Highs and Lows, Part II

A couple years ago, I wrote about the Highs and Lows of entrepreneurship, and how you didn’t just have to steel yourself mentally for a roller coaster of highs and lows, but that you had to really prepare for the whiplash of having the highs and lows hit you at the same time.

My sequel to the original post was inspired by some conversations with my colleague George Bilbrey this week.  It used to be that when the high/low whiplash occurred, while I probably shared either the high or the low with someone in the company, it was unlikely that I shared both.  So other individuals might see a high or a low, de rigeur for working at a startup, but they wouldn’t see both together.

But that’s not the case any longer.  One thing I’ve now noticed that happens as the company grows — we’re up to something like 130 people now — is that we have a big enough business, and enough of our senior people run large enough pieces of it, that I’m not alone in the highs and lows any more.   

This change is, of course, both good news and bad news.  The good news is that it’s always nice to share the burden of these things with other trusted people on the team.  The bad news, of course, is that whiplash isn’t fun, so now part of my job has to be managing it when it happens to others — not so much senior people on the team, but clearly, once the high/low combo is clear to a couple people, it’s likely clear to an even broader audience.

As part of the new section on Exits in the Second Edition of the book (order here), there’s a final chapter around you as CEO and thinking about what you do next.  I’ll start this post by saying, while am really happy with where I am now (more to come on that!), I am not happy with the way I handled my own “next steps” after the Return Path exit.  I did follow some of my own advice, but not enough of it.  I jumped back into the fray way too quickly.

Some exits leave CEOs in a position of never having to work again – those are good in that they give you more time to think about what’s next and more options for what’s next, but no financial forcing function to do anything.  Some CEOs want to work again in the same field, doing another startup or being hired to run a larger company or focusing on serving on boards and mentoring other CEOs.  Some want to transition to a different kind of work entirely.  

But no matter what your circumstances are, the most important thing you can do after selling your startup is to downshift and take time off.  You probably haven’t done that in years, maybe decades.  You may feel like you only have one gear – ON – but in fact, you can get into new patterns of life and take time to enjoy and appreciate things you may have neglected for years and do some of what Stephen Covey calls “Sharpen the saw.”  Here’s an excerpt from the book about this:

There’s more to thinking about your next step than just clearing your head, of course.  You have to spend some cycles being reflective about the journey you just went on.  Our senior team, including a couple long time alumni, gathered and did what I call the “ultimate post mortem,” reflecting on lessons learned over 20 years.  I spent some time thinking about how to tell my story, what my own narrative was about the journey.  And I came up with my framework for deciding what to do next – that checklist of the things I wanted and didn’t want in my next job, which is detailed in the book, and which I’ll talk about more in the weeks to come as we prepare for the public launch of our new company.  But for now, this is the final teaser post I’ll write about the Second Edition of Startup CEO:  A Field Guide to Scaling Up Your Business. Next week, though, I will write about the sequel my colleagues and I are writing at our new business.

Hackoff – The Blook, Part II

A few weeks back, I posted about a new blook (book delivered in single episodes via blog) called Hackoff.com – An Historic Murder Mystery Set in the Internet Bubble and Rubble, by Tom Evslin.  A few weeks into it, and I’m hooked.  It’s:

– complete and total brain candy, or mental floss as Brad calls it

– a great 2 minute break in the middle of the day (episodes are delivered once a day during the week)

– a very entertaining reminder about some of the wacky things that went on back in the Internet heyday

– a good look into some of the processes that go on behind the scenes in taking a company public

If you haven’t started the blook yet and want to give it a try, you can catch up on all of the first episodes and subscribe to the new ones here.   You can also preorder a hardcover copy of the book here on Amazon.com.

On the Other Hand…

A couple days ago, I wrote about how crummy the customer service experience was with Clear going out of business with no notice and no apology. 

Today my inbox revealed the exact opposite experience:

Greetings from Amazon.com.

You saved $1.40 with Amazon.com’s Pre-order Price Guarantee!

The price of the item(s) decreased after you ordered them, and we gave you the lowest price.

I didn’t even know Amazon had a Pre-order Price Guarantee.  They could have gotten away with not giving it to me, and I would have never even thought about it.  Great experience!

(This post is running concurrently on the Return Path blog.)

It is now widely understood that the Internet runs on data. I first blogged about this in 2004—14 years ago!— here.  People have come to expect a robust—and free!—online experience. Whether it’s a shopping app or a social media platform like Instagram, these free experiences provide a valuable service. And like most businesses, the companies that provide these experiences need to make money somehow. Consumers are coming to understand and appreciate that the real cost of a “free” internet lies in advertising and data collection.

