Get In, Get Rich, Get Out

Groupon's Share Price Performance Over Last 9 Months

The entrepreneurial mantras are crisp and clear.

Cash is King.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Sometimes the name of the game in business is to get in, get rich and get out.

Some entrepreneurs need to realise that they are not always building a long term, sustainable business. That their brainchild is simply a product of its times. And it has a short shelf life. A bit like cheese.

But knowing when to get out is what separates the successful serial entrepreneurs from their counterpart failures.

That's why I will always have the greatest respect for Julie Meyer who sold the two year old First Tuesday global technology investment network for a cool $33million. It wasn't worth that just 12 months later but, as an entrepreneur, she did her job and made the best deal. No doubt.

That's why I worry for Groupon's founder Andrew Mason. He may have missed his moment. Google offered him $6billion for the global network of daily deal sites a couple of years ago. A good deal by any standards.

Perhaps Andrew believed his deal had been discounted? Either way, it was rejected and now his company is worth less than a third of that price.

How ironic, then, is it that Andrew delivered a lecture at Stanford University in 2010 where he gave students 6 tips on how to get super rich.

Among his top tips are:

"You’re building a tool, not a piece of art. Don’t get blinded by vision."

and  "Quit now. Sometimes you have to let an idea go."
Maybe time he listened to his own advice?

Before it's too late.

The Trick is to Keep Breathing

This month and year is special for me. It's August 2012. 

It's exactly 10 years since I had that eureka moment. 10 whole years since the onset of an entrepreneurial seizure. 10 years since I stormed into Business Gateway, promptly telling them that their best advice may be that it takes months of research before you can start a business, but that I had precisely two weeks so if they wouldn't mind pointing me to the shortcuts, I'd be most grateful. 

10 Years. 

It's quite something. 85% of small businesses fail in their first year. Less than 50% of the businesses that remain survive the next 10 years. 

So what's the secret to surviving in business? Is there even a secret?

I've spent a bit of time reflecting this month, as you can imagine and I've come to the conclusion that, when it comes to running a business, it's best summed up by the slightly tatty bit of paper I have blu-tacked to my desk. On it a Chinese proverb:

"To open a business is easy, to keep it open is an art."

It's true. 

Every day I get up and paint my world. Every day the landscape changes. 

Some days the paint is thicker than others. Sometimes it's more colourful. Other days, like any artist, I lack inspiration. And, on really great days, I create masterpieces. 

It's up. It's down. It's often round in circles, two steps back, one step forward. 

But the one thing I can honestly say about my job: It's never, ever dull.

I used to struggle with the pace of change. To waste energy panicking about future challenges (that I didn't yet have). Figuring I could avoid them or resolve them before they became a reality. 

Now I know that's there's very little point in wasting that energy. The challenges will come daily, whether I plan for them or not. 

For those just starting out on this journey, and for those just a little way down the road, I'd like to pass on this little piece of wisdom for success in business, borrowed partly from the iconic Scottish writer Janice Galloway, with practical assistance in the art by long time personal mentor  Rebecca Bonnington:

The trick is to keep breathing.

When every day brings its own (often unpredictable) challenges, sometimes you just need to stand back, take and deep breath. 

In and out. Running a business is an absorbing job, but if you're going to take on the world, battling with daily (sometimes apparently insurmountable) challenges, breathing slowly will help you focus. Will keep you calm, centred and effective. 

Rebecca once made me breathe in and out ten times, counting to 10 with each exhalation. On my first attempt I managed to get to 3 without getting distracted. 

Ten years later: It's a perfect 10. 

Poison Apple or Seed of Innovation?

Less than 24 hours have passed since the US courts issued a verdict in the epic Apple vs Samsung intellectual property battle. 

"Make your own phones" was the closing plea of Apple's legal team to the Samsung side. And the jury, it seems, agreed with them. 

Pundits around the world are already ganging up on the decision, citing how bad the ruling will be for marketplace competition, not least for Samsung who've been ordered to pay Apple around $1billion dollars in compensation. Let's not even mention that fact that Samsung now faces having its entire core product line banished from existence altogether, in America at least. 

This court case has opened up some serious questions about capitalism and how or what is deemed acceptable behaviour in the pursuit of profit. Copying, it would seem, is not. 

But isn't copying the natural way of the capitalist world? Aren't High Street fashions just watered down, plagiarised versions of their catwalk counterparts? Aren't own brand supermarket cornflakes just a less fancily packaged version of their branded competitors? And don't most cafes and restaurants serve pretty much the same food and drink, albeit served up in slightly different dishes and cups?

