Big Apple, Little Company

Ed Daciuk, on of my blog subscribers, questions:  What is your view on the benefits of being in NYC as a startup?

Fred wrote a good posting several months ago and a related one this week on early stage investing in the NYC market from the perspective of a venture capitalist.  His main points:  (1) NYC is a great place to invest in early stage tech-related businesses as long as they’re not "core technology" businesses like semiconductor or hardware, because (2) core technology companies are more exciting to investors, and therefore the investors have clustered around those companies in places like Silicon Valley or Boston.  He also thinks this dynamic is changing as more and more successful companies are started as technology-enabled service businesses as opposed to pure tech companies.

As someone who’s been in tech-enabled services businesses in NYC for 10 years now, I couldn’t agree more with this last point.  But I thought I’d address Ed’s question from the entrepreneur’s perspective as well.

First, why is New York a great place for a startup?

1. Access to customers.  There is far greater concentration of major corporations and agencies headquartered in and around the NYC area, making it much easier to see and talk to prospects and customers in this market.

2. Lots of talent.  There are lots of people, meaning there are lots of people to hire.  Some disciplines are easier than others to find talent, but the labor pool is just huge.

3. Convenience.  This is always one of NYC’s main selling points, and it applies here as well.  It’s mainly a collection of little things like being able to see a customer or investor in minutes by foot or mass transit and late night food delivery, but all those extra minutes you save here and there add up!

4. Idea generation.  The density and complexity of the city’s business landscape make it a natural for stimulating great ideas, especially in the service and media sectors.

5. Work ethic.  New Yorkers are accustomed to working startup hours in many professions — banking, consulting, law, etc., so it’s much more natural to have a team pounding away at the office early and late than it is in other geographies.

But it’s not all that easy.  New York can also be a difficult place for a startup because:

1. It’s expensive.  Very expensive.  People cost more, benefits cost more, T&E costs more, rent costs more.

2. Space is limited.  There’s no such thing as starting out in someone’s garage, because there are no garages — only teeny tiny apartments.  And no one takes a lease with room to grow because that extra space comes at such a premium.

3. Good money is harder to find.  As Fred says, it’s getting better, but the environment still isn’t as rich with high quality VCs as places like Silicon Valley or Boston.

4. Even when you do find good money, valuations are tougher.  For whatever reason, I’ve always found that "west coast" valuations are more generous than "east coast" valuations.

On balance, I’d say it’s probably a wash — there are plusses and minuses of NYC as a place for startups.  But it’s definitely not, as conventional wisdom would have it, an inhospitable environment for startups.

My 360 on Your 360

Last year, I wrote about the 360 review process we do at Return Path, which is a great annual check-in on staff development and leadership/management.  In Part I of What a View, I described the overall process.  In Part II, I talked specifically about how my review as CEO worked, which is a little different.

This year, we changed the format of our reviews in two ways. First, for senior staff, we continued to do the live, moderated discussions, but we dropped having people also fill out the online review form.  It was duplicative, and the process already consumes enough time that we decided to cut that part out, which I think worked well. 

Second, for my review, instead of having the Board review me separately from the senior staff, I combined efforts and had all of them participate in my live moderated discussion together.  I also think this worked well, although we did receive some feedback about how to modify the format slightly for next year.  It was great for the Board to get a window into how the team feels about me, and vice versa, and it produced a single, unified development plan for me, which is much more helpful than two sets of feedback about different questions and issues.

The one theme that came out of this year’s live reviews, which is definitely worth thinking about, is the impact of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, that once something is observed, the act of observing it can actually change it.  Because the live discussions are face to face (anonymous to the person being reviewed, but not anonymous among the reviewers), some people mentioned that they were conscious of what they were saying in the presence of others in the company.  Others didn’t particularly care about that but did say things that could be construed as negative about some of their fellow reviewers.  Someone came up to me after one session and said "I wonder what the rest of the group thought of my comments — I need a 360 on your 360!"

The reality is that transparency is a good thing.  There shouldn’t be any state secrets about someone’s performance, especially when the person is in a senior management position.  All people always have things they can improve upon, and the open discussion around what they are and why they happen produce MUCH better results for the people being reviewed, uncomfortable as it may be at times.

The sessions are confidential, so participants should feel comfortable that their thoughts won’t be shared outside the room.  Plus, we provide a mechanism to give feedback that really is hard to provide in public for whatever reason via email or one-on-one conversations with the moderator.

Choose Voice, Part II

One reader writes to me: 

I am a vice president at a startup that isn’t in great shape.  We have some customers and a product that is meeting some market needs, but we’re way off our plan and don’t show signs of changing our trajectory in a material way.  I disagree with the direction our CEO is taking things, which is ok, but more important, our CEO refuses to listen to me when I try to discuss and debate strategy with her.  One of our board members has asked me what I thought we should do.  I don’t want to be disloyal to our CEO, and I want to seem like a team player who rallies behind the decision even if I don’t agree with it, but at the same time, I feel strongly that we’re going the wrong way and don’t want to be associated with a failed strategy or failed company.  What do I do?

