Chip Griffin: Pardon the Disruption

Putting Things in Perspective

You don't expect to get lessons in perspective when you read the Boston Globe's Extra Bases blog about the Red Sox. But one post tonight delivered that message twice.

At the end of a notes-style piece, Nick Cafardo writes that former Red Sox backup catcher John Marzano died of a heart attack at age 45. I vividly remember the excitement I felt when I got his first baseball card, one from his stint on the 1984 Olympic Team, that was included in the 1985 Topps baseball card set. I actually liked it more than the Roger Clemens rookie card that was included in the same set (I can't even explain why 23 years later). He always seemed like a class act and was an easy autograph, which I appreciated as a youngster. Life is indeed too short, especially John Marzano's.

On a lighter note, the same blog post quotes Manny Ramirez of all people demonstrating that not every bad act requires higher intervention. In this case, it was his reaction to MLB suspending Yankees pitcher Kyle Farnsworth for throwing at Manny during a game earlier this week. Manny said it was unnecessary because it is how the game is played. Amen to that. Sports -- especially baseball and hockey -- would be better served if the suits let the players police the game rather than jumping to suspensions and penalties as readily as they do these days. That's not to say some vicious acts don't require severe penalties, but the players on the field and the ice do a pretty good job of keeping things in balance themselves when permitted to do so.

Both of these are lessons that we should take to heart off the field as well.

You Can Convince Yourself of Anything

Overheard while sitting in Union Station in Washington, DC this morning:

"If someone says not to use money they give me for booze, I don't do it. I put it in a separate place and only use it for good things. That's just the kind of guy I am. I'm an honest bum and honest thief. If you leave $20 on the table, I'm going to tell you. Some guys would just take it for themselves. Not me. I'm not going to hurt a guy trying to make an honest living. I only steal from companies ... Safeway, Giant, CVS ... I take them big. I hit them hard. I take thousands of dollars from companies, but never individuals. I'm just an honest guy."

Life 100 Years Ago

Those of us who seem to be living at the cutting edge of technology often don't take enough time to reflect on how quickly things change.  The point was driven home for me recently when my grandfather celebrated his 100th birthday and gave a speech about his life growing up a century ago.

It's worth taking a few minutes to watch and listen...

The Problem With Snacking

I have developed a bad habit.  I snack too much.  No, I'm not talking about in real life (though that's probably true, too).  I'm talking about in my information consumption habits. 

The Snacking Concept

A popular meme the past few months, popularized in part by a Wired magazine story, has been that consumers want information in "snackable" form.  That is, in bite-size bits that are easily digested.  And that's precisely what I do on a daily basis.  I read short emails using Gmail, skim through 140 character Twitter messages, and sort through blog posts using Google reader (most of which are but a few hundred characters in length).

Some Snacking is Good

On the one hand, these little chunks of information let me stay on top of a lot of topics at a very basic level.  I'm getting some of the "serendipity" that I often worry we are missing in our hyper-organized information society that those of us who qualify as early adopters seem to be living in.  For instance, I know that Britney Spears' 16 year old sister is pregnant.  I don't particularly care, but it's not a bad idea to be aware of pop culture at some level.

I Don't Want to Contribute to Your Snacking Problem

The problem with snacking, though, is that it doesn't encourage deeper dives into important topics.  It's one of the reasons why I have abandoned my old habit of putting up very short blog posts where I offer very little other than a regurgitation of someone else's information.  I still curate information, but through the use of shared links in my Google Reader, delicious tags, and Twitter messages.  For this blog, I now focus on longer commentaries, for the most part, and try to offer something original -- in information, perspective, or both.  No more "me too" posts here.  My other main writing outlet, Media Bullseye, explicitly discourages snacking and tries to provide more depth to all of its articles and commentary.

My New Information Diet Lifestyle

But that solves my contribution to the snacking problem, not a solution for my own habits.  That requires a bit more effort.  For one, I need to do a better job of reading books.  I still read a fair amount, but too often I go for easy reads designed to simply entertain or to read an important industry book to allow me to better address trends.  But I also need to read longer magazine articles and other more meaty content on a more regular basis.

Here, then, is the action plan I'm going to try to follow:

1.  Read More Books.  I'm already on a quest for books about the history of the media industry, but I have also already started to dig into other thought-provoking books like Charlie Gasparino's book (King of the Club) about former NYSE Chairman Richard Grasso (recommended by Brad Feld).  I'm going to try to stay away from glib business books that profess to offer general advice on how to have better meetings, hire better employees, or work more efficiently.  I have read enough of those to last me a lifetime.  I want to read about what real people have actually done.  I'm not a philosopher, I'm an entrepreneur.

2. Read Less Blogs. I started down this path by wiping out all of my blog subscriptions a few weeks ago.  I have started adding back slowly, but I hope to control my eagerness to add others.  It means a lot of friends aren't on my regular reading list anymore, and that pains me, but I need to spend less time in this arena and more consuming other information.  To help make sure I'm not missing interesting stuff, I am subscribing to more curators of information (notably shared items by Chris Brogan, Robert Scoble, and Bryan Person, along with Jason Hirschhorn's excellent Media Redefined feed).  I am also relying on Twitter for leads to useful posts, as well as emails from friends and colleagues.

3. Read More Article Content. Whether from newspapers, magazines, online journals, or elsewhere, I want to make sure that I am consuming more detailed written content from interesting people.  In some cases I am seeking content that may challenge my existing beliefs or make me uncomfortable.  In others, I'm looking for deeper dives on topics that I want to know more about.  And sometimes I'll read an article or commentary that provides information to validate my own opinion.  I think a good mix is key.  The toughest part here is to find the right stuff to read.  Most of the curators that I rely on point to blog posts and only rarely highlight more detailed information.  This is a problem that I haven't solved yet (which means it may turn into some sort of a business -- so watch out if you work for me!).

What say you?  Does this lifestyle change make sense to you?  What other advice might you give me or am I just completely off my rocker?

Government Idiocy, French-Style

Do you think any customer would turn down free shipping?  Of course not.  Yet the French courts have ruled that Amazon.com must charge its customers for shipping.  Why?  Because other booksellers have complained that it makes them look expensive by comparison.  Well, duh!

The problem here isn't that Amazon offers free shipping, but rather that French law restricts product discounting.  The answer to the problem isn't to pull the plug on Amazon, but rather to give other booksellers the flexibility they need to operate their businesses in a competitive manner.

When you look at the actions of France and other European government, it is a wonder that American companies choose to participate in those markets at all.  In some cases, the volume is simply enough to endure the pain and suffering the regulations over there cause, but smaller, more innovative companies will likely be loathe to put up with it.

Yet another example of why regulation stifles innovation.

