Understanding the Drivers of Success

Although generally business is great at Return Path  and by almost any standard in the world has been consistently strong over the years, as everyone internally knows, the second part of 2012 and most of 2013 were not our finest years/quarters.  We had a number of challenges scaling our business, many of which have since been addressed and improved significantly.

When I step back and reflect on “what went wrong” in the quarters where we came up short of our own expectations, I can come up with lots of specific answers around finer points of execution, and even a few abstracted ones around our industry, solutions, team, and processes.  But one interesting answer I came up with recently was that the reason we faltered a bit was that we didn’t clearly understand the drivers of success in our business in the 1-2 years prior to things getting tough.  And when I reflect back on our entire 14+ year history, I think that pattern has repeated itself a few times, so I’m going to conclude there’s something to it.

What does that mean?  Well, a rising tide — success in your company — papers over a lot of challenges in the business, things that probably aren’t working well that you ignore because the general trend, numbers, and success are there.  Similarly, a falling tide — when the going gets a little tough for you — quickly reveals the cracks in the foundation.

In our case, I think that while some of our success in 2010 and 2011 was due to our product, service, team, etc. — there were two other key drivers.  One was the massive growth in social media and daily deal sites (huge users of email), which led to more rapid customer acquisition and more rapid customer expansion coupled with less customer churn.  The second was the fact that the email filtering environment was undergoing a change, especially at Gmail and Yahoo, which caused more problems and disruption for our clients’ email programs than usual — the sweet spot of our solution.

While of course you always want to make hay while the sun shines, in both of these cases, a more careful analysis, even WHILE WE WERE MAKING HAY, would have led us to the conclusion that both of those trends were not only potentially short-term, but that the end of the trend could be a double negative — both the end of a specific positive (lots of new customers, lots more market need), and the beginning of a BROADER negative (more customer churn, reduced market need).

What are we going to do about this?  I am going to more consistently apply one of our learning principles, the Post-Mortem  –THE ART OF THE POST-MORTEM, to more general business performance issues instead of specific activities or incidents.  But more important, I am going to make sure we do that when things are going well…not just when the going gets tough.

What are the drivers of success in your business?  What would happen if they shifted tomorrow?

Why I Love My Board, Part III

My prophesy is starting to come true.  In Part I of this series four years ago, I asserted that

Fred may be the only one of my directors who has done something this dorky, this publicly, but quite frankly, I could see any of us in the same position.

Now, Brad Feld is no shrinking violet.  As far as I’m concerned, he made his film debut in the memorable “Munch on Your Bones” video (short, worth a watch if you’re a Feld groupie) something like 6 or 7 years ago for an all-hands meeting I ran.  But his newest short feature film, “I’m a VC,” made with his three partners, Jason, Ryan, and Seth, is a must-see for anyone in the entrepreneur-VC set and puts him up there with Fred in the pantheon of “this dorky, this publicly.”

Transparency Rules

I think each and every one of our 13 core values at Return Path is important to our culture and to our success.  And I generally don’t rank them.  But if I did, People First is a leading contender to be at the top of the list. The other leading contender would be this last one in the series:

We believe in being transparent and direct

The big Inc. Magazine story about us last year talked a lot about our commitment to transparency and some of the challenges that come with being transparent and direct with people. I’d like to highlight here some of the benefits of being transparent, and the benefits of being direct (sometimes those two things are the same, sometimes they are different).

Transparency’s benefits are so numerous that it’s hard to pick just one or two themes to write about, but my favorite benefit is empowerment.  Especially in a world where information is increasingly available and free, hoarding it comes at a high cost.

• If everyone in the company knows that you’re short of plan and disappointed about that, the majority of people will exercise hawkish judgment about expenses.  The opposite is true as well.  If people know you’re running ahead of plan, they will be more willing to take risks and make investments. Without transparency of financials, people are just more in the dark and looking for all answers and judgment to come from above
• If everyone on your staff understands the process you went through to make a tough call about an element of your strategy, they are not only more likely to understand and support the decision, but they learn from you how to make decisions in the first place
• If your Board knows you’re having a tough quarter from the get go, they’re not surprised at the quarterly meeting and don’t force you to spend painful and precious minutes in the meeting On the firing line reporting on the details. Instead, they can spend time leading up to the meeting thinking about the details of the problems and how they can help or what insights they can bring to bear

Transparency does have some limits, even today.  There are three main limits we run into. One is compensation — still too touchy and wrapped up in people’s self esteem to post on the wall (though I have heard about a couple companies that do that, believe it or not). Another is terminations. Although you might want to tell the company that you fired Sally because she wasn’t carrying her weight, the long term value you derive from dignity and kindness trump any short term value you might derive from such a statement (plus, people know when Sally isn’t carrying her weight, anyway). The third limit to transparency is around half-baked ideas. Although you might sometimes want to try ideas on for size publicly, you have to be careful not to send people scurrying off in the wrong direction just because you blurted something out in a meeting.

