Flip Video was a poster child for a successful startup a few years ago. Got started in 2001 as Pure Digital and was selling over a million units per year in 2008. They were portable, easy to use and low priced, and favored by a lot of consumers. They could have gone public.
So, Cisco bought one of the fastest growing tech companies in 2009 and is now shutting it down. The founders and investors in Pure Digital probably made out well in the Cisco buyout of $590 Million, but now 500+ employees are going to be laid off. A fallout of Cisco's failed consumer strategy.
Who loses? For sure the employees who're now seeing pink instead of green. Also the consumers, who're losing out on the availability of a popular little camcorder and in the fact that innovation in this space got stymied (not everyone wants a smartphone camera as the only choice - even smartphone owners).
Just a story of a startup that appeared to have a (somewhat) happy ending and then - didn't.
Channeling the inner entrepreneur who views life as a startup. Musings about people, their spirit, the startup ethos and the entrepreneurial attitude, with an emphasis on education and social ventures. The 'how-to'? Not so much. But definitely the why, the what and the whatever.
Showing posts with label corporate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporate. Show all posts
Corporate shift to entrepreneurial values?
It was fun to read the article on the new rules for companies - as opposed to Jack Welch's old rules - in this week's Fortune. In particular, I got a big kick out of Rule #5: Hire Passionate People. This is intended to replace the old rule of hiring only the A crowd and firing the the C's (while the B's madly tried to move up the alphabet chain).
Of course, entrepreneurs are all about passion, and I've been discussing it in this blog frequently. In fact, one of the recent posts 'Deluded by passion?' is about the feasibility of being passionate about a corporate job, and proposes yes, it is possible to be passionate about your role and what you do, though the corporate goal may be less than electrifying. So it was interesting to read about the big companies trying to get 'passion' into their interview checklists, but in all fairness, some of them have always done so, not just because it is the current fad - Apple for one has a history of favoring passion in its hires.
The other rule that stood out was Rule #2: Find a Niche, Create Something New. Again, this is how entrepreneurs thrive - or stay in the game, as pointed out in One Size Doesn't Fit All. When you're just getting started, you're not consumed with being #1, you're fighting to stay alive and finding customers rooting through under-served niches.
Which bring us to Rule #3: The Customer is King. It was shocking to read the disconnect between executive and customer perception on service. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to find a startup that is not obsessive about its customers - they jump through so many hoops to attract and retain their customers they could be auditioning for Cirque de Soleil. A point of interest - the old rule was that 'shareholders rule'. There could be some of that in funded startups too where investors may drive the agenda and literally rule, but usually any investor who's had operational experience is unlikely to slip on the customer focus.
All in all, I must confess to a certain smugness on reading this article and seeing the startup values moving into the rulebooks of the corporate giants. It's a vindication (maybe these are not 'niche' values after all) and it also offers hope that the big guys will remember their roots and what being in business is all about.
Of course, entrepreneurs are all about passion, and I've been discussing it in this blog frequently. In fact, one of the recent posts 'Deluded by passion?' is about the feasibility of being passionate about a corporate job, and proposes yes, it is possible to be passionate about your role and what you do, though the corporate goal may be less than electrifying. So it was interesting to read about the big companies trying to get 'passion' into their interview checklists, but in all fairness, some of them have always done so, not just because it is the current fad - Apple for one has a history of favoring passion in its hires.
The other rule that stood out was Rule #2: Find a Niche, Create Something New. Again, this is how entrepreneurs thrive - or stay in the game, as pointed out in One Size Doesn't Fit All. When you're just getting started, you're not consumed with being #1, you're fighting to stay alive and finding customers rooting through under-served niches.
Which bring us to Rule #3: The Customer is King. It was shocking to read the disconnect between executive and customer perception on service. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to find a startup that is not obsessive about its customers - they jump through so many hoops to attract and retain their customers they could be auditioning for Cirque de Soleil. A point of interest - the old rule was that 'shareholders rule'. There could be some of that in funded startups too where investors may drive the agenda and literally rule, but usually any investor who's had operational experience is unlikely to slip on the customer focus.
All in all, I must confess to a certain smugness on reading this article and seeing the startup values moving into the rulebooks of the corporate giants. It's a vindication (maybe these are not 'niche' values after all) and it also offers hope that the big guys will remember their roots and what being in business is all about.
Deluded on passion?
A few days after I'd made the post on finding others with similar passions, I happened to read Jon Carroll's column in the San Francisco Chronicle (June 22, 2006). I really like his columns when I do read them, though admittedly it is not on a daily basis.