The Power of Bad Service (A Tale of Weeks Without a Refrigerator)

Last week, my wife and I took our annual week away together.  It wasn't exactly as planned because one of my sons got a stomach virus just hours before we were to leave for the West Coast, so we had to wait to be sure everyone was OK before turning the children over to the grandparents for a week.  Ultimately we ended up with the better part of the week at a more local destination and had a good time anyway.

A week before we left, however, our refrigerator died.  Since it was a built-in Viking that came with the house when we bought it, we had to rely on Viking to refer us to an authorized repair company.  (Apparently most local appliance repair people won't touch these units because they are hard to fix.)

It took the repair people four days to even look at the refrigerator, and that was only after multiple calls and badgering.  Needless to say, telling the visiting grandparents that they would be without a refrigerator in the house while they watched two young boys for the week wasn't high on the list of things that my wife and I wanted to do.

Of course, when the day came it turned out to be some obscure part that was needed to make the repair and the repairman didn't have it with him on his truck.  Fortunately, they had the part in stock so it could be overnighted to him for installation.  Except that he was booked for the next 10 days and couldn't come back until then.  (By which time we would have gone on vacation and left the grandparents in a difficult position.)

So the repairman was slated to come today, our first day back.  But while we were on vacation, we received a voicemail and were told it would be Tuesday instead.  Today we got the call from the repair people telling us that the part had been sent to the original repairman but it would now be someone else coming.  And they have to figure out how to get the part to him. So it will be at least Wednesday and probably Thursday before we have any hope of having a working refrigerator.

And did I mention that the first guy concluded which part was needed by process of elimination only?  So it is possible that the new part won't even fix the problem.

The lesson here is that how a company deals with service issues is at least as important with how it creates and sells products.  While I live in New Hampshire, I don't exactly live in the boonies -- just minutes from the state capital.  The fact that a major appliance retailer like Viking can't work with repair people who can service dead refrigerators in a timely fashion is simply absurd.

Going nearly three weeks (and maybe more) without a refrigerator certainly makes me a whole lot less likely to go with Viking in the future. 

Technorati Tags: Viking, appliances, refrigerator, bad service, customer service

Congrats to Shel Holtz and Neville Hobson

Their leading public relations industry podcast, For Immediate Release, has just struck a sponsorship agreement with Ragan Communications.  I couldn't be more pleased for Shel and Neville and for the FIR community.

The deal includes promotion of the FIR podcast by Ragan, which makes it somewhat unique as sponsorship models go.  Hopefully this will help to expand the already considerable audience that FIR enjoys.

As a sponsor of the podcast for the past 7 months or so (hard to believe it has been that long), my own company, CustomScoop, has seen the value that this show creates.  I enjoy being a regular contributor to the show as well as a sponsor, and I look forward to Ragan's participation in the community.

Neville writes today on his own blog about the significance:

We’ve said it before many times - FIR is all about community.

Since we began FIR in January 2005, we have made listeners a constituent element of each H&H Report. Our network of correspondents - Lee Hopkins in Australia; Dan York in Vermont, USA; David Phillips in the UK; and occasionally, Eric Schwartzman in Los Angeles and Sallie Goetsch in the SF Bay area - are constituent elements of what FIR is.

We see our sponsors as constituent elements of the community, too. Now Ragan joins our current sponsor CustomScoop whose CEO Chip Griffin personifies what sponsor-as-community-member really is all about with the Media Monitoring Minute segment in each show.

Kudos to Shel and Neville for creating such a valuable resource for the PR and marketing community interested in the intersection of technology and communications. 

Technorati Tags: For Immediate Release, podcasting, podcast sponsorship, advertising, Ragan Communications, Mark Ragan, Shel Holtz, Neville Hobson, public relations, marketing, marcom, communications

The Digg Mob Reveals Childish, Wild West Side of the Internet

The blogosphere and the rest of the Internet offer tremendous opportunities for people to live, learn, and work better.  Great information resources exist.  Communications tools facilitate interaction.  And an entire infrastructure exists to enable creation of content, products, businesses, and more.  I thrive in this arena both personally and professionally.  I'm a blogger, podcaster, and CEO of a company that monitors traditional and new media online.  In short, I'm an advocate of the Internet and the promise it represents.

Unfortunately, there's also a childish, Wild West side to it all.  A vocal minority would have you believe that the Internet should exist without any rules except the ones that they choose to impose on others.  Like a spoiled child, they revert to tantrums when they don't get their way.

Yesterday, a company hardly known for its stodgy, traditional ways found itself at the center of a firestorm.  Digg removed a link to a post containing information on how to hack an HD-DVD copy protection scheme.  Some debate exists over whether the DMCA takedown notice delivered to Digg would hold up legally, but there's no doubt that sharing a copy protection code represents bad behavior. 

You may not like copy protection -- and this is a debate that has been ongoing since at least the 1980s -- but the fact of the matter is that companies have the right to sell their products in this way.  If you don't like it, there's nothing compelling you to buy it.  I've had my issues with copy protection and licensing schemes over the years.  It's often inconvenient and sometimes costly.  But it's a fact.  And the fact is also that piracy represents a serious issue for content producers and distributors. 

Unfortunately, a significant number of Digg users chose to engage in a digital temper tantrum in which they flooded the site with references to this copy protection code.  Digg surrendered.  Mike Arrington over at TechCrunch questions whether they really had much choice but to give in to the mob:

The users had taken control of the site, and unless Digg went into wholesale deletion mode and suspended a large portion of their users, there was absolutely nothing they could do to stop it.

I think Mike's right.  But that doesn't make the Digg Mob right.  Part of the reason why large companies and mainstream consumers remain leery of the Internet is the perception that it's the Wild West where anything goes.  Unfortunately, a significant number of Digg users decided to reinforce this image.

Because Digg capitulated, they have effectively reinforced the bad behavior.  Just as giving into your child when he's having a temper tantrum means that there will be more in the future, so too does this now effectively wrest control of Digg away from Kevin Rose and Jay Adelson and puts it into the hands of the Digg Mob.  Andy Beal does a nice job of describing this, as well, and discussing its implications.

Kevin tries to paint their capitulation as a principled stand against injustice: "You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company."  That's good spin, but it's not the truth.  The principled position would have been to stand up against the Digg Mob and accept the consequences. 

Where does this bad behavior end?  If the Digg Mob decides it doesn't like paying taxes and some user figures out how to hack the IRS computer system, is it fair game to post that?  And who likes paying tolls? -- perhaps we can post a hack to fool the EZ-Pass system.  Or perhaps a tutorial on how to create a fake credit card that fools the movie theater machines into printing tickets for free? After all, why should a movie cost $15?

It's time to stand up against this kind of insanity.  The Internet promises freedom, not anarchy.

[For more reading on this point see Tom Peters from PC World who addresses the mob justice angle and Jeff Nolan who says you can't just ignore laws you don't like.]