My response:

Honesty really and truly is the best policy.  Always.  It just depends how you go about expressing it.

I talked about this a little bit a few weeks back in my post on Exit, Voice, and Loyalty.  Here are your options when you disagree with the system:  quit your job in protest (exit), express your opinions (voice), or suck it up and follow (loyalty).  I always say — choice voice.

If you and the CEO are at odds about the issues but she is being rational about it, you should try to encourage a broader, open debate with others.  Maybe not the whole board, maybe not the whole senior management team, but a smaller group.  Tell her that you are just concerned for the company’s future and feel like more rigorous conversation is required.  Do it in such a way that it’s her idea to call the meeting and lay out the options.  If the company is truly going sideways and she’s a rational being, she must be thinking about multiple options, even if she has an opinion about one of them.

Now, if the CEO isn’t being rational, you have a different challenge.  If that’s the case, and if you think she’s wrong, and if the company is going sideways, I’d say the likelihood of you staying as a long-term employee of that company with that CEO is low anyway, so it’s worth taking a little more risk. 

But I think you can do it in ways that mitigate your personal risk with the CEO.  One thing you could do is go to one board member and express your concern confidentially, tell the board member that he should force the CEO to call the same kind of open forum I described above.  Another thing you could do is to send an anonymous email to one or more board members expressing the same.  Another is to see how like-minded other senior managers are — and if lots of people agree with you, gang up and either stage an intervention with the CEO, or go as a group to the board.  And if the board just blindly backs the CEO without rigorous debate and laying out options, that should cause you to rethink where you work anyway.

UPDATED:  one executive coach who reads my blog just wrote in his $0.02:  The answer in my view is simple, which I should think you would prefer if it were your organization, you tell the CEO that you are going to the Board with your concerns and then if that does not trigger some more favorable process you do so, albeit, with the CEO’s knowledge.

What Convergence Really Means

Rebecca Lieb wrote a great column last week in ClickZ about Advertising Week and how disappointed she was in it.  The article is worth a read for many reasons, but there was one quote in particular that stuck out to me as I re-read it tonight.

Some people talk about convergence as the coming together of old media and new media.  Others talk about digial meeting analog.  Still others talk about the melding of cable, telco, Internet, and wireless.  A brave few even talk about direct marketing and brand advertising.

But Rebecca quoted the head of global advertising for American Express, who really nailed what convergence means in the world of media today — the convergence of advertising and publishing:

“No longer can we view our job as filling gaps between other peoples’ content,” said Scotti. “Soon, there won’t be gaps to fill because everything is content.”

Boy, isn’t that the truth?  And it’s not just the much-hyped world of user-generated content, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, and blogs.

It’s as much about advertisers getting smarter and becoming content publishers themselves.  Think about any good email you get from a marketer.  What makes it good?  Sure, a nice discount, maybe free shipping, certainly a relevant offer based on your preferences and purchase behavior.  But the other thing that makes it good is the presence of content to surround and drive the marketing messages.  The applesauce around the pill, if you will.

It works.  We see it every day.  And we only see more of it happening in the future as consumers get smarter and more discerning about the brands with which they choose to interact.

Book Short:  You’d Never Run Your Business This Way…

I am an unabashed conservative, so you might wonder what I was doing reading  A Country That Works, by union chief Andy Stern, the President of SEIU (Service Workers International Union) this weekend.  Well, part of it is that my mother-in-law Carmen works for him.  Part was that he was quite inspiring during his recent appearance on the Colbert Report a week or two ago.  And part was that I always like reading about different points of view, especially with the current, somewhat dismal state of the Republican leadership in Washington.

The book was very short and a worthwhile read.  I may not agree with Stern on some of his illustrations of the problems — his statistical presentations were a bit apples-to-oranges at times — and some of his solutions, which were a bit high on the big-government-tax-and-spend side for me, but the book was very plain-speak, apolitical, and solution-oriented, all of which I found refreshing.

He certainly had at least one underlying premise about “labor as electricity ” (compete on something else other than forcing wages to go lower) that is making me think hard about my long-standing philosophical opposition to federally-mandated minimum wages.  His notion of the importance of a global labor movement to act as a check/balance on corporate globalization both make sense.  Actually, now that I think about it, those two things put together start working well as one plank in a solution to global poverty.

But the best part of the book was the fact that Stern is clear that, like his ideas or hate them,  he is at least proposing that we DEAL with them.  America is missing serious debate about some critical issues facing our society.  Anyone who doesn’t think we have serious problems facing our future around retirement savings, education, and health care is not facing reality.  The debate happening in Washington today is weak at best, and over-politicized.

The bottom line is that I think we’re in danger as a country of boiling the frog when it comes to some major structural issues in our society, and, most important to me, You’d Never Run Your Business This Way.  Any good entrepreneur knows that when danger lurks around the corner, you have to reinvent yourself, and we as a country aren’t doing that at this moment when we’d benefit from it greatly for the long term.  Stern displays that mix of optimism for the future and serious reality check today known as the Stockdale Paradox and revered by Jim Collins in his two books on corporate leadership, Good to Great and Built to Last.