It was an amusing and timely (to me) column. He'd quoted Nancy Friedman's post 'Our Passion is Your Problem' - which was an entertaining read too. She (and Carroll) focus on the obvious disconnect between corporate words (aka marketing) and corporate actions. Yes, it is hard to believe that everyone in a large corporation making widgets is passionate about their work, and honestly, most corporations are passionate only about the bottom line. They may specialize in pharma, beauty products, earth movers, whatever - drumming up 'passion' for the speciality is a often hype for maintaining focus in their specific business.
But, when I read the statement 'I know no one who approaches the daily grind with passion' it gave me pause. While it may be true if what you do is a grind, but there are many, many people out there who're fired up about their jobs and don't think of work as a chore. If what you're doing is interesting to you, and you're working with good people, at the very least you're not dragging yourself to work, and most likely you're looking forward to it. Personally, even when I was in the corporate world, there were long periods of time when I was absolutely consumed by, and loving, what I was doing, and couldn't think of a better word than passion to describe my feeling.
Then there's the entrepreneurial angle. I've mentioned passion as being non-negotiable for an entrepreneur about a kazillion times and see it proven true almost on a daily basis. In fact, entrepreneurs don't lose their passion even when their companies become large corporations. Examples are obvious and plentiful - Ford, Gates, Jobs, etc. They insist on passionate people by their side when they're starting out, and will most likely continue to favor them as they grow, though the focus of passion may change.
Discounting the excesses of marketing speak in other arenas, in the entrepreneurial world, looking for people who're passionate about their work is not a fantasy quest - and not doing so could lead to dire results.
It was an amusing and timely (to me) column. He'd quoted Nancy Friedman's post 'Our Passion is Your Problem' - which was an entertaining read too. She (and Carroll) focus on the obvious disconnect between corporate words (aka marketing) and corporate actions. Yes, it is hard to believe that everyone in a large corporation making widgets is passionate about their work, and honestly, most corporations are passionate only about the bottom line. They may specialize in pharma, beauty products, earth movers, whatever - drumming up 'passion' for the speciality is a often hype for maintaining focus in their specific business.
But, when I read the statement 'I know no one who approaches the daily grind with passion' it gave me pause. While it may be true if what you do is a grind, but there are many, many people out there who're fired up about their jobs and don't think of work as a chore. If what you're doing is interesting to you, and you're working with good people, at the very least you're not dragging yourself to work, and most likely you're looking forward to it. Personally, even when I was in the corporate world, there were long periods of time when I was absolutely consumed by, and loving, what I was doing, and couldn't think of a better word than passion to describe my feeling.
Then there's the entrepreneurial angle. I've mentioned passion as being non-negotiable for an entrepreneur about a kazillion times and see it proven true almost on a daily basis. In fact, entrepreneurs don't lose their passion even when their companies become large corporations. Examples are obvious and plentiful - Ford, Gates, Jobs, etc. They insist on passionate people by their side when they're starting out, and will most likely continue to favor them as they grow, though the focus of passion may change.
Discounting the excesses of marketing speak in other arenas, in the entrepreneurial world, looking for people who're passionate about their work is not a fantasy quest - and not doing so could lead to dire results.
Risk in business.
Earlier on, in a post on definition of an entrepreneur, I'd written about the must-have trait of risk-taking. In the past couple of days I've run across a couple of viewpoints on risk that brought home the fact that risk-taking is not an on or off, black or white thing. It's very individual and situational, and is about one-size-fits-all as a contact lens.
First, I read a blog on corporate entrepreneurship. Yes, that phenomenon exists (I can personally attest to that), and corporations are frequently smitten with the urge to develop 'entrepreneurship', along with its twin 'innovation', in order to stay ahead of the running of the competitive bulls. There was a post in this blog on creating a 'decision-making network' - i.e., managing risk by spreading it to your network within the organization. In the corporate world the decision to take a risk is less likely to be an individual one (management by consensus anyone?). There are steering committees, audit committees, planning committees, strategy councils and of course the BOD (no, not that bod - the board of directors). Anything you take on will most likely fit into some approved master plan. And when you do get the green light, there are enough people to pick and choose for your 'support network' to deliver on the idea. Yes, championing a new initiative may be risky, but it is less likely that it has sudden-death consequences for the company (though getting fired may feel that way to you). Most of all, you don't have the burden of making payroll hanging over your head.