UPDATE: Richard Koman over at SiliconValleyWatcher offers up an excellent post touching on many of the same themes that I did.

Technorati tags: Digg, Kevin Rose, Jay Adelson, Mike Arrington, TechCrunch, Digg Mob, copy protection, DMCA, anarchy

Ownership of Ideas in the Age of Information Overload

Jeremiah Owyang today writes an open letter to a speaker who apparently cribbed from his blog in making a presentation -- without offering any credit:

It’s a professional courtesy to cite others, especially if they’ve worked hard to get the knowledge that they have. Also, it adds to your credibility, as third party sources can validate your point. Since we’re in a very open community, people talk, and people will find out anyways if you use someone’s work without their permission.

First, let me say that Jeremiah is absolutely correct that if you directly take someone's information or ideas and use them in a presentation/speech/article you should attribute them.

The simplest case is in citing concrete information or data. If you copy something, you need to credit it.  But what about ideas?  I read hundreds of blogs posts every day, and I know that my thinking is deeply impacted by what I read.  I often find myself saying things -- perhaps a factual tidbit or a concept -- that I think I may have read elsewhere.  But if I don't recall specially, how do I cite it?

A simple case in point occurred last weekend with me and Jeremiah, ironically.  I had remembered seeing a particular photograph but I couldn't remember where.  I described the photo on my blog and the fact that I didn't know its provenance.  Jeremiah helpfully commented that it was from his blog, so I linked over to it so my readers could see what I was talking about rather than being forced to visualize it.

Obviously, I have no idea the circumstances that motivated Jeremiah to write his post.  I imagine it was something clear-cut and egregious.  But in a world in which many of us are reading huge volumes of material every day, ownership and attribution of ideas becomes a much more difficult concept to wrap our arms around.  It doesn't mean we should ignore it, it just means we have to work that much harder to be aware of the challenge and find ways to address it as well as can be done.

Technorati tags: Jeremiah Owyang, ownership of ideas, attribution, plaidgarism, intellectual property

Humor is Important

Every other Friday, we do what we call a "Payday Pizza Presentation" where one of our team members makes a presentation on a topic we think would be of interest to everyone while we all eat free food.  Sometimes its about internal processes, at other times it may be about industry dynamics, technology trends, social media ideas, etc.

Today, we had a discussion about a project we're working on that is close to launching.  As part of it, the individual making the presentation discussed the goals of the project and introduced it with a parody he created of a Despair.com poster.  (BTW, those guys produce some very funny stuff and I encourage you to check out their offerings.) 

That slide in the presentation -- reproduced above -- had the whole team in stitches.  Just a little reminder that humor plays an important role in the workplace.

Technorati tags: humor, CustomScoop, Despair.com

Virginia Tech Tragedy, Connectedness, and the Blame Game

What happened yesterday at Virginia Tech surely represents one of the most brutal, cruel, and tragic events ever to occur on a college campus.  There are no words that can comfort the victims' families.  There are no actions that can make this situation right.

There are, however, some observations that come out of it, especially for those of us interested in the world of online communications and what it means for the state of connectedness in our society.

Electronic Communications Step Up in a Crisis

CNN repeatedly rolled cell phone video footage of part of the attack.  Citizen "journalists" shared still photos of the scene online and with media outlets.  Students commiserated and communicated via existing social networks like Facebook and MySpace.  Parents got information by SMS, email, and IM from their children.

Clearly, electronic communications among the students and with the outside world changed how this tragedy was covered and will be perceived.  But more important, it made it easier for students to communicate their status to their loved ones, and it provided additional outlets for students to communicate with each other.

The Blame Game

Some allege that Virginia Tech administrators failed to deploy electronic communications fast enough.  Apparently the first email to students went out 90 to 120 minutes after the first shooting.  The fog of crisis won't likely lift for several days so facts remain sketchy.

What troubles me, however, is the constant need to affix blame after a tragedy like this.  I see great value in taking lessons from these events and trying to apply them.  But it seems that there are always those who believe that every tragedy can be avoided.  That's simply not the case.

One talking head on TV yesterday claimed that with instant cell phone notifications the tragedy would have been largely averted.  She went so far as to suggest that Virginia Tech was irresponsible for not having such technology in place. 

Regrettably, tragedies happen.  It is impossible for any institution -- public or private, large or small -- to plan for every contingency.  Clearly, emergency plans should be considered.  Crisis communications plans must be prepared.  But we must all accept that there will be events beyond our comprehension that will occur. 

To blame the Virginia Tech administrators -- at least based on the information available at this moment -- is itself irresponsible and certainly unfair.   This tragedy dwarfs any other similar event in our nation's history.  To say that that university should have been prepared for a shooting of that magnitude strains credulity; in the past 40 years, there have been less than a handful of similar outbreaks on college campuses.

Moreover, to argue that any campus shooting demands a complete university lockdown makes no sense.  Media reports suggest nearly 30,000 students, faculty, and other employees live and work on campus.  A "lockdown" of such magnitude would be exceedingly difficult to execute -- at 30,000 people that's larger than most towns in New Hampshire.  Technology makes such communication easier, but executing on the details is much harder.

Inevitably, colleges and universities will be pressured to implement all sorts of new plans and security measures in the wake of this tragedy.  We would all be wise to remember that we cannot plan for or prevent every possible crisis.  Those that are clearly foreseeable -- a plane crash for an airline, an oil spill for an energy company, a power outage for a utility, a food poisoning outbreak for a restaurant -- should be actively planned for. 

But we must all accept that sometimes the blame relies strictly with the perpetrator.

Technorati tags: Virginia Tech, campus massacre, connectedness, blame game

April Foolishness

Call me a fuddy-duddy.  Call me a curmudgeon.  But I find the flurry of April Fool's blog posts to be annoying.  The best ones make it hard to tell fact from fiction (see TechCrunch & FC), but unfortunately that makes one doubt even real news today. Plenty of people have been caught in the fake news net this weekend, since some apparently decided to make it a two day event.

And whatever happened to the convention of ending these jokes with "April Fools!"? If these blog posts at least ended that way, it would be much better.

Technorati tags: April Fools

I Hate Spam Blacklists

I hate spam.  But I think I hate spam blacklists more.  Earlier today, a company that I do a lot of business with had their email server address added to a spam blacklist.  Since the email hosting provider I use screens inbound email using that blacklist, nobody from that company can email me until they get de-listed. 

That's frustrating because neither I nor any of the employees at the company have any control over it.  A mysterious third-party blacklist maintainer makes the decision using whatever criteria they want.  I'm confident the company in question doesn't engage in any spamming, so whatever has caused it to be added to the list is clearly an error of some sort. 

I've had this happen to mail servers of companies I have run in the past.  Often it has been a case of the blacklist provider adding a whole range of IP addresses from an individual hosting company.  That's the most egregious approach I can think of, as it clearly penalizes customers with servers that have never engaged in spamming.  In another case, one of our servers was assigned a new IP address for the mail server as part of a migration and it turned out that IP address was on one or more blacklists.