The second half of this value statement is about being direct.  Being direct mostly has benefits in terms of efficiency. You can be direct and still be polite and kind.  But being direct means not beating around the bush, being political, or being conflict avoidant.  It means nipping problems in the bud and saving yourself time or money in the long run.

• If you are direct with an employee who is not performing well with data to back it up, the employee has a much better shot at improving than if you delegate the feedback to HR, wait for the next annual performance review, or go passive and skip the feedback entirely
• If you are direct with a boss who you think is treating you unfairly, your odds of fixing the situation go way up
• If there’s bad news to deliver, be direct about it — look the other person in the eye, deliver the news crisply and succinctly, and as quickly as you can after finding it out or deciding on it yourself

Avoid euphemisms at all cost. Telling someone you “might have to rethink things” is not the same as saying “I will have to fire you if xyz don’t happen in the next 30 days.” Saying “xyz would be good for you to do” is not the same as saying “the way for you to get promoted is to consistently do xyz.”

Being transparent and direct are increasingly table stakes for successful companies full of knowledge workers who want to be empowered and clear on where they stand.

I’ve really enjoyed writing all of these values out in living color. I will do a wrap up post shortly.

Why CEOs Shouldn’t Mess with Engineers

I went to the Vasa Royal Warship Museum in Stockholm the other day, which was amazing – it had a breathtakingly massive 17^th century wooden warship, which had been submerged for over 300 years, nearly intact as its centerpiece.  It’s worth a visit if you’re ever there.

The sad story of its sinking seems to have several potential causes, but one is noteworthy both in terms of engineering and leadership.  The ship set sail in 1628 as the pride of the Swedish navy during a war with Poland.  It was the pride of King Gustavus Adolphus II, who took a keen personal interest in it.  But the ship sank literally minutes after setting sail.

How could that be?  While the king was quick to blame the architect and shipbuilder, later forensics proved both to be mostly blameless.

Likely cause #1:  after the ship was designed and construction was under way, the King overruled the engineers and added much heavier cannons on the upper armament deck.  The ship became top-heavy and much less stable as a result, and while the engineers tried to compensate with more ballast below, it wasn’t enough.

Likely cause #2:  the King cut short the captain’s usual stability testing routines because he wanted to get the ship sailing towards the enemy sooner.

Let’s translate these two causes of failure into Internet-speak.  #1:  In the middle of product development, CEO rewrites the specs (no doubt verbally), overruling the product managers and the engineers, and forces mid-stream changes in code architecture.  #2:  In order to get to market sooner, the CEO orders short-cuts on QA.  I’m sure you’ll agree the results here aren’t likely to be pretty.

So product-oriented leaders everywhere…remember the tale of Gustavus Adolphus and the Vasa Royal Warship and mind the meddling with the engineers!

Call Me

A fine song by Blondie from 1980 and from the soundtrack of the movie American Gigolo.  And also something that reminded me about the importance of not relying too much on email this past month. 

 I had surgery on my left wrist in early March to hopefully fix a nagging tendonitis problem.  And while I could still write and type post-op, I got sore pretty quickly every day, so I tried to keep those activities to a minimum.  As you might imaging, I do an awful lot of email and IM in my line of work.  So what was my short response to a huge number of emails and IMs for a few weeks?  “Call me.”

 My communications, especially with remote employees, not only didn’t suffer while I couldn’t type a lot – they were stronger than ever.  Even short, two-minute phone conversations – the remote equivalent of someone sticking their head in my office – are preferable to IM or email in many cases.  There’s nothing like the sound of someone’s voice to add real texture to a dialog and to avoid misunderstandings.

As part of the new section on Exits in the Second Edition of the book (order here), there’s a specific chapter around handling the post-sale transition and integration process.  

No two transitions are exactly the same.  If the buyer is a financial sponsor, you may have the same job the day after the deal closes that you had the day before, just with a new owner and new rules for you.  Sometimes you’ll stay on with a strategic buyer as the head of a division, or the head of your product.  Sometimes you leave on Day 1.  Sometimes you leave later.  

But the most important thing you can do is remember that once the deal is over, it’s over.  That’s why an honest answer to the question, “Are you ready to let go?” that I posed in an early post is so important. You may or may not be the CEO, but now you definitely have a new boss, and in many cases, a boss for the first time in years. And you are no longer in charge.

“Even though the deal was called a merger,” I once heard Ted Leonsis tell the Moviefone founders a while after AOL acquired Moviefone, “please remember that you have been acquired.” Your job is to figure out how best to set your team and products up for success in the new environment, regardless of how long or short you plan to stay at the new company. 

