Apr 1 2009

Senders No More

Senders No More

February marked the official end of Return Path being in the email sending business, even a little bit. Of course we still have corporate email servers, and we still have basic retention email marketing programs for our customers and prospects (with explicit permission of course!), but after a 9 1/2 year run, we no longer have direct consumer email-based relationships.

As we announced last fall, we recently divested all of our businesses other than our deliverability and whitelisting business — Postmaster Direct (list rental), Authentic Response/MyView.com (surveys), and ECOA (change of address). Those were great businesses, but they increasingly diverged over the years from each other and from our core deliverability business, so it made sense for them to belong to different companies in the end.

Besides diverging from each other, being a bulk sender of email had both advantages and disadvantages for us as a company. On the one hand, it was good for us to see firsthand what some of the issues are that impact our clients. We were, in fact, our own clients, one business unit to another. But on the other hand, being a bulk sender carried a real business risk of compromising our position as a trusted intermediary between senders and receivers. It was always a fine line to walk, and while we never got in trouble for it, we were always concerned — to the point where for a long time we didn’t allow our other business units to apply for our whitelist, Sender Score Certified, even at “arm’s length.” At least we weren’t an ESP!

But now that risk is gone. We are senders no more. Be sure to read our CTO’s description of what it was like to send a transactional privacy policy notification to 20mm addresses, most of which hadn’t been mailed in months or years.

Comments
Mar 25 2009

Book Short: The Religion of Heresy

Book Short:  The Religion of Heresy

At the end of Tribes: We Need You to Lead Us, Seth Godin’s new book, Seth says this:

I’m going to get a lot of flak from people about what you just read. People might say that it’s too disorganized or not practical enough or that I require you to do too much work to actually accomplsh anything. That’s ok.

He’s kind of right. The book is a little breezy and meanders around, just like riffing with Seth. It’s not practical in the sense that if the entire world operated this way in the extreme, we’d have serious problems. But the fact that he requires you to do “too much work to actually accomplish anything” is part of the brilliance of his message.

This was Seth’s best book in years, mostly because it is fresh. It is not a rant about marketing; it is a wonderfully succinct look at how we as a society are rallying and organizing around causes, campaigns, companies, and collective beliefs. It’s not about the Internet, though its principles are easily implemented and amplified using online tools. It’s not a how-to guide to being a fancy corporate leader, but it’s one of the most pointed descriptions of the ethos of a certain type of leader (the upstart, or as Seth says, the heretic). It’s not about a particular revolution; it’s about how mini-revolutions are becoming the norm these days.

Tribes is short, inspirational, and pure Seth. Though quite different in its nature and mission, it really evoked for me Mark Penn’s Microtrends (post, link) — a study of larger tribes and heretics in contemporary America.

A listing of Seth’s books over the years follows:

Comments
Mar 20 2009

Book Short: A Marketing-Led Turnaround

Book Short: A Marketing-Led Turnaround

Generally, I love books by practitioners even more than those by academics.  That’s why Steve McKee’s first (I assume) book, When Growth Stalls:  How it Happens, Why You’re Stuck, and What to do About It (book, Kindle edition) appealed to me right out of the gate.  The author is CEO of a mid-size agency and a prior Inc. 500 winner who has experienced the problem firsthand – then went out, researched it, and wrote about it.  As a two-time Inc. 500 winner ourselves, Return Path has also struggled with keeping the growth flames burning over the years, so I was eager to dig into the research.  The title also grabbed my attention, as there are few if any business books really geared at growth stage companies.

I’d say the book was “solid” in the end, not spectacular.  Overall, it felt very consistent with a lot of other business books I’ve read over the years, from Trout & Reis to Lencioni to Collins, which is good. The first half of the book, describing the reasons why growth stalls, was quite good and very multi-faceted.  His labeling description of “market tectonics” is vivid and well done.  He gets into management and leadership failings around both focus and consensus, all true.  Perhaps his most poignant cause of stalls in growth is what he calls “loss of nerve,” which is a brilliant way of capturing the tendence of weak leadership when times get tough to play defense instead of offense.

The problem with the book in the end is that the second section, which is the “how to reverse the stall” section, is way too focused on marketing.  That can be the problem with a specialty practitioner writing a general business book.  What’s in the books makes a lot of sense about going back to ground zero on positioning, market and target customer definition and understanding, and the like.  But reversing the stall of company can and usually must involve lots of the other same facets that are documented in the first half of the book — and some other things as well, like aggressive change management and internal communication, systems and process changes, financial work, etc.

At any rate, if you are in a company where growth is stalling, it’s certainly a good read and worth your time, as what’s in it is good (it’s what’s missing that tempers my enthusiasm for it).  In this same category, I’d also strongly recommend Confidence:  How Winning Streaks and Losing Streaks Begin and End, by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, as well.

