Connect Blogs

Aggregate

Forcing employees to use internal and inferior software is pointless

January 25th, 2007 | Author: Blake | Permalink
A study last June (via Business 2.0) revealed that more than 2/3 of all Microsoft employees used Google search instead of internally-bred MSN Search. The reason is obvious, but I bet MS employees are constantly pressured into using MSN over Google, despite the latter being superior (not to mention more efficient. So in a lot of ways, Microsoft could actually save money by openly allowing Google search. Isn't that called a paradox or something?). In working for AOL as a freelance blogger, I felt similar pressure, albeit very minor, when our company's social bookmarking software, Netscape, was first launched to compete against/alongside Digg. Sure, Netscape does some great things, but it's inferior in the sense that Digg fosters a much larger community that drives a lot more site traffic. What was once requests for "Digg" traffic at AOL started becoming requests for "Digg/Scape" traffic in what appeared to be an artificial attempt to increase the userbase. No harm in this, and again, we were in no way "forced" to use Netscape, but I did feel slight political pressure to use it alongside Digg. The act always felt a bit forced as Digg and its organic traffic were the real reason for the traffic submitting requests in the first place. A couple of years ago, Griffio built an internal web project management application in PHP to help keep tabs on our company projects. It was good software, and we spent a significant amount of time designing and building it. But it wasn't as good as Base Camp, 37 Signals' project management software. Wisely, we started using it over our own. It would have been shortsighted on my part to force or socially pressure my employees to use our software (not to mention myself) over Base Camp despite the sunk investment cost of our internal product. So with exception to material costs, I can't think of a logical reason when an inferior product should be used over superior one. Granted, many times this could simply be "awkwardness" when what you're building or offering isn't as good as a competitor's product. Perhaps your product is better suited for a different audience. But whatever the scenario, nothing is gained by forcing or pressuring one's employees into using company built products when cost isn't an issue. Better yet, ask your employees why they prefer the alternative to enhance your offering. That's free advice straight from the end-user.

The 100 best fonts as voted by design experts

January 25th, 2007 | Author: Blake | Permalink
Mmmm... fonts. Typography. Here's a list of the 100 best fonts as voted by design experts for a German publication. Some of my favorites include Helvetica (no. 1), Futura, and Myriad. Would it be too nerdy to ask what your favorite font is?

Venture Capital Deal Flow for 2006

January 25th, 2007 | Author: Devin Thorpe | Permalink

I'm finally catching up to read the PricewaterhouseCoopers MoneyTree Report for the last quarter of 2006.  Some highlights from the report are shown below. 

 

1996

1995

% Change

U.S. Full Year # of Deals

3,416

3,094

10.4%

U.S. 4th Quarter # of Deals

802

798

0.5%

U.S. Full Year $ Invested

$25.5b

$22.8b

11.8%

U.S. 4th Quarter $ Invested

$5.7b

$5.7b

0.0%

Utah Full Year # of Deals

32

27

18.5%

Utah 4th Quarter # of Deals

8

4

100.0%

Utah Full Year $ Invested

$167m

$249m

-32.9%

Utah 4th Quarter $ Invested

$28m

$26m

7.7%


Minimum wage as a supply chain issue

January 25th, 2007 | Author: KatieReeder | Permalink

As the control of congress changed over the last couple of weeks and the Democrats dived into their 100 hours initiative, one of their first actions was to pass a bill to increase the minimum wage.  I understand the arguments on both sides of the issue and agree with some parts of each side.

As the dialogue continues to grow, however, and passions become inflamed, my fear is that one of the most critical aspects to any increase in minimum wage will be lost.  I’ve been talking to many business people this week and they are not concerned - the labor market is pretty tight here in Utah and many employers already pay their employees more than minimum wage.  And so they shrug it off convinced that the only metric that can really be impacted, by minimum wage, is labor cost and that metric won’t show even a ripple.

What many will fail to see is that minimum wage is not just a cost of labor issue, it’s a supply-chain issue and any financial impacts in the supply-chain go directly to the bottom line. 

