B2E2B (Business to Employee to Business)

We all know b2b and b2c, and even b2b2c. I'd propose that an emerging software business model is b2e2b (business to employee to business). While it hasn't been called out clearly like this (trust me, I've 'Googled' it) there are many companies that are already using this approach (Yammer, Dropbox, Xobni and others). The way it works is that a company builds a product that can be accessed directly by a single employee of an organization. As the number of users within a company grows and reaches a critical mass, the company then has a salesperson contact the organization to make the upsell -- e.g. business to employee to business.

Of course, this model is interesting in its own right. But there are much larger implications for enterprise software. Chris Dixon and others have talked a lot about the fact that enterprise technology is far behind consumer technology. As I've written before, I believe that the reason for this is that enterprise technology can get away with being bad. For example, if you're a payroll provider and you provide a lousy interface for employees you can get away with it because you only have to sell one person in HR on your product (and then they force ten thousand people to use it). But if you're a consumer site like Mint.com you can't get away with being lousy because you have to sell 10,000 people, one by one. You have to be great or you'll fail.

And this is why the b2e2b approach is so important. It’s radically changing the way enterprise software is built and sold. And as a result, we should see the quality of enterprise technology begin to catch up with consumer technology. And when it does, those big b2b companies that continue to rely on their brand or their sales force to drive sales will begin to collapse.

Facebook's 15%

You may have noticed that there are fewer posts in your Facebook feed these days. The reason? Facebook is now selling its ‘sponsored posts’ feature to individual accounts in addition to business accounts. So now, when you post an update to Facebook telling your friends that you’re going to the gym or looking forward to watching your favorite television show that post only appears in approximately 15% of your friends’ news feeds. But, if you pay a small fee (I hear around $5 to $10) Facebook will show that post to a much larger group of friends. This change has caused quite a bit of frustration for Facebook users. And rightfully so.  Many businesses and individuals have spent massive resources acquiring Facebook followers and have been using Facebook as a way to engage their customers for years. You can understand the frustration among businesses and individuals that suddenly have to pay to speak to their own network.

For Facebook, though, the move makes a lot of sense. They’re a public company now, and the market wants to know how they’re going to continue to add shareholder value.  And given that there are reasons to believe that their user growth is beginning to top off, there’s lots of pressure on them to monetize their user base.  Offering a paid product to their entire base of users – which, by the way, equates to about one seventh of the world’s population – is arguably a step in the right direction.

Of course, what’s good for Facebook’s stock price in the short term may not be good for its users. Beyond the anecdotal frustration, Mark Cuban and others are advising their companies to pull back from using Facebook as a primary marketing channel. And some of the bands I follow on Facebook have asked their users to begin following them on Twitter instead.

Facebook has to walk the thin tightrope of providing an accessible and valuable platform to the masses while it tries to monetize more and more of their user base. In the past, shareholders could argue that Facebook may have leaned too far towards providing the free platform. With this change, they’re now leaning in the opposite direction. They'll have to adapt their product and communication strategy to figure out how they can continue to thrive using this new model – and they better hope their users stick around while they do.

Conscious Capitalism Talk

Here's a great talk that my former marketing professor, Dr. Raj Sisodia, gave at TEDxNewEngland about a month ago. The talk addresses how the world has changed dramatically in recent years and encourages our large corporate institutions to change too. Dr. Sisodia was without a doubt my favorite professor in business school and this talk reminds me of one of his great lectures. I hope you enjoy it.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8faXr6WhCM&w=420&h=315]

Insights From Jeff Bezos

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA_0W4hIhuA&w=420&h=315]

Somebody sent me this video of Jeff Bezos being interviewed by Charlie Rose back in 2011. The purpose of the interview was to announce the new Kindle that came out at the time. In the first part of the interview, Rose really pushes Bezos on how the Kindle competes with the iPad. I loved watching the way that Bezos responds. Brilliant. If you don’t have time to watch the entire video, here are the key lines/insights for me.