Today, the Wall Street Journal ran an article exploring the data privacy practices of Google and some of the third party developers who utilize their G Suite ecosystem. Return Path was among the companies mentioned in this article. We worked closely with the journalist on this piece and shared a great deal of information about the inner workings of Return Path, because we feel it’s important to be completely transparent when it comes to matters of privacy.  Unfortunately, the reporter was extremely and somewhat carelessly selective in terms of what information he chose to use from us — as well as listing a number of vague sources who claimed to be “in the know” about the inner workings of Return Path. We know that he reached out to dozens of former employees via LinkedIn, for example, many of whom haven’t worked here in years.

While the article does not uncover any wrongdoings on our part (in fact, it does mention that we have first-party relationships with and consent from our consumers), it does raise a larger privacy and security concern against Google for allowing developer access to Gmail’s API to create email apps. The article goes on to explain that computers scan this data, and in some rare cases, the data is reviewed by actual people. The article mentions a specific incident at Return Path where approximately 8,000 emails were manually reviewed for classification. As anyone who knows anything about software knows, humans program software – artificial intelligence comes directly from human intelligence.  Any time our engineers or data scientists personally review emails in our panel (which again, is completely consistent with our policies), we take great care to limit who has access to the data, supervise all access to the data, deploying a Virtual Safety Room, where data cannot leave this VSR and all data is destroyed after the work is completed.

I want to reaffirm that Return Path is absolutely committed to data security and consumer data privacy. Since our founding in 1999, we’ve kept consumer choice, permission, and transparency at the center of our business. To this end, we go above and beyond what’s legally required and take abundant care to make sure that:

1. Our privacy policy is prominently displayed and written in plain English;
2. The user must actively agree to its terms (no pre-checked boxes); and
3. A summary of its main points is shown to every user at signup without the need to click a link

While a privacy expert quoted in the article (and someone we’ve known and respected for years) says that he believes consumers would want to know that humans, not only computers, might have access to data, we understand that unfortunately, most consumers don’t pay attention to privacy policies and statements, which is precisely why we developed succinct and plain-English “just-in-time” policies years before GDPR required them. When filling out a form people may not think about the impact that providing the information will have at a later date. Just-in-time notices work by appearing on the individual’s screen at the point where they input personal data, providing a brief message explaining how the information they are about to provide will be used, for example:

It’s disappointing to say the least that the reporter called this a “dirty secret.”  It looks pretty much the opposite of a secret to me.

In addition to our own policies and practices, Return Path is deeply involved in ongoing industry work related to privacy. We lead many of these efforts, and maintain long-term trusted relationships with numerous privacy associations. Our business runs on data, and keeping that data secure is our top priority.

Further, I want to address the scare tactics employed by this journalist, and many others, in addressing the topics of data collection, data security, and who has access to data. It’s common these days to see articles that highlight the dangers that can accompany everyday online activities like downloading an app or browsing a retail website. And while consumers certainly have a responsibility to protect themselves through education, it’s also important to understand the importance of data sharing, open ecosystems, and third party developers.  And more than that, it’s important to draw distinctions between companies who have direct relationships with and consent from consumers and ones who do not.

While they may not be top of mind, open ecosystems that allow for third-party innovation are an essential part of how the internet functions. Big players like Facebook and Google provide core platforms, but without APIs and independent developers, innovation and usability would be limited to big companies with significant market power and budgets—to the detriment of consumers. Think about it—would Facebook have become as wildly popular without the in-app phenomenon that was Farmville? Probably, but you get the point: third party applications add a new level of value and usefulness that a platform alone can’t provide.

Consumers often fall into the trap of believing that the solution to all of their online worries is to deny access to their data. But the reality is that, if they take steps like opting out of online tracking, the quality of their online experience will deteriorate dramatically. Rather than being served relevant ads and content that relates to their browsing behaviors and online preferences, they’ll see random ads from the highest bidder. Unfortunately some companies take personalization to an extreme, but an online experience devoid of personalization would feel oddly generic to the average consumer.

There’s been a lot of attention in the media lately—and rightfully so—about privacy policies and data privacy practices, specifically as they relate to data collection and access by third parties. The new GDPR regulations in the EU have driven much of this discussion, as has the potential misuse of private information about millions of Facebook users.

One of Return Path’s core values is transparency, including how we collect, access and use data.  Our situation and relationship with consumers is different from those of other companies. If anyone has additional questions, please reach out.

New Media Deal – a comment

A user calling him or herself “graciouswings” (who left a bogus email address with his/her comment, so I couldn’t email him/her) made a lengthy comment to my New Media Deal posting (posting here, comment at the bottom or here).