What should you be doing?  Begin today, pull out your dashboards, pull your supply-chain folks together and take a 360 view of your supply-chain.  Make sure that your business understands and is ready to either mitigate or absorb the increases that will surley come to your supply chain as the minimum wage is incrementally increased.

Remember, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link!


Few Thoughts on Board’s of Directors

January 25th, 2007 | Author: TimHunt | Permalink

When you are starting out as an entrepreneur or even if you are seasoned a good board of directors can be invaluable. When I first got started I invited several people whom I admired for both their accomplishments and it didn’t hurt they they were people who had done well financially. I didn’t ask them for money, just advice. Most of them eventually invested in the company.

Later when the company got more established we brought on venture capital and of course that demaded a board seat. I have to tell you finding the right vc firm with the right people is important. That board member can be a great asset to you and your board. There is a lot more value a good vc can add then just the money. I like to think of the board of directors as a team. I need them functioning on all levels and they need to work closely with the management team and the CEO to ensure success.

As I went along I started selecting board members for their specific areas of expertise. As our company grows we are looking to expand the board. We started out with 3 members on the board through development to market. As we move towards profitability we are expanding the board. Personally I like to limit the number of people in the company that are on the board. I think the CEO is sufficient. The company officers need to focus on being the managment team. They can be invited to the board meetings, but I don’t think it is good to have them on the board. Besides as you start to grow and you want to bring in expertise you could offend them by taking them off the board.

So my ideal board composition would be something like the following:

3-person board

CEO
Investor or potential investor
CEO of a complimentary company with great experience

In this kind of board you have to think about raising money and you want the broad experience of someone else who has seen it all.

5-person board

CEO
Investor or potential investor
Customer
Strategic Alliance Partner
CEO of a complimentary company with great experience

7-person board

CEO
Investor or potential investor
Customer
Strategic Alliance Partner
CEO of a complimentary company with great experience
Community leader
Other either Marketing expert or Financial expert

9-person board

CEO
Investor or potential investor
Customer
Strategic Alliance Partner
CEO of a complimentary company with great experienc
Community leader
Marketing or Financial Expert
Another CEO of a complimentary company
Customer

I think the board should be balance between insiders like the management team and investors and outside entities like customers, other CEO’s and community leaders to provide some sense of reality to the board.

Now sometimes because of raising capital you are left with a board heavy on investors. There may be nothing you can do about it. However, if you can get them to see that the having the perspective of customers and alliance partners on your board strengthens your decision making they might be willing to rely on other investors to fill the board seats and could still be invited in as observers. I will say though that if you have taking money and you have given them a board seat with it and there is nothing wrong with that don’t ever try to take that board seat away. That investor has to make that decision to step aside to allow another person on the board. They seldom will, but sometimes when you get to making good money and there are not many concerns with the company they are willing to do so to allow themselves time to work with their other portfolio companies.


Some facts from China, Inc.

January 25th, 2007 | Author: Chris Knudsen | Permalink

I just completed reading China, Inc. I wasn’t too impressed with the book - I thought it was poorly written (but who am I to criticize another for that). Here are some interesting facts from the book:

  • China must build urban infrastructure equivalent to Houston’s every month in order to absorb the three hundred million Chinese who will move from rural to urban areas over the next 15 years.
  • 220 Billion text messages were sent in china in 2005 - it’s probably doubled by now.
  • 74 million Chinese families can now afford cars.
  • The Chinese auto market will be bigger than the U.S. auto market by 2025.
  • China has more speakers of English as a second language than America has native English speakers.
  • China has 300 biotech firms that don’t have to deal with PETA, the religious right or ethical standards boards.
  • American companies make an average of 43% return on their Chinese operations.
  • China has 220 million “surplus workers”. America has a work force of 140 million.
  • An El Salvador apparel worker makes $1.65 an hour. In China they make about $.78 an hour.
  • China has 186 MBA programs.
  • China has 340 million people under the age of 14.  The entire population of the U.S. is 300 million.
  • More people use the Internet in China than in the U.S.

If you just read that then you don’t really need to read the book. You get the point.  