My biggest criticism of the book was that it was too short.  It was basically 1/3 Andy’s story, 1/3 SEIU’s story, and 1/3 labor’s story — and it could have been at least twice as long and gone into more detail on Stern’s points, especially in the last chapter where he starts spelling out his plan to get America back on track.  But presumably when Stern runs for national office or gets a cabinet appointment someday (no inside knowledge here, but the book certainly reads that way), he’ll flesh things out a bit!

Help Me, Help You, Part II

Thanks to the nearly 100 readers who responded to my reader survey this past week.  While I’m not sure it’s a truly statistically significant base of OnlyOnce’s audience (I’ll have to ask my friends over at Authentic Response), I’ll treat it like it is.  Here’s what I learned.  First, the general results:

• Satisfaction levels are good – 46% are regular readers and love it, 48% read occasionally and think it’s ok, and only 6% gave it an “eh – wouldn’t miss it if it went away”
• Entrepreneurship is the most popular topic, with 86% interest, and Leadership/Management is a close second at 82%.  Online/Email Marketing came in at 61% and Book Reviews at 43%.  Current Affairs and Travel (which I almost never use) were 31% and 25%, respectively
• 72% of people feel frequency at 1-2 posts a week is on target.  Only 4.5% want fewer posts, and 24% (those kind souls) want it more often
• Most people other than Return Path staff found the site through a link on another blog rather than search

Next, the open-ended comments were interesting.  A summary snapshot:

• Positive comments were generally about tone and candid approach, succinct posts, and topics.  One nice person noted his/her favorite thing was “the author” (thank you Mom/Dad/Grandma/Mariquita/Michael)
• Constructive comments varied.  Some good ones are noted below:
• “assumes a level of knowledge not everyone has”
• “too heralding of the VC view of the world”
• “too much focus on email/marketing,” “too local/American” (that’s who I am, though)
• “ I would like to see more about what it takes to be a CEO in day to day operations. what skills do you find you need, what obstacles do you come across, issues with driving a company.”
• “A little too much PRish in regards to Return Path”
• “It seems like everything you write about is too positive. Or at least a negative story with a happy ending. Nothing about what sucks to run a company. I run one and a lot of it does suck.”
• “Not enough personal stuff — who is the author?” (see the About Me link on the blog)
  
• “The word vigilante is bandied around way too much by the author”
• And of course someone noted as constructive feedback that I haven’t yet mentioned my mother’s name (sorry, Mom/Joyce!).  And one person suggested I shave.  Thanks, really.

Finally, the demographics of my audience:

• 3 % are under 24, 45% are 25-34, 41% are 35-49, 11% are over 49
• 80% male and 20% female (surprising)
• Company data wasn’t so interesting, or I phrased the question poorly – but one takeaway is that about 1/2 of readers seem to be “in the industry” generally speaking, with lots of Return Path staff subscribing as well as lots of other entrepreneurs and a handful of VCs
• Level/title was more interesting – nearly half the audience is SVP-level or above at their company

Thanks again, everyone, and I’ll take note of this feedback for future postings!

I love that the FTC just banned non-competes, as everyone expected they would. Normally, I’m in favor of small government and fewer regulations, but this is one where I think the government has a legitimate interest in setting up guardrails to a free market.

We started off at Return Path years ago with a standard and fairly benign non-compete because they were standard. But once California banned them and then we started doing business internationally in countries where they were illegal or not customary, we realized it was unfair to treat some employees different than others, so we got rid of them entirely and reverted to the common denominator. We don’t have them at Bolster.

Restricting employees in terms of where they can go work when they leave you is unfair and immoral, in my view. Just because you train an employee and invest in them doesn’t mean you own them. That investment was an exchange for the work that person did for you. There is no such thing as indentured servitude in this country. If you want to keep your employees from leaving you, treat them well and pay them well.

The pendulum has swung way too far on this one, and it was high time for a correction. When the Wall Street Journal says that “Sales staff, engineers, doctors and salon workers are among the most common types of workers affected by litigation of noncompete clauses…in 2022” that makes me sick to my stomach.

Making sure former employees can’t specifically harm you after they leave is a different story.

Some restrictive covenants for a limited period of time for former employees are totally fair. Customer and employee non-solicits for a year – no problem. Non-disclosure of confidential information, trade secrets, and know-how – gotcha. But “you can’t go work at that company because they compete with us” doesn’t work for me.

There are some limited circumstances where non-competes are fair, moral, and make sense. They are more or less relegated to very senior and/or highly specialized people who make a ton of money and large equity stakes in companies who can’t to go to competitor and perform any job at their level without pulling over customer relationships, employee relationships, and know-how and trade secrets. That’s why people at hedge funds and investment banks have “garden leave” where the incoming firm has to pay them to sit on the sidelines for a year before joining. Hopefully those exclusions will remain allowable when all is said and done here.

But by and large, I say good riddance to non-competes. They’re about as American as the metric system and hereditary dictatorships.