So as much as I hate spam, I hate seeing blacklists cause the havoc they do.  (And before you tell me I just shouldn't use a provider that uses a blacklist as part of a screening process, it isn't that simple.  And more to the point even if I didn't use such a provider, others would.  And until blacklist providers operate more in the open and with less of a "guilty until proven innocent" approach, it will still punish too many innocent companies and their employees.)

Technorati tags: spam, blacklist

Remember Occam's Razor

At some point years ago when I was still in school, I learned about Occam's Razor.  A 14th century English Franciscan friar, William of Ockham, is said to have opined about not making things overly complicated when solving problems.  In a nutshell, "the simple solution is almost always the correct one."  (Wikipedia has considerably more background for anyone interested.) 

I suppose today one would be more likely to describe it as the KISS principle.

Though frequently applied in the world of science and math, communicators and entrepreneurs would be wise to adhere to the same advice.  When communicating with an audience -- be it the general public, your customers, or your employees, just be direct, transparent, and honest.  If you're developing software or hardware, focus less on the elaborately elegant solution and instead develop simple and effective code or designs.  In solving tricky business problems, don't let the difficulty of the solution match the challenge of the problem; find the most direct path to a solution and take it.

Seven centuries later, the logic holds up.  If you can think of a simple answer, use it.  Remember Occam's Razor.

Technorati tags: Occam's Razor, Ockham's Razor, entrepreneur, pr, KISS principle, problem-solving

Does the Internet Fundamentally Shift Power?

Jeff Jarvis came away from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland convinced that the mighty don't get it.  He believes they think of the Internet as all about individual action.  He argues:

The internet is more about collective action. It is about connections. It gives us the power to find each other, to join together, to coalesce around issues, ideas, products, desires, and activities as never before, leaping over all borders, real and cultural. That is the historic progression of power that we are witnessing.

But does the Internet really execute a fundamental power shift?  It's an interesting question and I'm not sure we have an answer yet.

Keep in mind I'm not asking what the Blog Mob wants to happen or even thinks will happen, but rather what is currently happening. 

I'd say the verdict is decidedly mixed so far.  The Internet certainly provides leverage and acceleration to existing power struggles.  But the question is does the Internet change the outcome? 

For instance, Dan Rather got pummeled by the blogosphere and it arguably cost him his job.  But did the blogs cause this or merely accelerate what would have happened anyway?  Since we have no access to an alternate universe, it is impossible to say.  Would someone in the mainstream media have questioned the document authenticity?  Would it have still caught on?  I don't know.

Certainly in the political realm there has been lots of smoke regarding the power of the so-called netroots, but precious little evidence that it really makes a difference in the outcome of elections.  Most of the candidates most prominently supported online have gone on to lose.

In the business world companies like Kryptonite have certainly had massive problems related to blogs, but again did it merely accelerate what would have been discovered anyway? 

None of this is meant in any way to diminish the influence of Internet communities and voices.  I remain a strong advocate of engaging in dialogue online -- whether you are an individual, company, non-profit, government official, or pretty much anything else.  All of these groups can learn from conversations with their constituencies. 

Even if the Internet merely leverages and accelerates power shifts -- while also empowering individuals -- it is still important and highly relevant.  But I believe the jury is still out on whether it fundamentally shifts the power structure and creates a world of collective, rather than individual, action.

Technorati tags: davos07, jeffjarvis, collectiveaction, blogs, socialmedia, media, blogmob

Employees Must Grow at the Same Pace as the Company

One of my top employees, a veteran of startups and the startup investment worlds, frequently emphasizes with me the need for employees to grow as fast as the startup they're working for.  In his words, "if you want to grow at 40-50% then your employees need to grow at 40-50%."

It's a powerful point, but not nearly as simple as it sounds.  The burden falls not merely to the employees themselves, of course, but to the startup company as well.  As a CEO of a young company with ambitious growth plans, I am very sensitive to the need to provide the atmosphere needed to help my team grow.  In some cases this may require financial resources, it usually requires time commitment, but it also may require things like mentoring and training.

It also means that we have to build our team smartly.  By bringing on new team members with complementary skill sets, it is possible to help existing employees grow.  This growth can occur by exposure to new ideas and skills, through the natural competitive process, or by team collaboration.

Of course, employees must be open to this sort of growth even if you make the resources available to them.  The trick is to motivate and educate those who are willing and receptive.

And this must be an ongoing effort by the company.  It can't be merely lip service or a sporadic effort.  Focusing on growing the human resource asset should receive focus just like growing the customer base does.

These challenges are especially acute in fast growing companies where employee responsibilities are constantly changing as circumstances and resources demand.  It is not enough to merely grow, then, but also to evolve with the company's changing needs and goals.

I know that I spend a fair amount of time thinking about how to best foster this type of employment environment and figure out what I can do to do my part.  We have experienced considerable staff growth of late and making sure that we do the right things now will be critical to our success in 12 to 24 months.

It's not an easy challenge, but it is one that all fast-growing companies must face up to.

Technorati tags: startup, staffing, growth

Feeding the Funnel

One thing most entrepreneurs remain concerned about at all times is "feeding the funnel."  In other words, introducing prospects to the product or service being offered.  The more qualified prospects exposed to your offering, the more sales you are likely to convert.

This same concern crosses the boundaries between different types of businesses.  B2B and B2C enterprises both have funnels. The size and type of the funnel may vary, of course.  A retailer will need more foot traffic for instance that will likely be interested in his wares -- this is a high number game in most instances.  A professional service business will probably have a very small funnel, on the other hand, as the sales tend to be bigger and more consultative in nature.

For startups and growing companies feeding the funnel is an even greater concern.  The movie Field of Dreams doesn't represent reality in the business world.  You can't just build something and expect the customers to find you.  You always need to be out prospecting and finding new veins to tap into. 

At CustomScoop, we use a variety of methods to feed our funnel.  Word of mouth and Google AdWords have historically been the strongest drivers, but we have also had some success with direct mail, email, cold calling, advertising, earned media (both online and off), and other tactics.  This year we have beefed up our marketing resources to begin to enhance all of these efforts, with an emphasis on some of the secondary ones that show promise but we need to see if they will be successful as they scale up.  In addition, our marketing team is a talented group of individuals with a range of past experience and I expect that they will come up with new, innovative tactics that we can try.

Every entrepreneur needs to spend time thinking about what strategies and tactics will work best to build the sales funnel for each individual company.  Different budgets, industries, and target markets all dictate different approaches.  And just doing the same thing that competitors do isn't necessarily effective.  Keep in mind that the value proposition each company presents can also alter the sales approach.