Patent Licensees Can Sue for Invalidity

January 25th, 2007 | Author: Rand Bateman | Permalink

For many years it has been the understanding of most that a person or company which has taken a license under a patent cannot sue to seek invalidity of the patent as long as they are in compliance with the terms of the license. This has created a dilemma for many companies that have a license under a patent which they believe to be invalid. Do I keep paying the royalties on a patent which cannot be successfully enforced against my competitors? Do I stop paying royalties and can challenge the patent, only to get sued by the patent owner for willful infringement and an injunction?

The Supreme Court recently resolved the dilemma in a manner that will cheer many licensees and give heartburn to patent owners. In Medimmune v. Genentech, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that a licensee does have standing to sue to seek a declaratory judgment that the patent is invalid or not infringed without breaching the license agreement. The Court found that the threat that the patent owner would seek to enforce the patent if the licensee failed to pay licensing fees under the patent was sufficient to establish a case or controversy as required by Article III of the Constitution. For many years the courts have found that a person can challenge the validity of a law without first breaking it. The Supreme Court found that an entity should likewise be able to challenge the validity of a patent without first having to breach the license agreement and expose itself to damages and an injunction.

The Supreme Court’s decision has already spawned a host of commentary about how to prevent one’s licensees from challenging a patent while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of the license. It has also caused considerable discussion of whether this signifies a growing hostility of the Supreme Court to patents, or simply the logical extension of prior Supreme Court precedent. Either way, it is important for both patent owners and licensors to more carefully consider patent license agreements.

This blog post is intended for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice or as pertaining to specific factual situations. Consult with an attorney concerning your own needs and circumstances and to obtain any legal advice with respect to the topics discussed in this post.


Look the Gift Horse in the Mouth

January 24th, 2007 | Author: Rand Bateman | Permalink

Every entrepreneur wants to be successful. Everyone knows to carefully consider their product or service, their marketing plans and who they are going into business with (partners and/or employees). The biggest risk of your business failing, however, may be your customers. The tendency of many start-ups and small businesses is to take whatever customers they can get. However, failing to carefully choose your customers can be the death nail of your business.

Over the years I have found several warning signs that should be considered. While any one of these may not disqualify a client, when two or more are present alarm bells should go off in your head.

Beware of the apparently successful client. Be aware of the client who shows up driving an expensive luxury car, lives in a very large house and wears fancy clothes. These things may be a sign of someone who is very successful. They also can be a sign of someone who is so leveraged that they will not be able to pay your bill. If they are running a small business, it may also mean that they are bleeding the company dry. If they are showing off their money – make sure you get some of it up front.

Beware of the RUSH. Occasionally a client will walk in the door who needs a large amount of work done in a hurry. While this can be a golden opportunity to build loyalty, it should also raise red flags. Why does the client need the work done in a hurry? Did the client simply put off doing something until it was an emergency? If so, you may have just accepted a client who is going to drop things on you at the last minute and expect you to move mountains to solve their problems. Rush projects increase the likelihood of mistakes and decrease your quality of life. Additionally, they can interfere with existing relationships if you have to delay servicing established customers.

Beware of the missing checkbook.
If a potential client has taken the time to set up an appointment with you, expect that they will bring some method of payment. If they don’t have money to meet your retainer, down payment, etc., make sure that you get that money before you begin substantial efforts. This is particularly important if red flags 1 and 2 above are present. A rush project without money upfront usually means you will have a hard time collecting. As soon as the work is done, so is the desire to pay for it.

Beware of the unhappy client. While dissatisfaction with competitors may lead clients to your door, any client who freely complains about your competitor is likely to do the same about your business once the work is done. Additionally, the client may be complaining to cover the fact that the client was fired by your competitor.

Beware the client seeking a discount. People seeking a discount will often approach new or small businesses hoping the business will need the work and will do it at reduced rates. Such clients may promise to refer you to all of their friends or claim to have a substantial amount of work with your competitor’s that they will transfer over if things go well. Often, these are simply rationalizations to get a lower price.

