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.