The meat of the comment was:

“advertising doesn’t bug us if it’s not too intrusive and if there’s something in it for us as consumers.” This is simply not true. This notion is based on unfair playing grounds. People don’t like seeing commercials before movies. People _are_ bugged by having to create an account at every website they visit, whether it’s to post a comment, purchase a song, ask a question of tech support, read the news, or get their local weather info — agreeing to the privacy statement by the by. People don’t read the privacy statements. People aren’t given a choice, other than to simply not use the service. People have no choice but to watch those ads in the theater — in spite of having paid a day’s salary for their family to watch the movie — because, if they didn’t, they’d have to be late and get bad seats in the theater. And if you think that not using services or receiving diminished services is a choice, you’re lying to yourself. It’s discrimination.

I’m struggling to come up with a definition of discrimination that fits graciouswings’ argument, since discrimination means “treatment based on class or category rather than individual merit; or partiality or prejudice.”  All consumers are treated equally with respect to advertising, as far as I can tell.

And although it’s only one data point, I do have an interesting anedcote that gets of the core of this argument.  When I was running marketing for MovieFone (777-FILM) back in the 1990s, we ran a survey of our own customers and asked them which they would prefer:  continuing to use the MovieFone service with its 20-second uninterruptible movie advertisement at the beginning of every call; or have MovieFone become an ad-free service on a 900-number at a cost of $0.25 per call to the caller.  The results were *overwhelming* that consumers would rather listen to the ad than pay a quarter for the convenience of the service.  And this isn’t an ad that consumers could skip or flip past like a print ad.  I suspect if we ran a poll asking people if they’d rather pay $3.00 for a copy of the New York Times or pay $1.00 and have a bunch of ads in it, they’d respond the same way.

But maybe consumers are different when it comes to the New Media Deal.  Maybe they would rather pay for services than get them for free in exchange for some of their personal data.  I suspect if that was the case, some entrepreneur (perhaps graciouswings) would make a fortune developing paid, ad-free versions of most major web services that would attract some meaningful portion of consumers under a different model.  But seems to me that the body of empirical evidence is proving otherwise.

The Value of Ownership

We believe in ownership at Return Path.  One of our 13 core values, as I noted in my prior post, which kicks off a series of 13 posts, is:

We are all owners in the business and think of our employment at the company as a two-way street

We give stock options to every employee, and we regularly give additional grants to employees as well, as their initial grants vest, as they get promoted into more senior roles, and as they earn them through outstanding performance.  But beyond giving those grants out, we regularly remind people that they are part owners of the business, and we encourage them to act that way.  Among other mechanisms for this is an award we allow employees to give out to one another (through a regular mechanism we have for this, which I’ve written about in the past here), the Think Like an Owner award.

One great example of how this value appears in the workplace is that, more often than not, our people think about how to invest money rather than how to spend it.  I wish this happened 100% of the time, and we’re working towards that, but for the most part, people here don’t talk about things like “budget,” “headcount,” and “spend” the way they do at other companies.

Another example is around the “two-way street” concept written into the value statement.  We trust our employees to make every effort to do right by the company, and we make every effort to right by employees in return.  Among other things, we don’t have a formal vacation policy. People are encouraged to take as much vacation as they can, at least 3-4 weeks per year.  We track the days just to make sure people are in fact taking time off, but we don’t have a limit, and we also don’t let people accumulate compensation if they don’t take the time off.  We decided at some point – we don’t count how many hours people work, why should we count the hours they don’t?  We trust that people will get their jobs done, and if they don’t, they will suffer other consequences.  The result of this policy is that people are basically taking the same amount of vacation time they took before, maybe slightly more, but they are liberated from fretting over their time if they want or need extra days or half days here or there.

Two other examples are things we started more recently.  One is called OTB Day, which stands for “On The Business.”  Having a full day set aside each month that is meeting-free and travel-free is a way of carving time out for people to take a step back from their day-to-day jobs of working IN the business so every single employee can spend a relatively distraction-free day being thoughtful about working ON the business and figuring out how we can reinvent and reimagine things as opposed to just doing them.  The other is the concept of a Hack-a-thon.  A lot has been written about this topic on lots of other blogs, but fundamentally, this is about trusting that our whole employee population (these are open to everyone, not just engineers) can figure out how to spend two days’ time wisely working on “outside” projects.

The dividends just keep accumulating as we get larger and as the culture of ownership becomes more and more ingrained.  How owner-like do your employees feel about your company?

The (Email) Elephant in the Room

Email marketing continues to be under attack by some members of the media who are looking to stir up melodrama and controversy and seem to be uninterested in or unwilling to look at real metrics from real companies who are enjoying unparalleled success with email.

I can’t say this any better than Bill McCloskey from Email Data Source, who writes in MediaPost:

The Elephant in the Room that no one is willing to talk about is that Spam is not the problem. The problem is the OVERREACTION to Spam. This overreaction is not something that is hurting e-mail marketing communications–it is hurting all communications.