• The Kindle doesn't compete with the iPad. It is the best device for long form reading. Amazon has made no tradeoffs in building the best product for long form reading.
• Amazon isn’t providing the experience, that’s Hemingway’s job. They are providing the ability to enjoy that experience.
• The number one thing that Kindle users are doing is reading Stieg Larsson. The number one thing iPad users are doing is playing Angry Birds.
• Reading a book on an iPad is like reading while someone is pointing a flashlight in your eyes.
• Amazon doesn’t want to be the 79th tablet. They want to be the best at what they do.
• He urges employees to not wake up worried about competitors, but to wake up obsessing about the customer.
• Amazon doesn’t force customers to pay for its own inefficiencies.
• Business is not a zero sum game. Competitors can thrive together.
• Amazon’s mission is similar to Sony’s missions when they started.  Sony’s mission was to make Japan a leader in building quality products. Their mission was bigger than themselves.

Groupon, Chest Pain And Consumer Behavior

It was unfortunate – but not very surprising – to see the news this week that Groupon laid off a portion of their 10,000 employees. If ever there was a predictable bubble, it was daily deals. But it was fun while it lasted, and you can see why there was so much overinvestment in the space. Groupon’s pitch to merchants was to ask them to take a loss by making a super compelling offer that consumers couldn't resist. The offer would generate tons of new customers that would come back and make profitable purchases for years to come.  On the surface, it seemed pretty compelling.

With the Groupon news in mind, I spent some time this week thinking about the problem of hospital readmission penalties in the healthcare industry.  For those that don’t know, the government is trying to improve accountability and the quality of patient care by imposing financial penalties on hospitals that have high rates of 30 day hospital readmissions.  Depending on the rate of readmission, the government will reduce Medicare payments by as much as 1%.  For an industry with very thin margins, this is a pretty big deal.

One of the major challenges with hospital readmission penalties is that now doctors have to not only care for the patient effectively during the initial encounter, they’re now responsible for changing the patient’s behavior after they leave the hospital.

Here’s an example: imagine an older man that doesn’t take care of himself.  He smokes, eats fatty foods, lives a sedentary lifestyle and hasn’t visited a doctor in years. One day, a pain in his chest becomes so severe that he is forced to check himself into the emergency room.  After spending a couple nights in the hospital getting treatment, he starts to feel better. When he’s finally discharged, the doctor recommends that he stops smoking, follows a cardiac diet, takes a prescribed medication, and visits a cardiologist for a checkup every week for the next 6 weeks.

But this is a person that is not used to doing any of those things. The problem that caused him to appear in the hospital – severe chest pain – is not an immediate problem for him anymore.  He feels fine.  So the hospital is being asked to significantly change the behavior of someone without the initial (and powerful) motivator in place. As a result, he’s very likely not going to follow the doctor’s orders and he’s very likely going to reappear at the emergency room.

It occurred to me that this is the fundamental problem with the daily deal industry.  Groupon has the same challenge that hospitals have.  Just like severe chest pain, their deals change behavior. Most of the people that buy half-off skydiving, or cooking classes, or services at the super expensive nail salon, weren’t planning to do those things until they saw the deal sitting in their email inbox.  But because the deals are so compelling (50%+ off) they bought them anyway and, as a result, Groupon was able to flood their merchant clients with lots of new business.

But it’s because the initial deal is so compelling that it becomes nearly impossible for Groupon to reliably deliver on their ultimate promise of bringing their merchants new, loyal and profitable customers.  Just like severe chest pain, the daily deal changes behavior.  It forces people to do something that they wouldn’t normally do.  But without a continuous and powerful motivator in place (like chest pain or 50% off) the doctor can’t get the patient to come in for an electrocardiogram and the nail salon can’t get the customer to come back for a second manicure.

B2B E-Commerce

Erin Griffith had a good post on PandoDaily titled, Whatever Happened To The Promise of B2B E-commerce. I find this to be a super interesting topic. In short, Erin argued that "the trillion-dollar promise of B2B commerce may finally be on its way."