In the end, it will require a lot of trial and error to figure out what works best.  And it will require continuous tuning.  It also requires every member of your startup or small company team to devote at least some time to feeding the funnel.  This isn't something that should be relegated merely to the sales and marketing teams.  Everyone can add value here through ideas and action. 

Whether you are a one person consulting shop or a venture funded startup with lots of employees, spend some time thinking about the sales funnel every day.

Technorati tags: entrepreneur, entrepreneurship, sales, marketing, sales funnel

The Value of Loyalty

As I was writing about the "hit and run" web traffic phenomenon ("Traffic for Traffic's Sake"), it made me think about the value of loyalty.  That post addressed social network traffic and how many visitors from sites like Digg don't provide any value to a web site because they simply enter quickly and leave just as fast, likely never to return. 

In the current environment, it has become so easy to bounce from one information provider to the next.  To swap products or services with very low switching costs.  To find new bloggers to read, new friends to talk with.

In general, these are all good things to be able to do.  But at the same time, we should all continue to value loyalty and trusting relationships.  I've been fortunate to have those ties on a personal and business level.  My wife and I have known each other for 15 years.  I've worked with my primary business partners for 15 years. 

But I also try to cultivate those relationships with companies with which I do business.  For instance, all of the companies I have founded have used the same managed hosting provider, dating back some 7 or 8 years now.  In the hosting game, that's an eternity.  But that relationship has paid off as I, and later my tech teams, got to know and work with that company as it has grown considerably over the years.  I'm confident they give great service to all of their customers, but I'm just as sure that they go the extra mile for us as one of their earliest and longest clients.

Those who know me well, also know that I work to build relationships based on loyalty at restaurants in the cities I frequent.  For example, in Washington, there's a great restaurant I visit almost every night I'm in town.  Over time, I have gotten to know everyone who works there and many of the other regular customers.  Obviously, they appreciate my business, but I appreciate the food and service they provide.  And when I'm in a pinch and need to accommodate an important business or personal function, they're always ready to help meet whatever crazy request I have.

I can't put a price on the personal or business relationships I've cited here -- nor any of the many others that I didn't mention.  But I can tell you that I've taken real value from all of them on a variety of levels.  Some have obviously been financial, but others provide psychic value of one sort or another. 

In a society in which change is simple and often encouraged, we would all do well to think carefully about the value of loyalty.

The Power of Language

Words matter.  They communicate meaning from one individual to another.  Used effectively, the message will be clear and understandable.  Sometimes, however, words can serve to confuse.  Or worse by leaving the message sender and its recipient with different understanding of the meaning. 

I got to thinking about this when I saw an item in yesterday's CustomScoop PR Blog Jots that referred to a Slate review of Steven Poole's Unspeak.  According to the review by Jack Shafer, Poole argues that unspeak boils down to:

an attempt to say something without saying it, without getting into an argument and so having to justify itself. At the same time, it tries to unspeak—in the sense of erasing, or silencing—any possible opposing point of view, by laying a claim right at the start to only one choice of looking at a problem.

Shafer goes on to cite phrases from the book or his own experience that would be considered unspeak by this definition.  Examples include: pro-life, pro-choice, Friends of the Earth, tax relief, tax burden, extremism, moderate, gridlock, loopholes, and Islamofascism.

Peter Himler points to the review and uses it to challenge the PR profession:

From the perspective of PR practitioners, e.g., those typically accused of creating unspeak, PRSA or some other industry organization should also lay down the gauntlet...to distance the industry from the Beltway spinmeisters who have increasingly tainted the profession. Honest advocacy does not have to be an oxymoron.

Clearly, if someone is trying to actually mislead an audience of readers, listeners, or viewers, that's not right.  But that's different than carefully selecting words to convey an organization's message, be it political or promotional.  Dueling terms like pro-choice vs. pro-life and death tax vs. inheritance tax are not meant to mislead; rather, they clearly and honestly communicate the point of view of each side's advocates. 

One is not left to parse words for understanding with phrases such as these and to malign them as spin or even of questionable ethics would be misguided.  We should fight against deceit, lies, and deception, but we ought not hamstring the ability of professionals to communicate honestly and effectively. 

Saying No

Yesterday I spent some time thinking about saying "no."  It started with Fred Wilson's blog post on the subject.  He talked about a board meeting he attended where he learned that one of the company execs has a favorite saying: "the best answer to most questions is no." 

I had never quite thought of it in that way, but it makes a lot of sense and it mirrors what I try to do in evaluating business decisions.  To me, I have viewed decision making as akin to the judicial system.  Rather than innocent until proven guilty, it is more like "no until proven yes."

Saying no isn't easy.  And often it isn't fun.  As an angel investor, I say no to a lot of fellow startup founders.  As a company CEO, I say no to a lot of good ideas from my team.  And as a parent of a 5 year old and a 2 year old, my kids surely feel like I say no to almost everything!

Like most people, I like to say "yes."  As a result, I take on more than I can handle.  That's just one of the many good reasons that "no" should be the default answer until overwhelmed with reasons to say "yes."

After thinking about it during the day, it was ironic that over dinner with a group of friends last night, we started talking about the "No, David!" book by David Shannon.  It's a great book and was a fitting cap to the day.

Hopefully I will be able to take this reminder to heart and be even better about saying "no" in 2007. 

Journalists Have Always Been Paid for Performance

Steve Rubel essentially puts the question today: is pay for performance journalism right or wrong?  He specifically discussed ZDNet which now reportedly compensates its writers, in part, based on how popular their blogs are.

Here's an excerpt from Steve's take:

Many of the ZDNet blogs are written by veteran journalists turned bloggers. So, I don't anticipate that the performance based compensation changes their ethics one iota. Bloggers such as Foley, Dan Farber and David Berlind have been around a long time and they are highly ethical. They have a nose for news. And news is often what gets clicks. The newer voices on the site may have a taller trust hurdle to climb given this revelation.

To me, the debate is a moot.  Journalists have always been paid for performance.  Web traffic tracking simply makes it easier and more explicit.  But just because magazine or newspaper writers aren't directly paid per click doesn't mean that their employers don't focus on it heavily when they set compensation numbers.

Perhaps the most obvious case is freelancers, who make up a significant share of the writers for many magazines.  These folks are paid based on anticipated interest from readers.  In this case, they are effectively paid in advance but the same ethics situation would apply.  Is a freelancer more likely to pitch an obscure story that may interest few, or shoot for one about a big company with broader appeal?

But it isn't limited to freelance writers.  Staff writers for publications large and small are compensated in part based on how interesting their product is for readers.  Does anyone doubt that Walt Mossberg is compensated better than other tech writers because he is must reading at the Wall Street Journal?  Similarly, David Broder and Bob Woodward don't make more than colleagues at the Washington Post simply because they have been there forever, but because their columns and articles are must-reading and sell papers. 