We tried to focus our transition at Return Path to Validity in a few ways:

• For employees, we spent most of our energy and our capital setting things up in the deal documents before closing, recognizing we’d have no control of things after the deal was signed.  Things like how much severance people would get if they were let go, and for how long post-deal, how much their comp could change, whether they could be required to move – those are all things you can negotiate into a deal
• For ourselves as leaders and me as CEO, knowing most of us would leave almost immediately post-deal, I wanted to have as elegant an exit as possible after 20 years.  Fortunately, I had a good partner in this dialog in Mark Briggs, the acquiring CEO.  Mark and I worked out rules of engagement and expenses associated with “the baton pass,” as we called it, that let our execs have the opportunity to say a proper goodbye and thank you to our teams, with a series of in-person events and a final RP gift pack.  This was a really important way we all got closure on this chapter in our lives
• For the new owners of the business, our objective was to be of service to them, knowing they’d want to run it differently.  So, for example, every time our new owners from Validity asked me a question (“Should we do X or Y,” or “Should we keep person A or person B?”), my answer was never simple. It was always, “What’s your strategy with regard to Z?” and then my advice could be in context, as opposed to thinking about what I would do in the prior context.

There are more details on this in the new section on exits in Startup CEO:  A Field Guide to Scaling Up Your Business.

One of the new sections in the Second Edition (order here) that I’m excited to share is a deep dive with several chapters on selling your company.  The next few blog posts will share some of my thinking on the subjects as they’re arranged into chapters in the book.  For many startup CEOs the culmination of their life’s work is an exit of some kind (other than being fired!). Personally, there were a range of emotions surging through me when we got to the point of a sale and while the financial reward can be enticing, there are a lot of things that you start to think about, like all the things you created, all the offsites with your team, the good and bad times and, especially, the deep relationships you’ve developed over the years.

If you’re a founder entrepreneur who has led your company for several years, the odds are you have a significant amount of emotional investment in your company, too.  For many entrepreneurs, the company is a deeply embedded part of their identities as a human – right or wrong, for better or for worse. 

I said in the First Edition that entrepreneurship is full of extreme highs and lows and the most difficult thing to accept is when they happen at the same time. Nothing describes the process of selling your company more accurately than that saying because you’re gaining some financial reward, but you’re losing your life’s work. You’re also creating some chaos and uncertainty for all your employees.

One of the most important questions you can ask yourself is, “Am I ready to let go?” For me I used a simple litmus test to help answer that question and I used the answers to these four questions to figure out the sell-don’t sell dilemma:

• Am I having fun at work?
• Am I learning and growing as a professional?
• Is my work financially rewarding enough, either in the short-term or in the long-term?
• Am I having the impact I want to have on the world?

You can turn these questions into a scale if you want to be more sophisticated but there are two important points: one, you have to do it and two, you have to look at all four questions as really just providing one piece of information. If I walked into an executive team meeting and said, “I’m not having fun at work,” my team would probably look at me and say (or think to themselves), “Hey, buddy, suck it up.” They’d be right, but if you have low scores on all four questions, that tells a different story. 

So how do you know when it’s time to sell? Usually there’s an inflection point of some kind–either positive or negative. On the positive side, you can receive an out-of-the-blue inbound offer, something you never expected and believe me, that will get the juices flowing! Or maybe when you look two years out you realize that your company is at its highwater mark in valuation, so it becomes a timing issue. Sometimes you can have a major internal problem related to the cap table–a founder with a lot of stock needs liquidity or you need to push this person out of the company. Institutional investors can require liquidity too, and while it’s possible to buy out shareholders or create a debt / equity financing, you might think about selling the company instead.

Other points on selling your company that I make in the Second Edition revolve around who you sell to (financial buyer, strategic buyer) and what the likely outcome of those types of sales are for you and your employees. You’ll need to brace yourself, your team, and your company, and your family for a major impact–the sales process is disruptive, non-linear, and intense and it’s not done until the final agreement is signed. 

Above all else, There is no right or wrong answer here about selling your company.  But there probably is a right or wrong answer for YOU.  That’s the most important thing to think through, deeply, at the early stages of working on selling your company.

I wrote part I of this post in 2011, and I feel even more strongly about it today. I generally keep this blog away from politics (don’t we have enough of that running around?), but periodically, I find some common sense, centrist piece of information worth sharing. In this case, I just read a great and very short book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, that, if you care about the polarization and fractiousness going on in our country now, you’d appreciate.

If nothing else, the shattered norms and customs of the last several years should point people to the fact that our Constitution needs some revision. Not a massive structural overhaul, but some changes on the margin to keep it fresh, as we approach its 250th anniversary in the next couple decades.