Personally, I'm not so sure. I posted the following comment -- though for some reason it never got posted to the post, so I thought I'd post it here.

Great post, Erin.

Though I’m not sure I agree that b2b e-commerce is finally on its way.  There are multiple, inherent transactional differences between b2b and b2c that, I believe, make a transition to b2b e-commerce nearly impossible in the short to medium term. There are so many steps in a large enterprise’s buying process that cannot be replicated in a scalable manner online (customized legal agreements, reference checks, price negotiation, unique purchase approval structures, payment terms and the individual emotions that drive big purchases). Just look at the legal side for a moment. Most e-commerce sites have their own “terms of use” section that dictates the legal terms associated with the use of their site. Large enterprises will want to review and customize these terms of use based on their own policies, procedures and appetite for risk.  It’s very difficult for e-commerce sites to allow for this in a scalable way across hundreds or thousands of clients.

Now you may argue that e-commerce has come such a long way that technology should be able to replace much of this bureaucracy. But in a large enterprise each of these steps represent a task that is completed by someone with a job. So you can either eliminate those jobs or assign those individuals to work on something else. But just like purchasing, reorganizing non-strategic job roles for an unclear upside will take a long, long time. And in my view, real growth in b2b e-commerce is simply going to have to wait.

MVP in B2B

Minimum Viable Product (MVP) has become an enormously popular way of releasing web applications. The idea is to get a product that works in front of users quickly and cheaply, watch them interact with it and constantly iterate and improve.  In some cases developers will release changes to the product every day, if not multiple times a day. This is also often referred to as an "agile" development environment. This approach is distinct from the old fashioned, "waterfall" approach where changes to the product are planned and implemented less frequently in well planned batches.

In a b2c environment, MVP works extremely well because a developer can release features and iterate based on data/learnings that they capture by watching thousands of users interacting with their code.

In a b2b environment, though, often this isn't so easy.  At the outset, there may only be one or two individuals using the product so good data and learnings may not be as easy to capture.  As a result, it's critical that when b2b organizations use an MVP approach they be super disciplined about setting up formal feedback loops where feedback is filtered quickly and regularly back to their product team. Most clients should support this as they’ll get to see much of what they recommend being built into products rapidly.  But it’s important to get buy-in on participation in the feedback loop from the early adopters.  This may be a new concept for them as most of their current software vendors are more than likely using the ‘waterfall’ approach.

Also, given the pace of change in an agile development process, it's important that the client-facing team is aware of the more significant product changes that are being made.  Often, an agile, MVP driven environment can lead to such fast paced change that b2b salespeople aren’t aware of the significant features or changes being released.  And an awareness of the substance and timing of product changes can be an excellent way to speed up deal movement and client adoption.

User Driven Valuations

I wrote about Facebook's IPO back in May pointing out how unbelievable it was to me that a company that started back in 2003 and really doesn't make anything of substance or have a very compelling revenue model could go public at a $100 billion dollar valuation. I ended the post by saying, "the world has changed".

Well, maybe not. A lot has changed for Facebook since then (see stock price chart above).

Their market cap is now below $40 billion and the consensus seems to be that their stock price is going to continue to fall. That said, their shares are still trading at around 32 times earnings -- so there's still a decent amount of hype around this IPO.

One of the primary reasons for all of the hype is that Facebook is so widely known and widely used. They have hundreds of millions of users; many of them use the product several times a day, every day. And the vast majority of these users know absolutely nothing about investing.  But because they use the product and know the product, they were compelled to buy some shares. As a result, the company was hugely overvalued following its IPO.

Contrast this with Globus Medical, a medical device company that went public on Friday with virtually no hype. It’s unlikely we’ll see this stock nosedive like Facebook. They have a fraction of the customers that Facebook has – they make medical devices used in spinal surgery – so there are far fewer people interested in owning a piece of the company. There’s far less hype.

There have been literally thousands of consumer web services started and funded over the last couple of years. Many of these companies have millions of users and no revenue or compelling revenue model. As a result, I’d expect to see more and more companies go public in the near future with inflated valuations that are propped up by their user base.