The entrepreneur's risk is a different beast, larger, faster and with more teeth - and lurking within pouncing range. In the early stages the very existence of your business is at risk, and that too on a daily basis. Sudden-death is not an imaginary monster under the bed, but a dwindling cash balance without visibility of revenue or funding. Which is why you do so badly want a founding team. You hope your co-founders will have skin in the game, not so much to lessen the risk, but so you don't have to face it alone. This is not like the network you'd have in a corporation, where you could have the luxury of focusing on the specific project. Here you, and your 'network' (read your whole startup team) have to focus on the survival of the whole business. And just to keep you sharp, you have to simultaneously focus on growth, innovation, and staying ahead of the ever-threatening competition.
The good news is that as the business grows, the visceral impact of the risk lessens - the 'death' is no longer likely to be 'sudden'. You get the warm fuzzies from receivables, and possibly funding, floating you for months at a time. You can keep the edge, but lose the sweat.
If you're a risk-taker in your corporate life, you could possibly be primed to be an entrepreneur too. Just remember that grabbing your tabby's fluffy tail, risking scratched arms and snagged clothing, is nothing like doing the same with a tiger.
First, I read a blog on corporate entrepreneurship. Yes, that phenomenon exists (I can personally attest to that), and corporations are frequently smitten with the urge to develop 'entrepreneurship', along with its twin 'innovation', in order to stay ahead of the running of the competitive bulls. There was a post in this blog on creating a 'decision-making network' - i.e., managing risk by spreading it to your network within the organization. In the corporate world the decision to take a risk is less likely to be an individual one (management by consensus anyone?). There are steering committees, audit committees, planning committees, strategy councils and of course the BOD (no, not that bod - the board of directors). Anything you take on will most likely fit into some approved master plan. And when you do get the green light, there are enough people to pick and choose for your 'support network' to deliver on the idea. Yes, championing a new initiative may be risky, but it is less likely that it has sudden-death consequences for the company (though getting fired may feel that way to you). Most of all, you don't have the burden of making payroll hanging over your head.
The entrepreneur's risk is a different beast, larger, faster and with more teeth - and lurking within pouncing range. In the early stages the very existence of your business is at risk, and that too on a daily basis. Sudden-death is not an imaginary monster under the bed, but a dwindling cash balance without visibility of revenue or funding. Which is why you do so badly want a founding team. You hope your co-founders will have skin in the game, not so much to lessen the risk, but so you don't have to face it alone. This is not like the network you'd have in a corporation, where you could have the luxury of focusing on the specific project. Here you, and your 'network' (read your whole startup team) have to focus on the survival of the whole business. And just to keep you sharp, you have to simultaneously focus on growth, innovation, and staying ahead of the ever-threatening competition.
The good news is that as the business grows, the visceral impact of the risk lessens - the 'death' is no longer likely to be 'sudden'. You get the warm fuzzies from receivables, and possibly funding, floating you for months at a time. You can keep the edge, but lose the sweat.
If you're a risk-taker in your corporate life, you could possibly be primed to be an entrepreneur too. Just remember that grabbing your tabby's fluffy tail, risking scratched arms and snagged clothing, is nothing like doing the same with a tiger.
The difference.
I just met a program manager for a biotech company at a social event. We did the usual intros, and when she heard that I'd been in the corporate world before becoming an entrepreneur, she said she'd always been curious as to how people make the shift. She wanted to know what was the hardest thing to get used to when going from 'corporate' to 'startup'.
For me the hardest thing to get used to was being solely responsible for everything. In my corporate experience, even in the higher ranks, even if you're the guy with the 'buck stops here' sign on your desk, most decisions are made with other very competent, experienced people involved. And you don't have to worry about the little day-to-day stuff like paying phone bills. Even if the company were to shut down, an established corporation does it in an organized way and usually hires people who's job is to do precisely that. On the other hand, an entrepreneur who's just staring out doesn't have the luxury of delegating the tough or icky jobs. If she's lucky she'll have an experienced co-founder or two who'd share some of the pain, but she'd still have to carry most of the load on her own. The entrepreneur is the one who's responsible for all of it - in a small startups, you'd see the CEO involved in the choice of coffee service - it is not unlikely that he'd have to explain why they have Starbucks instead of Peet's even if the admin made the choice for him. In the early stages the founder is the company. It is lonely up on the high wire, lonelier still when you're here without a net.
If I was not the founder, I'd think the hardest thing about a startup is the ambiguity - if you've spent many years at a corporate job, that's the first thing you'd notice. Everything could be in constant flux for quite a while: the offerings, the market, the positioning, even the prospect of getting a paycheck. I've had many ex-corporate types mention it, and while some adjusted, a few figured out that this didn't really float their boat (or if it did, it made them seasick) and bailed. If you don't have a tolerance for ambiguity and rapid change, startups are definitely not the place for you.