Blogiversary, Part VII

Today marks the seventh anniversary of OnlyOnce.  I haven’t marked the date with a post in three years, but here was my last such post (with links to prior posts in it).  In sum up until now, my reasons for blogging have been written up as:

• “Thinking” (writing short posts helps me crystallize my thinking)
• “Employees” (one of our senior people once called reading OnlyOnce “getting a peek inside Matt’s head)
• My book reviews help me crystallize my takeaways from books and serve as a bit of a personal reference library
• I like writing and don’t get to do it often

After seven years, though, I’m going to add another important point of value for me for writing OnlyOnce:  now, at 672 posts (including 27 that are scheduled but not yet posted – easy a record for me), this blog now serves as a repository for me of my own lessons learned, best practices, anecdotes, and aphorisms.  Thanks to Lijit, it’s easy for me and others to search.  Thanks to the new WordPress format and design by my friends at Slice of Lime, the categories and tagging make it much easier to navigate.

I probably get one question a week from a fellow CEO or prospective entrepreneur or employee that, instead of typing out an answer or setting up a meeting, I can actually just send a link as a starting point.  Sometimes there are follow-up questions, sometimes there aren’t.  But the blog is proving to be a very efficient form of documentation.

Building the Company vs. Building the Business

I was being interviewed recently for a book someone is writing on entrepreneurship, which focused on identifying the elements of my “playbook” for entrepreneurial success at Return Path.  I’m not sure I’ve ever had a full playbook, though I’ve certainly documented pieces of it in this blog over the years.  One of the conversations we had in the interview was around the topic of building the company vs. building the business.

The classic entrepreneur builds the business — quite frankly, he or she probably just builds the product for a long time first, then the business.  In the course of the interview, I realized that I’ve spent at least as much energy over the years building the company concurrently with the product/business.  In fact, in many ways, I probably spent more time building the company in the early years than the business warranted given its size and stage.  This is probably related to my theme from a few months ago about building Return Path “Backwards.”

What do I mean by building the company as opposed to building the business?

• Building the business means obsessing over things like product features, getting traction with early clients, competition, and generating buzz
• Building the company means obsessing over things like HR policies, company values and culture, long-term strategy, and investor reporting

In the early years, I did some things that now seem crazy for a brand new, 25-person company, like designing a sabbatical policy that wouldn’t kick in until an employee’s 7th anniversary.  But I don’t regret doing them, and I don’t think they were wasted effort in the long run, even if they were a little wasted in the short run.  I think working on company-building early on paid benefits in two ways for us:

1. They helped lay the groundwork for scaling – what we’re finding now as we are trying to rapidly scale up the business, and even over the last few years since we’ve been scaling at a moderate pace, is that we are doing so on a very solid foundation
2. The company didn’t die when the product and business died – because we had built a good company, when our original ECOA business basically proved to be a loser back in 2002, it was a fairly obvious decision (on the part of both the management team and the venture syndicate) to keep the business going but pivot the business, more than once

Starting about four years ago, for the first time, I felt like we had a great business to match our great company.  Now that those two things are in sync, we are zooming forward at an amazing pace, and we’re doing it perhaps more gracefully than we would be doing it if we hadn’t focused on building the company along the way.

I’m not saying that there’s a right path or a wrong path here when you compare business building with company building, although as I wrote this post, my #2 conclusion above is a particularly poignant one, that without a strong company, we wouldn’t be here 12 years later.  Of course, you could always argue that if I’d spent more time building the business and less time building the company, we might have succeeded sooner.  In the end, a good CEO and management team must be concerned about getting both elements right if they want to build an enduring stand-alone company.

Today marks Return Path’s 16^th anniversary.  I am incredibly proud of so many things we have accomplished here and am brimming with optimism about the road ahead. While we are still a bit of an awkward teenager as a company continuing to scale, 16 is much less of an awkward teen year than 13, both metaphorically and actually. Hey – we are going to head off for college in two short years!

In honor of 16 Candles, one of my favorite movies that came out when I was a teenager, I thought I’d mark this occasion by drawing the more obvious comparisons between us and some of the main characters from the movie.  My apologies to those who may have missed this movie along the way.

Why we are like Samantha (Molly Ringwald):  No, no one borrowed our underpants. But we can’t believe that people forgot our birthday either.

Why we are like Farmer Ted / The Geek (Anthony Michael Hall):  Meet my co-founder, George Bilbrey. I mean that with love.

Why we are like Jake (Michael Schoeffling):  Meet my other co-founder, Jack Sinclair. The shy, good looking one.

Why we are like Long Duk Dong (Gedde Watanabe):  We have only been in our newest business, Consumer Insight, for five minutes, but we already have a whole bunch of dates.

Why we are like Grandpa Fred (Max Showalter):  We’ve been around long enough to know the ways of the world, not to mention all the good wisecracks in the book.

There you have it. Year 17, here we come!