Comments
Mar 18 2009

Book Short: Be Less Clever

Book Short:  Be Less Clever

In Search of the Obvious: The Antidote for Today’s Marketing Mess, by Jack Trout, is probably deserving of a read by most CEOs.  Trout at this point is a bit old school and curmudgeonly, the book has some sections which are a bit repetitive of other books he and his former partner Al Reis have written over the years, he does go off on some irrelevant rants, and his examples are a bit too focused on TV advertising, BUT his premise is great, and it’s universally applicable.  So much so that my colleagues Leah, Anita, and I had “book club” about it one night last week and had a very productive debate about our own positioning and marketing statements and how obvious they were (they need work!).

The premise in short is that, in advertising:

Logical, direct, obvious = relevant, and

Entertaining, emotional = irrelevant

And he’s got data to back it up, including a great case study from TiVo on which ads are skipped and not skipped – the ones that aren’t skipped are from companies like Bowflex, Hooters, and the Dominican Republic, where the presentation of the ad is very direct, explanatory of the product, and clear.  His reasons why advertising have drifted away from the obvious are probably right, ranging from the egos of marketing people, to CEOs being to disconnected from marketing, to the rise in importance of advertising awards, and his solution, of course is to refocus on your core positioning/competitive positioning.

It is true that when the only tool in your box is a hammer, everything starts to look a bit like a nail, but Trout is probably right in this case.  He does remind us in this book that “Marketing is not a battle of products. It is a battle of perceptions”– words to live by.

And some of his examples of great obvious advertising statements, either real or ones he thinks should have been used, are very revealing:

  • Kerry should have turned charges that he was a flip-flopper in 2004 around on Bush with the simple line that Bush was “strong but wrong”
  • New Zealand: “the world’s most beautiful two islands”
  • The brilliance of the VW Beetle in a big-car era and “thinking small”
  • Johnny Cochrane’s winning (over)simplification of the OJ case — “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit”
  • BMW is still, 30 years later, The Ultimate Driving Machine
  • “Every day, the Kremlin gets 12 copies of the Wall Street Journal. Maybe they know something you don’t know.”

If you are looking for a good marketing book to read as a refresher this year, this one could be it.  And if you’re not a very market-focused CEO, this kind of thinking is a must.

And for the record, the library of books by Trout and/or Reis (sometimes including Reis’ daughter Laura as well) that I’ve read, all of which are quite good, is:

Comments
Mar 11 2009

Book Short: What’s Your Meeting Routine?

Book Short: What’s Your Meeting Routine?

Patrick Lencioni’s Death by Meeting is, as Brad advertised, a great read, and much in line with his other books (running list at the end of the post).  His books are just like candy.  If only all business books were this short and easy to read.

This fable isn’t quite what I thought it was going to be at the outset – it’s not about too many meetings, which is what I’ve always called “death by meeting.”  It’s about staff meetings that bore you to death.  With a great story around them featuring characters named Casey and Will (my two oldest kids’ names, which had me chuckling the whole time), Lencioni describes a great framework for splitting up your staff meetings into four different types of meetings:  the daily stand-up, the weekly tactical, the monthly strategic, and the quarterly offsite.

There’s definitely something to the framework.  We have over the years done all four types of meetings, though we never had all four in our rotation at once as that felt like overkill.  But I think at a minimum, any 2 get the job done much better than a single format recurring meeting.  As long as you figure out how to separate status updates from more strategic conversations, you’re directionally in good shape.  We have almost entirely eliminated or automated status update meetings at this point at my staff level.

The book has some other good stuff in it, though, about the role of conflict in staff meetings, which I’ll save for your own read of the book!

So far the series includes:

  • The Three Signs of a Miserable Job (post, link)
  • The Five Temptations of a CEO (post, link)
  • The Four Obsessions of an Extraordinary Executive (post, link)

I have two more to go, which I’ll tackle in due course and am looking forward to.

Comments
Mar 4 2009

Why Are We Financing Fortune 500 Companies?

Why Are We Financing Fortune 500 Companies?

And here’s another problem of the economic meltdown — companies are stretching out their payables like mad.  Our average payable has increased 50% in the last 120 days. That translates into millions of dollars of cash shortfall versus our plan.  We believe it’s all still collectible, but we just can’t seem to speed up payment.  We are going to launch some new and more meaningful efforts to collect, but it just shouldn’t be that hard.  And you hate to be heavy handed with customers in this environment.

Is it a good idea to threaten to suspend service?  When do you cut someone off?  Is it appropriate for the CEO to make a collections call?  All these questions now come into play.  We never had to think about them before.