The next question was what did I like best about moving to a startup? Was it the freedom? No way. Freedom in a startup is an illusion - see above for a reason why. As an entrepreneur you probably have more constraints to work with, though they will be different than the ones you see in larger corporations. While you may not have 10 planning meetings before you decide to change a line on your website, you'll have stronger limitations regarding money and resources for example. Even freedom in your work schedule is mostly a dream, you are free to start and end your work day whenever as long as you start very early and end very late.
The best thing about a startup is the excitement. The high that comes from knowing everything you do has significance because you're in the process of creating something. And the sheer pleasure of being around a bunch of people who feel the same way. It can happen to some extent in large companies too, especially if you have a small, autonomous team dedicated to some key initiative and driven to succeed with incentives - but though it may feel a little like a startup, it's not quite the same because you can't get away from the fact that you're part of a larger corporation. I recently had dinner with a technologist at a Fortune 50 company who's thinking of going to a startup. When asked why, his answer was simply 'to have my work be significant'. Though he was in a position that was as close to a startup as he could get, he still felt that if his own personal contributions though well rewarded barely made an imprint on the large fabric of the corporation. He wanted to wake up every morning and feel excited about going to work because everything he did had a huge impact on his small startup team. Every member of a startup matters.
The joy of creation. For me that is the single most thrilling experience that comes from entrepreneurship.
I just met a program manager for a biotech company at a social event. We did the usual intros, and when she heard that I'd been in the corporate world before becoming an entrepreneur, she said she'd always been curious as to how people make the shift. She wanted to know what was the hardest thing to get used to when going from 'corporate' to 'startup'.
For me the hardest thing to get used to was being solely responsible for everything. In my corporate experience, even in the higher ranks, even if you're the guy with the 'buck stops here' sign on your desk, most decisions are made with other very competent, experienced people involved. And you don't have to worry about the little day-to-day stuff like paying phone bills. Even if the company were to shut down, an established corporation does it in an organized way and usually hires people who's job is to do precisely that. On the other hand, an entrepreneur who's just staring out doesn't have the luxury of delegating the tough or icky jobs. If she's lucky she'll have an experienced co-founder or two who'd share some of the pain, but she'd still have to carry most of the load on her own. The entrepreneur is the one who's responsible for all of it - in a small startups, you'd see the CEO involved in the choice of coffee service - it is not unlikely that he'd have to explain why they have Starbucks instead of Peet's even if the admin made the choice for him. In the early stages the founder is the company. It is lonely up on the high wire, lonelier still when you're here without a net.
If I was not the founder, I'd think the hardest thing about a startup is the ambiguity - if you've spent many years at a corporate job, that's the first thing you'd notice. Everything could be in constant flux for quite a while: the offerings, the market, the positioning, even the prospect of getting a paycheck. I've had many ex-corporate types mention it, and while some adjusted, a few figured out that this didn't really float their boat (or if it did, it made them seasick) and bailed. If you don't have a tolerance for ambiguity and rapid change, startups are definitely not the place for you.
The next question was what did I like best about moving to a startup? Was it the freedom? No way. Freedom in a startup is an illusion - see above for a reason why. As an entrepreneur you probably have more constraints to work with, though they will be different than the ones you see in larger corporations. While you may not have 10 planning meetings before you decide to change a line on your website, you'll have stronger limitations regarding money and resources for example. Even freedom in your work schedule is mostly a dream, you are free to start and end your work day whenever as long as you start very early and end very late.
The best thing about a startup is the excitement. The high that comes from knowing everything you do has significance because you're in the process of creating something. And the sheer pleasure of being around a bunch of people who feel the same way. It can happen to some extent in large companies too, especially if you have a small, autonomous team dedicated to some key initiative and driven to succeed with incentives - but though it may feel a little like a startup, it's not quite the same because you can't get away from the fact that you're part of a larger corporation. I recently had dinner with a technologist at a Fortune 50 company who's thinking of going to a startup. When asked why, his answer was simply 'to have my work be significant'. Though he was in a position that was as close to a startup as he could get, he still felt that if his own personal contributions though well rewarded barely made an imprint on the large fabric of the corporation. He wanted to wake up every morning and feel excited about going to work because everything he did had a huge impact on his small startup team. Every member of a startup matters.
The joy of creation. For me that is the single most thrilling experience that comes from entrepreneurship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)