So let's not get all exercised about the fact that bloggers are getting paid for traffic and may choose their topics accordingly.  All writers do it.

New Media Silo Shops vs. Multidisciplinary Agencies

Shel Israel's post over on Global Neighborhoods a couple of days ago got me to thinking.  The thrust of his posting was that a lot of "recovering publicists" (his words) were now taking to providing PR services in the blogging/new media space.  "We all see huge opportunities and expect to be joined by many other quality consultants."

While I agree that companies need good guidance to help them navigate the blogosphere, and I concur that experts are needed, not your typical PR flak.  But at the same time I am a bit concerned that if this trend takes hold, then the necessary integration between online and traditional communications will become weaker not stronger.

Let me explain these seemingly contradictory views.  Fundamentally, I believe that the same folks who coordinate online messaging should be working on traditional media as well.  Perhaps not the same exact individuals, but the same teams.  In general, I am not a big believer in having one agency do outreach to broadcast and print while another handles blogs and other online opportunities.  I would like to see agencies -- and corporate communications shops -- do a better job of building teams that have the range of skills necessary to provide a unified solution.

Unified messaging is all too often overlooked by companies as they enter the blogosphere.  But there needs to be consistency in the messages being delivered.  People frequently get information from on- and off-line sources simultaneously and if the messages differ, it will lead to confusion -- or worse, distrust.

None of this should take away from Hubbub or Crayon or any similar agencies out there, but I do hope the trend is toward integrating these efforts within multidisciplinary agencies, rather than moving forward as lone new media silos.

Are the Reports of Social Media's Death Greatly Exaggerated?

Steve Rubel seems to be spending the last week of the year writing obituaries as part of what he hopes will become self-fulfilling prophecies. First, he killed the page view.  And now it is the term "social media" that he intends to send to the grave.

I've already opined on the page view, now let me tackle social media.

The core of Steve's argument seems to be that social media as we know it today lives on, but the term has outlived its usefulness.  In his post and in the comments, he argues that with Robert Scoble on the Edwards campaign plane and other related advances for social media authors, it is time to consider it all part of the greater media universe without segregating social media to a different part of the bus.

Note that Steve is not killing off social media itself (as I believe some are interpreting his comments), but rather the term.  Social media, in the form of blogs, podcasts, online video, and the like are clearly hear to stay.  The mainstream media has increasingly adopted these tools themselves (newspapers across America are adopting blogs and podcasts, and even Saturday Night Live launched original-ish content on YouTube recently).

Honestly, I think far too much thought goes into labels such as these.  Now I know that they have significance in how people think, and as a longtime writer I understand the power of language. 

That said, I happen to be more open to the term "online media" to incorporate any activity conducted on the Internet by any outlet -- whether it is a lone blogger or a major daily newspaper.  I do believe that sort of segregation makes sense because today we already commonly use terms like "print media" and "broadcast media."  Somehow, we have to distinguish that which is said on the web, just as we do with things generated by a printing press and sent over the airwaves.

Net result is that I end up agreeing in part and disagreeing in part with Steve.  Let's abolish the specific "social media" term and incorporate it into the broader "online media" designation. 

Google Blogsearch Tops Technorati ... Or Does It?

Hitwise reports that for the first time Google Blogsearch has generated more pages views in a week than Technorati.  So Technorati is now the second place blog search web site, right? 

Maybe, maybe not.  Mike Arrington over at TechCrunch points out that the comScore numbers disagree.  Unfortunately, the comScore numbers appear to be highly erratic and demand some sort of explanation from that web traffic monitoring firm.  Until they explain the wild swings in Technorati's numbers, one has to imagine it will just provide more fuel to the company's detractors.

Frankly, hearing that Google is now coming out on top in blog search isn't a great surprise.  In many respects, they were probably already the top search traffic driver to blogs, just through their regular results which numerous folks have pointed out tends to favor blogs pretty heavily.  Given the large mass of traffic that Google generates and the huge brand ID that it has, it would be no surprise that more people are turning to them for blog-specific search. 

One has to assume that Google could really slam the door on any debate simply by making blog search accessible from their home page, rather than through the "more" menu.

Of course, the real question is not so much what the traffic numbers are but what the greater business meaning is.  Mark Evans asks the insightful question, "What's Technorati's M&A future?"  I have felt for a while -- and think I wrote it somewhere but can't find it this morning -- that Technorati should leverage its position to make itself more distinctive.  Competing head-on with Google isn't the way to go.  So my view is they shouldn't worry about who gets more page views -- though it's hard for them to ignore the blog swarm on this topic today -- and instead focus on what will make them unique going forward. 

Blog monitoring and analysis is becoming increasingly sophisticated and Technorati has some role to play in that arena, but it may or may not be as a "straight" blog search engine.  My own company, CustomScoop, has provided enterprise blog monitoring services for the past several years, so I'm not really encouraging David Sifry to come be a competitor in that space, but realistically it's one he's probably already looking at. 

Our own efforts have recently gone beyond simple blog monitoring to include higher-level analysis in the form of BuzzPerception reports that detail tone and trends in the blogosphere as it relates to individual clients.  I would guess that's probably not the best fit with Technorati's mindset since it relies in part on human analysis and not purely technology.  But who knows?

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in 2007.

Blog Mob Justice is Wrong

If you take one look over at TechMeme today, you'll see that there's yet another ruckus in the blogosphere, this time over whether or not it is appropriate for a company to give away sample products to bloggers.  The rhetoric of the Blog Mob, predictably, has launched itself to near hysterical proportions with accusations of "bribery," cries of "scandal," and lamentations about a PR agency's "ethics."  Still others choose to ridicule those bloggers who received the gifts since none appear to have exhibited moral shock and outrage and returned or destroyed the gifts.

It's all hogwash.  Companies have been handing out free samples for ages.  Obviously in this case, they are more expensive free samples, but hey, that's what the companies involved are selling. 

A considerable portion of the argument seems to hinge on the notion of much of the Blog Mob that bloggers are journalists.  That's absurd.  While we all may have problems with the mainstream media, they're a whole different animal.  The same standards that apply to traditional journalists do not and should not apply to bloggers. 

I wonder, for instance, how many in today's Blog Mob reached out to the companies involved to solicit a response before posting a vicious attack?  Or the PR agency?  Can any of the Blog Mob substantiate their claims as to WHY the free samples were handed out?  Do they have an internal memo or email that describes the intent or are they just guessing? 

The answer to all of these questions is likely no.  And that's fine.  Blogs are a conversation, they aren't journalism.  The standards are different.

Now, that said, the bloggers involved SHOULD disclose the free sample if they choose to write about it.  It's not a journalism thing, it's simply the right thing to do.  But to allege that accepting the free sample -- or giving it -- is a bribe or ethically wrong is ridiculous.