What’s particularly irritating is that, with very few exceptions, every company on our account roster is larger than we are, with bigger balance sheets.  So we find ourselves in a position where WE are financing big companies.  It is absolutely maddening.

Comments
Mar 2 2009

Education and Entrepreneurship

Education and Entrepreneurship

 

Fred posted his thoughts the other day that you don’t need a college degree to be a successful entrepreneur. He is clearly right in that one CAN be successful without it.  Gates, Zuckerberg, Dell have proven that. 

 

I’ve always said that I didn’t think an MBA was a prerequisite for a successful business career.  That’s easy for me to say, as I don’t have one despite many years of applying, deferring, cancelling, reapplying and general hand-wringing over whether or not to go in the mid-90s.  An MBA is probably a positive on a resume for the most part (hard to argue it’s a negative), but it’s not a prerequisite.  Every time I see “MBA preferred” on a job posting, I cringe (we never say that at Return Path).  Really?  You’d *prefer* to hire someone with an MBA over someone with two additional years of relevant work experience? 

 

That said, I’d note that there are things one gets out of a good college education that are critical to success in life.  Yes, they can be learned outside the classroom.  But unlike business school material, which is in many cases the stuff of work experience and more easily augmented by observation and the occasional business article or book (as far as I can tell), the things one learns in college which are applicable to entrepreneurship aren’t about the subject matter of the course.  They are things like:

 

– learning and applying new concepts quickly

 

– critical reasoning

 

– crisply presenting ideas

 

– respecting deadlines and guidelines

 

– understanding and appreciating other points of view

 

As with business school, these things *can* be learned outside a university environment, and certainly there are unusually talented people who have these traits hard wired.  But I do think the university environment cultivates and nurtures these skills in a way that is easier than the “do it yourself” world of teenage entrepreneurship. 

Comments
Feb 25 2009

New Email Blogger Extraordinaire

New Email Blogger Extraordinaire

My good friend and co-founder George Bilbrey, Return Path’s President, is now blogging. His blog, Monkey Mind Labs, is aptly named in part after Return Path’s long-standing but little-known corporate mascot.

His first few posts are up.  My guess is that his blog will be a bit like mine in that it will cover topics about email marketing as well as entrepreneurship, but I can almost promise that George will be both wittier and more insightful than I.  At least, that’s what he tells me.

Take a look!  Subscribe. Enjoy.

Comments
Feb 24 2009

More Useful Than I Thought

More Useful Than I Thought

I’ve had a Twitter account for a couple years but only started using it in earnest in the last couple of weeks.  And while it is to some extent yet another distraction and flow of information, it’s proving to be much more useful than I thought.  Here are some nuggets from literally less than a week of heavy usage:

– Nice quick exchanges with three existing customers who I otherwise wouldn’t talk to

– Already have over 200 followers, at least 50% just in the last few days

– One set of direct messages, and we turned a skeptic into a free trial provided that the client work with us on an important but difficult case study we’ve been meaning to generate for a while

– One quick @reply later, and I turned someone asking about our services into a live sales call with a local sales team member in London and a positive public tweet back about us

– An exchange with a customer who left us for the competition (partially – he’s still on Sender Score Certified) and said something snarky about us on Twitter yielded a positive tweet and this comment: 

Thanks going out of your way to better understand your customers. That in and of itself means a lot.

– Serendipity – I was on the west coast, noted it, and a friend there pinged me to see if I had time to get together (I didn’t this trip, but that would have been a nice bonus)

– Set up my blog to notify of any new post via Twitter using twitterfeed.com…set up Facebook to pick up my tweets as status updates using the Facebook Twitter app.  The result is that my traffic is WAY up on the blog

I’m sold.  Now I just need to figure out how to be interesting and brief at the same time.

Comments
Feb 16 2009

The Evils of Patent Litigation

The Evils of Patent Litigation

There have been a lot of posts over the years on the blogs I read about patents and how they are problematic.  I know Brad has done a bunch, including this one. I wrote one once about a dumb patent issued in the email space, which is here. 

And of course no listing of great patent posts would be complete without a nod to my colleague Whitney McNamara, who I believe coined the term "ass patent" starting with this post.  In fact, Whit has a whole category of posts on his blog about ass patents.  

But one of the most thoughtful, accurate, and proscriptive ones I've read is what Fred wrote a couple days ago.

And I should know.  We are the company that he refers to who spent about half a million dollars successfully defending ourselves (for now – who knows what appeals might bring) against a baseless suit by a patent troll.  For the record, we did try to settle and were presented with a multi-million dollar option only.  I have been advised by our lawyer not to write about this case because there are elements of it that are still pending, but I don't care.  I'm irritated enough about it that I want to get this out there while it's still fresh in my mind.  And I'm not going to use names here or say anything I wouldn't say publicly in any other forum.