In fact, when it comes to "innovation" I'd estimate that the vast majority of organisations would be hard pushed to claim that 100% of their product or service line is entirely of their own exclusive thinking. In fact most of them would be struggling to claim that even 10% of their product or service line is unique. 

One of the core principles of developing an effective business strategy is looking at the competitive market place. Call it PEST, SWOT, whatever you like, but it's impossible to compete unless you seriously (and thoroughly) look at what the competition are doing. And, naturally, part of your strategic response will be to replicate, develop or simply copy and offer it to your customers too. 

Are we really prepared to believe that the executives and technicians at Apple are so special that they've never looked at what the competition are doing? Ever?

But that's exactly what this decision would have us believe. Apple are the absolute exception to this rule. And they are, indeed, exceptional. Their products are utterly innovative. There's no denying that. 

But not based on anything else, ever? Really?

Samsung's products also have their own ingenuity. Exceptional in their own way. Have they borrowed some of Apple's groundbreaking technology? Undoubtedly. One of the key documents in the case cited how Samsung had concluded that to compete in the smartphone marketplace, being more like the Apple iPhone would be a must. 

And here's where the legal argument diverges from the commercial. 

In the pursuit of profit, Apple is deservedly the winner. They invested the time, developed the technology, legally protected their ideas and deserve to profit (much more handsomely than they already do) from their innovations and their subsequent commercialisation. 

Strategically, they've played it by the book. Knowledge and technology was their asset, and they've protected it and defended it to the hilt. 

I think, therefore I am. Descartes couldn't have said it better himself. 

But when it comes to thinking, and in this case, pursuing or developing knowledge, Samsung have taken the seed of Apple's innovation and have advanced it further still, enhancing the experience, and winning the consumer confidence in their product line. Let's not forget that Samsung smartphones outsold Apple iPhones this year, 40million to 32million making them 25% more popular. 

Their starting point was Apple, their end point was (arguably) better. 

And surely that's what competition's about, after all? If not, why are we bothering with capitalism at all? And what are we really defending?

Working 9 to 5? What a Way to Run a Business.

The British High Street in in trouble. Mary Portas says so. The Government says so. Heck, even the shoppers say so. 


It's the economy, you see. We're all down on our luck, pulling in our reins, cutting back our spending. 


Or are we?


Having worked in retail, it has always struck me as the least flexible industry and the one least willing to change. 


Ever since Margaret Thatcher declared Britain a Nation of Shopkeepers, we've stuck doggedly to, and with misplaced national pride, a business formula which, all of a sudden, fails to take into account the market needs. 


Take online retailing as a comparison. Despite recession, it continues to grow. 


Peter Gold, Head of EMEA Retail, for commercial property specialists CBRE, commented recently that there has been “A change in our shopping behaviour has seen a boom in consumers shopping online."


It's a similar story with out of town shopping destinations. According to Trevor Wood Associates recent expansion in this sector has led to the vacancy rate for retail parks dropping to 6.8 per cent from 2010’s 7.9 per cent.


These are more than green shoots in a flailing economy. 


But both of these industry sectors have something very similar in common and, specifically, in contrast to the traditional High Street. Their opening hours. 


The internet, by its very nature, is open 24/7. You can shop when you want and, thanks to mobile phone technology, wherever you want. 


Out of town retailers frequently stay open longer than their High Street counterparts, closing their doors at 9pm or 10pm and even, in the case of some supermarkets, staying open all night. 


The High Street, by comparison, dogmatically refuses to bend, opening its doors at 9am, shutting them again at 5pm. Their excuse? Well hardly anyone comes in between 5pm and 6pm. At 9am, however, it's a common sight to see shoppers queuing out the door........


Like many so called consumers, I work full time. Which means that it is simply not possible to shop during "normal" High Street opening times. Put in simple terms, potential access to High Street shops every week is only 30% for me - hardly optimum. 


For out of town stores, thanks to longer opening hours, that rises to 50%. 


And for internet, it's 75% (I'm not sleeping in this scenario, just to prove a point). 


Little surprise, then, that I spend more online than I ever do in person. Need a book? Amazon. Need some clothes? Next Online. Need some food? Just-Eat.co.uk. Need some groceries? Tesco.com. Need to travel? Expedia.co.uk. 


Retail is not alone in perpetuating this limiting 9 to 5 culture. Other businesses do it too. Hairdressers. Beauty Salons. Doctors Surgeries. Cafes. The list goes on. 


Which makes me wonder: are they really opening for business?


Strikes me they'd be better having the morning off and working later. Portas has a long list of recommendations on how to revitalise the High Street. 28 of them to be precise, covering things like market days and better business rates. None of the 28 recommendations suggest more flexible opening times. 