Is it unethical for a perfume company to distribute free samples in magazines?  What about the sample soap that comes in the Sunday newspaper insert?  Or the free boxes of detergent or other products that companies may mail to consumers?  Or the free food samples provided at grocery stores? Is it unethical for a web site to give away a few months of service for free? 

All of these activities are designed to build the customer base and generate positive buzz for a company.  And I doubt the Blog Mob would object to them. But for some reason it's all different when bloggers are involved.

It's ironic that many in the Blog Mob are strident in their calls for companies to engage more in the blogosphere, but their aggressive attacks on legitimate outreach efforts no doubt scare off many companies from participating.  By all means provide feedback on the methods companies are using to engage the blogopshere, but let's dial back the rhetoric and make it constructive criticism rather than vitriolic, personal attacks. 

Today is only the latest example of Blog Mob justice gone astray.  A civil conversation will do more to improve the discourse in the blogosphere and enhance the level of engagement between companies and consumers.

When Should I become an Entrepreneur?

I got a great question by email a few days ago.  The email was from a college student who has been offered a job with a consulting startup but a friend is lobbying him to start their own company.  His question: "Is it better to roll the dice as early as possible, or go out and get some industry experience first?"

To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart (who famously opined forty years ago on the subject of obscenity): I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

In other words, there's no right or wrong answer as to when to become an entrepreneur.  But here are some questions to ask yourself.

• Are you in a position to work brutally long hours, devote tremendous enthusiasm, and risk virtually everything you have (financially and personally)?  While I think it is an exaggeration to say you can lose your shirt in a startup, you can lose just about everything else.  Startups are hard financially and personally.  You pour all your time and money into something that may or may not ever be successful.  A lot of people may not understand that, but to entrepreneurs, it makes perfect sense.
• Do you and your partners have a great idea that solves a real problem?  Don't start a company with a really cool idea unless you understand how it will be used in the real world.  There's lots of gee whiz products out there, but to be successful you need to create a product or service that leaves people wanting to come back for more.
• Do you understand the problem you're solving and how you're solving it?  Nothing will kill a startup faster than a group of founders that don't understand what they're doing.  Now that's not to say you need all the answers.  Being a first-time entrepreneur is a serious learning experience and anyone who thinks they're truly prepared for it is kidding themselves.  There are so many new challenges you will face that you can't help but learn on the job every day.  But you still need to truly understand the problem you're solving and how your technology works.  Otherwise you'll be wandering in the wilderness unable to make decisions about how to find your way home.
• Is the problem one you've experienced yourself so you can develop and sell from the heart?  You need to understand the problem you're solving and how you're doing it.  But it is even better to solve a problem you yourself has experienced.  It's very hard to jump right in and solve a problem for a pet owner or a musician if you can't stand animals and the only music you know is the stuff you sing in the shower.
• Do you have one or more partners willing to go in with you?  Especially as a first-time entrepreneur, you don't want to go it alone.  You need the support of someone else to tell you you're crazy.  Or to keep your spirits up when you think things are headed for failure. And to give you a second opinion and bounce ideas off of.  Plus, if you can't find anyone willing to be your partner, the idea may not be that good anyway.

The bottom line is there's no right answer as to when to start.  When you're younger and unattached, it is easier to take risks.  You have boundless energy and enthusiasm.  You have yet to be made cynical by life experiences.  You don't yet know enough to question risk-taking.

With more experience, of course, you have a better professional network to tap into.  You have seen how more companies run and what they do right and wrong.  You have broader domain experience in whatever industry you've been working in.  You probably have some money tucked away to use to help fund the startup.

There have been plenty of successful entrepreneurs with and without experience.  You need to decide for yourself when you're ready and when you have the right idea to execute.

Grow vs. Build as the Path to Greatness

I was recently reminded of a conversation I had with a VC and entrepreneur that I have a great deal of respect for.  In a conversation about a year ago, we were discussing various paths to greatness -- or at least business success -- and spent a bit fo time talking about growing a successful, existing business versus launching an exciting new one with great potential.

Being generally of a high-risk, high-reward mindset, I set out to make the case for launching something new.  Harvest the benefits of success and use it as a safety net to allow higher-risk activities that may well pay off down the road.  Why not roll the dice when you're playing with the house's money?

My friend countered that building highly successful startups isn't an easy thing to be taken lightly.  He agreed that the success of an existing company could be used to achieve greater things, but he argued that it makes more sense to leverage the existing business to grow it, rather than setting out on a new course. 

His theory was that it would be easier to multiply current success than to replicate it.

A conversation I had yesterday with a colleague caused me to revisit this debate in my own mind.  As someone who has been involved in the launch of more than a half dozen companies -- most of which have been successful (some more than others) and none of which have (yet) flopped -- my genetic makeup seems to lean toward Build. 

But I can't kick the nagging feeling that my friend may be right and perhaps I should spend a little more time focusing on helping guide some of these companies to bigger and broader success rather than constantly searching for the proverbial Next Big Thing. 

It's not an easy call.  Other serial entrepreneurs seem to have the same bug.  For instance, the Digg guys, Jay Adelson and Kevin Rose, have yet to even truly reap success with Digg yet area also working to build another startup, Revision3.

But I'm beginning to think I may want to try a different course and see where it leads.

 

Technorati tags: serial entrepreneur, next big thing, digg, kevin rose, jay adelson, entrepreneurship, entrepreneur

Google Chaos

Fortune has an interesting article about the chaos at Google (which they hope is organized).  The fact of the matter, though, is that Google has really only had one serious success (search ads) and seems to be wandering in the wilderness a bit right now hoping to stumble upon their Next Big Thing.

If you look at the company today, it doesn't even appear that they're seriously continuing to innovate in the search arena for which they are well known.  Instead, they have a plethora of beta products and as is pointed out in the article (and is something Larry Page recognizes), they do a poor job of letting the public know what they are seriously working on versus which have been released just as an experiment.

Now, these aren't survival concerns for the company. They churn out cash right now as if it grows on trees.  But to be successful in the future, I believe they need to be a bit more organized about their growth and be sure that they are continuing to innovate in their core area of success.  To that end, I think one of the perhaps overlooked advances they are working on is the AdWords style advertising model being created for local radio across the country.  I think that holds great promise, though it will be interesting to see how they establish proper content controls (radio ads appear on a regulated medium as opposed to web ads which still enjoy a largely regulation-free environment).

Certainly something interesting to watch.

Tags: Google, Larry Page, AdWords, AdSense, radio ads, Fortune, chaos

Understanding Multimedia Adoption Trends

In keeping with my recent series of posts about trends in the current Internet space and the need for entrepreneurs and investors to better understand the world outside the tech bubble, I thought it might be helpful to examine multimedia technology adoption and penetration trends.

I compiled the chart below from data available on the US Census Bureau's web site. 

