enablers, a startup can not be a one-man show. To thrive, every startup requires collaboration, loyalty, sharing of ideas, resources, and a team to lean on. So whether you are a non-techincal or a technical founder joining a venture-capital-backed studio will absolutely enable growth opportunities.

“No more romanticizing about how cool it is to be an entrepreneur. It’s a struggle to save your company’s life – and your own skin – every day of the week.”

— Spencer Fry, co-founder of CarbonMade

The post How Collaborating With a Startup Studio Can Save Non-Technical Founders appeared first on Startup Digest Blog.

Nice info I really love making money Read More »

Scroll to Top