I've thought about this problem a lot for the last several years, as you might imagine.  Fred's two patent reforms — that plaintiffs who lose a suit have to pay defendant legal fees, and that patents should have a "use it or lose it" clause like trademarks — would totally do the job. 

I'm a fan of the "losing plaintiff pays" clause, but one challenge is that it would discourage a certain percentage of legitimate suits and claims, particularly from small inventors, out of fear that high-priced defense counsel will not only win on some technicality BUT will then cost a disproportionate amount of money since the risk is completely transferred to the other side.  This is probably a challenge that's worth living with, but it has the potential to be a "lesser of two evils" solution.

I love the "use it or lose it" one in particular, because it would not just force companies to use the invention, but it would also more clearly articulate what the patent is.  In many cases with business process patents, it's too unclear what the patent actually covers and whether or not other inventions are in conflict with it.  Too much is left up to wording interpretations.  That would not be the case if the invention was actually in use!

Here's another problem with the system that I think requires a third simple solution.  I'll call it The BigCo problem, and it happened to us in our case.  The BigCo problem is that the same troll who sued us also sued two other companies, one of them a Fortune 100 technology company, concurrently and similarly baselessly over the same patents.  But here was the problem:  the troll suing us wouldn't consider a modest settlement with us, even knowing that our resources were limited, because doing so would make it harder for them to pursue their case against BigCo and get a Big Settlement.

So here's my proposed third simple solution:  a defendant-initiated settlement should be confidential and not influence the outcome of related pending litigation.  Why should little guys have to suck up costs because BigCo has deep pockets?

I hope last year's ruling around business process patents (creating a more narrow definition of what is patentable) helps with patent trolls, one of the real scourges of the Internet — possibly even a new member of the Internet Axis of Evil — but it won't solve the problem the way Fred's two suggestions will.

UPDATE:  Great comment from Mike Masnick: 

another very very very useful solution to the problems you face would be (finally) allowing an "independent invention" defense to patents. The problem is that almost no patent infringement lawsuits are actually due to someone "copying" someone else's product or patent. The vast majority are due to "independent invention." I think two things should happen: 1. If sued, and you can show an independent invention defense the case is over. And… 2. If you can show that independent invention defense and it works, the patent itself should be invalidated. This is because patents are only supposed to be granted for inventions that are new and non-obvious to those skilled in the art. If those skilled in the art are coming up with the same concept independently, I'd say it fails the non-obvious to those skilled in the art scenario. Do that and much of the patent problem goes away, while still "protecting" the scenario where some company just flat out copies an invention.

Comments
Feb 13 2009

Book Short: Hire Great

Book Short: Hire Great

It’s certainly not hiring season for most of America The World The Universe, but we are still making some limited hires here at Return Path, and I thought – what better time to retool our interviewing and hiring process than in a relatively slow period?

So I just read Who: The A Method for Hiring, by Geoff Smart and Randy Street.  It’s a bit of a sequel, or I guess more of a successor book, to the best book I’ve ever read about hiring and interviewing, Topgrading, by Geoff Smart and his father Brad (post, link to buy).  This one wasn’t bad, and it was much shorter and crisper.

I’m not sure I believe the oft-quoted stat that a bad hire costs a company $1.5mm.  Maybe sometimes (say, if the person embezzles $1.4mm), but certainly the point that bad hires are a nightmare for an organization in any number of ways is well taken.   The book does a good job of explaining the linkage from strategy and execution straight to recruiting, with good examples and tips for how to create the linkage.  That alone makes it a worthwhile read.

The method they describe may seem like common sense, but I bet 95 out of 100 companies don’t come close.  We are very good and quite deliberate about the hiring process and have a good success average, but even we have a lot of room to improve.  The book is divided into four main sections:

  • Scorecard: creating job descriptions that are linked to company strategy and that are outcome and competency based, not task based
  • Sourcing: going beyond internal and external recruiters to make your entire company a talent seeker and magnet
  • Selection: the meat of the book – good detail on how to conduct lots of different kinds of interviews, from screening to topgrading (a must) to focused to reference
  • Sell:  how to reel ’em in once they’re on the line (for us anyway, the least useful section as we rarely lose a candidate once we have an offer out)

One of the most poignant examples in the book centered around hiring someone who had been fired from his previous job.  The hiring method in the book uncovered it (that’s hard enough to do sometimes) but then dug deep enough to understand the context and reasons why, and, matching up what they then knew about the candidate to their required competencies and outcomes for the job, decided the firing wasn’t a show-stopper and went ahead and made the hire.

I’d think of these two books the way I think about the Covey books.  If you have never read The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, you could just get away with reading Stephen Covey’s newer book, The 8th Habit:  From Effectiveness to Greatness, though the original is much richer.

Comments