I see several interesting things in this chart.  First, it demonstrates that cable TV adoption  seems to be leveling off at around 70 percent.  In fact, over the past 15 years, there has only been about a 10 point increase in the total percentage of households with cable.

This is interesting for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it suggests to me that this may well be the point at which broadband could begin to level off.  There are similarities between the two technologies in that they are infrastructure-oriented and would seemingly appeal to a similar set of consumers.  Now, wireless broadband could help to overcome some of the current constraints on cable TV penetration and permit more rural consumers to access broadband Internet services, but I think this remains an open question.

It is also interesting to note that VCR adoption took off much faster and has achieved much greater ubiquity than cable TV.  Part of this is likely the lack of availability of cable services in some areas, as well as the fact that it represents a monthly cost to the consumer whereas a VCR is (at least in its purest form) a one-time expenditure.

But one should not overlook the fact that in 1984, about the same percentage of households had VCRs and personal computers (10.7 and 8.2 percent respectively).  But where VCR adoption took off, PC adoption has grown at a much slower pace.  Obviously it is a more complicated and expensive technology, but the trend is nevertheless worth considering.

The latest numbers also suggest that most folks who have a computer also have Internet access.  But only about a third of computer owners have broadband today.  While that number will certainly grow and numerous studies have estimates as to how quickly it will do so, this is an important cautionary note to startups focused on broadband-intensive applications.  The fact of the matter is that a significant number of consumers still have slower Internet access at home and they must not be overlooked in a mass-market applicaiton.  But to all of the entrepeneurs and developers and designers out there: when was the last time you used dial-up access? (Apologies to VC Matt Rightmire of Borealis Ventures whom I interviewed recently and discovered he has no broadband at his home.) We all must work to put ourselves better in the shoes of consumers to be certain we're delivering the best products possible.

Obviously, those who focus more on B-to-B solutions are likely to have fewer issues with dial-up access by customers, but consumer-oriented businesses cannot overlook these stark statistics.

None of this is meant to put a damper on the spirit of web-based entrepreneurs.  That is, of course, the very space I live and breathe every day.  But examining the reality of existing trends will help all of us to build stronger companies based on a better understanding of the broader marketplace.

The Death of the Live Interview?

Bloggers' distrust of the mainstream media threatens one of the most useful tools available: the live interview.  Some prominent bloggers like Jason Calacanis and Mark Cuban have taken to requiring interviews to be conducted by email -- a medium which makes it more difficult to build a rapport between the interviewer and his subject and also dispenses with the spontaneity of both questions and answers that makes live interviews everything they are.

In responding to questions to email, it is all too easy to polish and think through every answer.  While this may help to avoid potential minefields, it deprives everyone -- the participants and the audience alike -- of the value of a true give and take.

As someone who spent a lot of time in professional politics, I understand the pitfalls of interviews and the risks of being misquoted, quoted out of context, or simply misconstrued.  But the way to resolve those issues is to work on building a rapport with the interviewer.  If someone truly has an ax to grind, simply don't speak to them at all. 

Jason Calacanis says he will make exceptions when he "really trusts" a journalist.  And that's really the start of the solution -- build that trust, don't walk away from the live interview.

Inside the Bubble Thinking

I spent the better part of a decade working "inside the Beltway" (the insider's term for the Washington, DC area).  Most who work there for any length of time develop a healthy concern for "inside the Beltway thinking."  That is, being overly concerned with what other professionals think, say, and do.  When that happens, the focus on what grassroots America -- "beyond the Beltway" in DC parlance -- believes gets lost.  This usually leads to bad decision making.

The current Web 2.0 hype chamber often consumes those of us who live in the world of high-tech entrepreneurship.  Like the Bubble Boy of unfortunate 80's fame, our universe isn't as large as I'd like it to be.  The danger comes, though, when we believe it is. 

I'd like to think I learned the lessons of Beltway thinking and can now avoid "inside the Bubble thinking."  I admit it is very difficult. 

I read TechMeme and follow what's happening on Digg.  I follow the blow by blow of the Jason Calacanis/Kevin Rose soap opera and hunger for the latest installment of Greg Galant's Venture Voice podcast to hear from founders in their own words.  I read Steve Rubel and Scoble religiously.  I devour the latest news from TechCrunch to see what's new.  I chuckle as much as the next geek over Ken Yarmosh's t-shirts, mugs, etc.  Heck, I know more about how Brad Feld spends his time than my own brother.  And I take seriously the restaurant recommendations I get from reading Fred Wilson and his wife, Gotham Gal.

Every morning I get my news via RSS feeds -- first my Red Sox news, then the blogs noted above and more.  All told, I read something on the order of 170 feeds every day.  I go to conferences like DEMO and follow others like Gnomedex through web video and audio feeds, just to get my fix and spur the creative juices.

I learn a lot from all of this, but so much of what's covered in these sources is inside baseball to the extreme.  Seriously, how many people outside the Bubble care about the Windows Vista startup sound?  And the recent collapse of calendar site Kiko (and its subsequent sale on eBay) shows the risk in creating a startup so heavily dependent on Bubble Boys and Girls. 

Ironically, Paul Graham -- who invested in Kiko and is widely regarded as a pretty smart guy -- recently took Google to task for this very notion:

So far Google only seems to be good at building things for which Google employees are the canonical users. That's because they develop software by using their own employees as their beta users-- sometimes for years before they release to the general public. This works well when the product is something smart hackers would use at work, and not so well otherwise.

Yet Graham points out in the same post "a large fraction of Kiko's users had Gmail addresses."  Now we all understand the early adopter concept, but a successful startup needs to strive for "real" users right from the get-go in most cases.

Not everyone uses RSS (Business 2.0 recently reported that only about 12 million of the 295 million monthly page views on the New York Times web site came from their RSS feeds).  Most real consumers don't even know what a blog is let alone read them.  They've never heard of Gmail and wouldn't imagine to use an online calendar.  To them, a wiki is that thing on Survivor.

Real consumers don't care about being able to tag their photos, they just want to share them easily with friends and get prints made.  The folks who will actually end up generating revenue for startups don't care if they can connect to a WiFi network at the ballpark or that the Motorola Q isn't as cool as everyone thought it was going to be.  And the death of Boeing's in-flight Internet service (Connexion) should be a clear signal to all of us that not everyone subscribes to the notion of constant connectivity.

I write this not to inspire gloom and doom thinking, but to help me -- and my readers -- make a much-needed reality check.  We constantly need to be asking ourselves, who are we creating our products for?  It's one thing to put in a couple of neat features to help get some early adopter juice, but the core product must be designed with the eventual customer in mind.  (And those customers need to be using the product as soon as possible to ensure the early adopters don't take over the product and drive it in a direction that's not helpful to the goal of marketing to a wider audience.)

It's time we all look outside our Bubble.

UPDATE: Rick Segal offered a similar admonition over the weekend.