Read the full column here.  It’s great.

UPDATE:  Apparently, the column is only available if you register for MediaPost (grrr…).  It’s good enough, and free, but don’t feel compelled.  Two other useful paragraphs to read are below:

And all this hysteria is wiped up without looking at the facts. Because if you look at the facts, you’d see a pattern emerge. For instance, according to the DMA, e-mail has the second-highest ROI of any direct marketing channel, even with reduced deliverability and open rates. The fact is that if you examine the clickstream data from companies such as Hitwise, you will see that the biggest traffic driver time and time again is e-mail. E-mail is not just an important interactive marketing channel, it is the most important marketing channel–but you’d never know it judging by today’s trade shows and industry publications.

In the name of keeping us free of viagra ads in our inbox, we have crippled the most efficient communications system ever developed. We have allowed the free flow of information to be hijacked by fanatics. And because no one speaks for the e-mail industry, this is going on under our noses with no cry of protest.

A Typepad User, and Proud of It

SixApart showed huge corporate courage today when they emailed their entire blog user base, apologized (for the second or third time) for service interruptions the past month, then announced a cash remedy.

As a default, they’re giving everyone half a month of service for free.  This is obviously a huge hit to the company financially and probably more of a gesture than anyone expected.  But better than that, they allowed users to click through to their web site and automatically get a full month for free — or a month and a half for free — if they felt in good conscience that the service outages were more harmful to them.  They also quite intelligently allowed users to click through and decline the service credit if they weren’t inconvenienced by the outages.

This is everything that customer service is supposed to be.  Prompt.  Proactive.  Generous.  Allowing customers to be in the driver seat about remedies.  After a HORRENDOUS weekend of customer service gaffes by United Airlines (a story for another time), I couldn’t be more struck by the contrast.  And SixApart isn’t even an employee-owned company teetering on the edge bankruptcy.  Way to go, SixApart!

Amazon:  Icky Slippage Business Model

I never signed up for Amazon Prime, Amazon’s “pay a bunch up front then get free fast shipping all the time” deal, mostly because I usually buy more than $25 worth of books at a time, so shipping is free anyway.  But today, they hit me on the checkout with a free three-month trial of Prime, so I clicked yes – what the heck?

My bad for thinking they were just being nice to me as a VERY GOOD CUSTOMER.  The confirmation email they sent had buried in the fine print that my subscription would auto-renew after three months for the usual $80 if I didn’t proactively opt-out on their web site.

That’s a business model based on slippage or breakage like so many others out there (they assume I’ll just forget about it and let the charges go through).  I don’t have a problem with that model, but WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT TO YOUR OWN LONG-TERM CUSTOMER?  Ick.

Ratcheting Up Is Hard To Do (or Boiling the Frog, Part II)

I’ve had to ratchet down business several times over the years at Return Path.  Times were tough, revenues weren’t coming as fast as promised, my investors and I were growing weary, the dot com crash, etc. etc.  We had layoffs, consolidated jobs, cut salaries multiple times, made people wear 8 hats to get the job done.  It’s an awful process to go through.

In the last year or so, business has finally started going much better.  We’ve been fortunate in many ways that we’re still around, with products that work really well, with a good customer base, and with good and patient investors and employees, as the business climate has improved.  We’ve grown from 22 people (at our low point) up to almost 75.  But what that has meant for our organization is that we’ve had to quickly "ratchet back up," adding people, adding new functions that were previously one of many hats worn by a single person, operating at a different level.  While ratcheting down is a nightmare, it turns out that quickly ratcheting back up is in many ways just as hard on the organization.

Some examples:

– IT (internal email and servers) has been run by a part-time resource and "off the side of the desk" of our product development engineering department.  Now it is almost completely broken, and it turned out we hired a very talented IT manager, probably about three months too late.

– Staffing up is particularly tough without a dedicated HR function and with a legacy of missed budgets.  HR has been done off the side of the desk of me and my executive assistant, and we can’t keep pace any more with all the recruiting, hiring, training, and development planning.  Now that we feel like we need and can afford more staff, we need to hire an HR manager to handle it all, but we need someone in place and trained today, not three months from now.

– A 22 person company can function brilliantly as a network of Individual Contributors who loosely coordinate with each other.  But now what we need at 75 is a a few hardcore Managers that can build systems and processes so that the whole machine runs smoothly.  We don’t necessarily have those people in-house, and if we bring them in from the outside, I’m left wondering if the Individual Contributors will feel like their years of hard work aren’t appreciated if there’s a new layer of management surrounding them.

I hope we never have to ratchet down again…but part of the reason why now is that I never want to have to ratchet back up, either!

Thanks to my COO and business partner Jack Sinclair for his help with this posting.