Isn't it time, as a Nation of Shopkeepers, that we actually opened for business?

If Your Business is Not Using Social Media, You May as Well Shut up Shop

Core to marketing is communication. And social media is now the dominant communication vehicle in the world. But despite that indisputable fact there are still businesses (and business people) who refuse to get involved, whether through stubborn ignorance or sheer dogmatic arrogance. 


Businesses who think it's a flash in the pan. Businesses who are afraid their customers might just (publicly) talk back to them. Businesses who are stuck in the past. Businesses who might genuinely have no place in the future. 


Last week I used Facebook to arrange a meeting with a client, Twitter to discuss a joint pitch opportunity and Google+ to issue a press announcement. One of our Winter Camp businesses had their first hot sales enquiry for the training of a lot of people via Twitter before our 4 week course in how to maximise its use for marketing purposes had finished. If arranging new business meetings, generating leads and discussing business growth opportunities are not enough of a reason to be involved in these social networks, I don't know what is. 


The thing is, I've never believed Facebook or Twitter are destination sites (like MySpace and Bebo were). I always saw them as highly sophisticated communication tools. 


I didn't start using Facebook and Twitter because they were "social", I started using them because they enabled me to communicate with a lot of people, simultaneously and therefore save me an inordinate amount of time. Just like our mobile phones contain our address books and enable us to connect at the touch of a button, so do Facebook and Twitter. 


I spend time on Facebook and Twitter because they enable me to interact, communicate and contact people when it is convenient for all of us. And that's the underlying key to their success. 


Unlike the phone or a text which is an interruptive force in our lives, people log in to Facebook and Twitter when it suits them and respond in their own time. That's why people like it so much. They are in control of both the incoming communications, and the outgoing.  


So if your business currently has only a telephone number, fax number and email address, you are cutting yourself off to literally millions of customers who tweet, facebook and G+ their way in the world. 


Why would any business person in their right mind, cut themselves off from the marketplace? 


You may as well save yourselves the time and stress of business failure and shut up shop now. Or take half an hour out, hop on those sites and try them out. 


It's free, and costs nothing but your time and an open mind. 

Teach a Man to Fish

Marketing has always been, for me, a fascinating subject. Drawing on many academic disciplines from psychology to maths, from art to economics.

At its heart, marketing is very simply the process of buying customers. It's both an art and a science. And much of its motivation is based on a simple theory: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Maslow was a psychologist whose 1943 paper, A Theory of Human Motivation, suggested that individuals had a simple progression of needs starting with the physiological and ranging to the self-actualizing. The premise was that until one need was fulfilled, the individual had little or no desire to move onto their next priority.

Marketers have traditionally used the hierarchy as a means to communicating product benefits (slimmer, prettier, faster, better) and driving lifestyle choices (fulfilled, happy).

The recent London riots would perhaps suggest that, some 60 years later, Maslow's pyramid may no longer be as relevant.

Just one week ago London, and a number of other English cities, were gripped in a series of so called "consumer riots" which saw thousands of, mainly young people, take to the streets to thieve and loot.

The spoils of their efforts? 42" plasma TVs, shoes, DVD players, trainers, bicycles, alcohol, designer jeans..... the exhausting list of fast moving consumer goods goes on and on.

This was society's poor, we are all being led to believe. Neglected, unemployed, gang-ravaged communities. Their riotous efforts could be, depressingly, understood within that context, even justified.

But this was no modern re-make of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. These rioters weren't starving to death. It wasn't bread and water they were looting for, it was plasma TVs and games consoles. So much for Maslow's hierarchy.

These people have put self actualization at the very top of their needs list. Everything else? Seemingly secondary. The Bishop of Manchester agrees.

But perhaps marketers are partly to blame for this overt, all consuming consumerism? Maybe this is the culmination of all that is fundamentally wrong with capitalism? But can businesses play a part in helping society to change?

When I think about the corporate obsession with perfection, it leaves little room for mistakes and therefore learning. How do these young people get a genuine start in life if no-one is willing to teach them, or give them the opportunities to learn?

I've always felt that businesses have a role in education. I am extremely grateful to those companies and managers who took me on with little or no experience and taught me the skills of their trade. I may not have followed a career in some of their lines of work, but they were willing to take the risk. Now we are so obsessed with perfection in service delivery and efficiency in operations that it's our young people who are genuinely missing out.

So, for all those business owners out there who employ people, this is your broom. This is your opportunity to help clean up our community and make a tangible difference. This is not someone else's problem. And it's certainly not just the responsibility of government. It's our problem to solve. Each and every single one of us.

Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for one day. Teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for a lifetime.

Let's get back to basics.