If a client is unwilling to pay your normal rate, consider if you really want them as a client. If the discount is based on alleged large volume of work, structure your agreement so that the discount will become effective once the large quantity of work is received. Thus you are not giving a discount for someone who is only inflating the amount of work they need long enough to get you to lock yourself into a rate which you may only provide to your best clients. If you want to do work for the client even at discounted rates, consider some other benefit you may receive – some of their product perhaps – to justify the discount. This may help avoid problems if full pay clients learn of the discount.

Beware the big corporation. Large corporations can make very lucrative clients. They can also crush a small business that is not set up to deal with them properly. Many corporations take a while to pay. I have worked for Corporations that paid net 120 days. If you need a check from today’s work to pay tomorrow’s payroll, you should probably pass on the large corporation until you have the financial resources to cover the delay. Also, remember that sometimes big companies go bankrupt too. Make sure that you can survive losing the client and any outstanding invoices without going under.

Trust your gut. Above all learn to trust your intuition. If a client feels wrong, they probably are. If you need to take the client anyway, get a retainer and set clear boundaries on the work which you will be doing so that the client does not consume your resources and leave you high and dry.

Taking on the wrong client can be devastating for a company especially if it takes you too long to realize you have been had. A small company usually cannot afford to do tens of thousands of dollars of work or ship a substantial amount of product to companies only to be left holding an unpaid bill. If you need to take the client consider the following:

1. Get money up front. If any of the red flags are raised get a substantial portion or all of the money up front. If the client is not willing to pay you part now, they may be just as unwilling to pay you in full after you have completed the work. Life is too short to work for clients who do not pay.

2. Get a personal guarantee. Some small businesses will attempt to leverage on their service providers and suppliers. Once the work is done, they condition payment on the success of their own venture. The supplier effectively becomes a passive investor with no upside. If the company does not have the funds to pay you right now and you want to do the work, have the person requesting the work personally guarantee payment. Also, do a credit check on that person to see if nonpayment is a habit.

3. Condition discounts on objective standards. If a client seeks a discount because they have a large volume of work or will be a loyal customer, consider basing any discount on some objective standards. For example, a company will start to receive a 10% discount on the bill once they have ordered 1,000 widgets or have $50,000 worth of work done. This way a discount is not provided to someone who may be exaggerating their work simply to negotiate better terms.

4. Take a lien. If you sell products to a company, talk to your business attorney about UCC filings so that you can reclaim the product if payment is not made. If you are a service provider, draft your contract so that you have a lien on any work which is not paid for. While the work may not be of much value to you once it is completed, the threat that you will repossess the work done for the client may give you a bargaining chip if the client does not pay.

Obtaining good clients takes time. Bad clients waste your time. If your clients don’t pay, you only have an expensive hobby.

This blog post is intended for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice or as pertaining to specific factual situations. Consult with an attorney concerning your own needs and circumstances and to obtain any legal advice with respect to the topics discussed in this post.


Big thanks to Connor on the new theme

January 24th, 2007 | Author: Chris Knudsen | Permalink

Do you like the new theme? I sure do. Thanks to Connor Boyack for pulling this together for me. Conner does a great job and I highly recommend him. Also, If you don’t read Connor’s blog please check it out. He has one of the best LDS themed blogs on the Internet.  

Looks like Russ has Blix almost all to himself.

P.S. the photos are mine as well. The system rotates through about 40 pictures in the header. I’ll add more as they come. Hope you enjoy.

 


Funding Universe SpeedPitching

January 24th, 2007 | Author: Devin Thorpe | Permalink

The next Funding Universe Utah SpeedPitching event is coming up next Wednesday. 

SpeedPitching is to entrepreneurs what SpeedDating is to singles, a great way to meet many potential matches in a short time.

Funding Universe is a rapidly growing Utah-based company that helps companies by putting their plans in front of hundreds of qualified investors.  

j0321205.jpgThe SpeedPitching event features 10 deals and about 25 investors.  It is an effecient way for investors to screen a lot of deals quickly.

While the Thorpe Capital Group fund doesn't invest in early-stage ventures, we know a lot of folks who do.  We love the opportunity to see so many quality opportunities in just a few hours.