The Facebook IPO underscores a good lesson for amateur investors: just because you use a product every day doesn’t mean it should be a part of your portfolio.

I Like Mike (Part 2)

Regular readers know that I'm a big fan of Mike Bloomberg. I wrote about him in an earlier post back in 2008. Chris Dixon interviewed him for TechCrunch’s Founder Stories series last November.  It's an insightful and inspiring interview -- I recommend watching when you have some time.  Here's some of the highlights/insights for me. I’m paraphrasing Mike, of course.

• One of the goals of New York City is to have a park within a ten minute walk of every New Yorker.
• The business goals for New York isn’t to pay companies to come here through subsidies, it’s to create an environment where people want to live.  That means great culture, parks, schools and reduced crime.
• Big companies are like governments in that they setup very reasonable bureaucracies to minimize risk.  But that bureaucracy is what prevents them from innovating.  That’s why we need startups.
• The United States is committing suicide by not giving citizenship to foreign entrepreneurs.
• People talk about making New York more of a hub for college education, much like Boston.  It turns out that there are more undergraduate and graduate students in New York City then there are people in Boston.
• There are 13 public golf courses in New York City and Staten Island's land mass is almost 25% park.

SecondMarket & the Tech Bubble

There was a fantastic column the other day on Reuters written by Felix Simon titled, Facebook’s SecondMarket Puppets. The column points out how investors that put their money in Facebook using SecondMarket while Facebook was private have actually lost money since the company went public. This is interesting – and scary – for companies with upcoming IPOs that are allowing their illiquid shares to be traded on a secondary exchange. In theory, the value of SecondMarket was that you could get in on a hot company pre-IPO and make big bucks if/when they went public. But it seems that this isn’t a guarantee. Simon’s key insight is this: 

…it’s increasingly looking as though shares in private tech-companies are a bit like fine art prices: a place for the rich to spend money and feel great about owning something very few other people can have. The minute they become public and democratic, they lose a lot of their cachet.  And a lot of their value.

The level of hype propping up the valuations of some of the hot private and public internet companies is enough to keep me far away from these securities...and SecondMarket.

Mary Meeker's State of the Internet

Nobody is better than Mary Meeker -- now a partner at Kleiner Perkins -- at summarizing the state of the internet. Last week she presented her Internet Trends 2012 presentation at the All Things Digital Conference. This presentation is fantastic, I recommend flipping through it when you get a chance. The most compelling part to me is her summary of how technology has forced almost all industries -- from photography to healthcare -- to reimagine their products and they way the deliver value. That section begins on page 33 and ends on page 84.

[scribd id=95259089 key=key-mv1qbwlvykk5cacr6a7 mode=scroll]

TripIt

I've been travelling quite a bit over the last couple of months -- I’m on a plane or train or both at least once a week.  One of the most painful parts of travelling is keeping track of my itineraries: carrier, airport location, departure times, arrival times, confirmation numbers, hotel names and locations, etc. When you're moving around a lot, keeping track of all of this can be a complete pain.

TripIt is an iPhone app that solves this problem.  Anytime I book a train, plane, hotel or dinner reservation all of the relevant information is imported neatly into the TripIt app.  When I open the TripIt app it shows me all of my trips in chronological order.  When I click on an individual trip it shows me all of the relevant information for each flight, train, hotel and dinner reservation.  TripIt takes a good chunk of stress out of traveling and I never have to carry print outs or search through my email to find a confirmation number.

There are two ways to get your itineraries into the TripIt app.  You can either forward your itineraries to the TripIt email address or you can set it up so that TripIt automatically scans through your email every 10 minutes looking for itineraries. I've gone with the latter option and it's worked great.  

TripIt makes money by offering premium packages -- TripIt Pro and TripIt for businesses.  You can see the different product features here.  So far I've opted to stick with the free version.  

If you're looking to reduce some of the stress that comes with travelling frequently, TripIt is a no-brainer.