Scott Porad

I take lots of notes. Then, from time to time I go back and review them, which I was doing a few moments ago. I found one that I really liked…it really seems to pack a lot of punch in just a few words:

In the future, power will flow toward the artists who can build an audience independently. It’s always been that way, but creators have more tools now.

What I meant by “tools” was that the Internet and social media allow artists (and others, like brands) to connect directly with consumers thereby building audiences independently.

In other words, the power of the gatekeepers is in decline. He gate keepers are not the same kingmakers they once were. Those who learn how to capture the power that is slipping from their grasp will be the kingmakers of the future.

We were recently interviewing for a position at Cheezburger, and a candidate was describing a difficult situation at one of his previous jobs.  I asked, “How did you resolve it?”

“Well, I’ve never seen the world’s problems solved without communicating,” he replied.

I practically wanted to hire him on the spot.

—

One of the things I’ve been thinking about quite a bit lately is putting together good teams.  (Randy recently suggested a book called Beautiful Teams, but I haven’t had time to read it.)

More specifically, I’ve been thinking about when startup teams start to grow beyond the point where everybody can sit in the same room.  There are three dilemmas that have been on my mind.

Specialization versus Generalization

When there are only a handful of people, specialization is something that’s hard to afford.  Instead, a startup needs jacks- and jills-of-all-trades.

The thing about these jacks and jills is that they’re hard to interview for because most of what being one of them entails are intangible qualities: a good attitude for doing anything and being flexible, and the ability to figure things out on your own.

Ben is always suggesting doing some sort of screening or “testing” to find candidates with these qualities, but have yet to think of a screen or test that will find these types of people.  I would completely be open to your suggestions in the comments.

Organizations in Flux

Another dilemma has to do with building teams at an organization in flux.  One quarter your building widgets, but the next quarter you’ve pivoted based on the “product/market fit” and you’re building gidgets.

At a more stable company, or where you have larger organizations (and specialization), it’s much easier to say, “we need a widget stamper” and hire someone against that need.  But, at smaller companies you’re always looking for people who could potentially fill two or three roles.  “I need a widget stamper who could also manage the widget stamping team, and occasionally make gidgets.”  Again, this raises the degree of difficulty on hiring.

Functional versus Tactical

A functional team is, for example, the design team—all of the designers report into a design manager.  A tactical team is a “project team”—in this case, there is a cross-functional group that works together on a specific task.

In a startup, tactical teams are absolutely the way to go.  In a small startup like Cheezburger, we’re basically just one tactical team all working together.  But, as startups get bigger, having one giant tactical team is impractical.

This is illustrated by the following riddle: “If it takes 2 people an hour to dig a hole 10 feet deep, how long does it take 6 people?”  As anybody who has ever worked on a group project knows, the answer is not “20 minutes”.  At best, it’s “one hour” and more likely it’s “an hour and a half”.

As a result, the practical thing to do is split the group into multiple tactical teams.  Yet, there are two challenges I see with tactical teams.  First, is the obvious, “who reports to who?”  Is it realistic to expect a project manager to supervise a developer or designer?

The second has to do with actual quality: at some point, as you have more than one tactical team, there has to be someone ensuring the “quality of the craft”.  In other words, someone making sure that all the developers, designers, etc. are working to the same standards of quality across all the teams.

Typically, what ends up happening is that there are functional teams and tactical teams.  The official org chart has functional teams, but as a day-to-day matter people work on projects tactical teams.

The introduction of functional teams means hiring functional team managers, which adds overhead, both monetary and organizational.  A startup might be able to afford the monetary overhead, but it’s the organizational overhead that is the killer.

Why? All of the sudden, there are do-nothing-managers having meetings with other do-nothing-managers about what the actual do-something-workers should be doing.  In the meantime, the do-somthing-workers sit around and wait to be told what to do.  At this point, most likely, your startup stops being nimble and dies.

Square Pegs

These issues are murky and challenging and there isn’t a right or wrong answer.  These dilemmas have probably been around for generations—I bet the bible even has suggestions on org charts!

Yet, all of this confusion leads me to a final thought: earlier in my career, if there were a team member who didn’t fit—a person who was competent, but who was a square peg in round hole—my inclination was to replace that person with someone who is a better fit.  I regret some of those decisions because now, with more experience, I see that that as a mistake.

The biggest challenge in hiring people is finding someone who is a good fit.  Hiring for a startup is risky and hiring mistakes are expensive, both financially and organizationally.  As a result, these days my inclination is the other way: if your team has someone that is “good”…someone who is competent, who works hard and is committed to their jobs, who is pleasant to work with and willing to be flexible and learn new things…then find a place for them.

A startup is probably better off with these people than with the unknown of a perfect widget maker who probably has some other set of issues that, as a startup manager, you’ll have to deal with.  In other words, it’s the devil you know versus the devil you don’t!

Dave McClure recently wrote a blog post that everyone is going gaga over…here’s the money line:

Gradually we are discovering that the default revenue model on the internet should probably be the simplest one — that is: basic transactions for physical or digital goods, and recurring transactions (aka subscriptions) for repeat usage.

This is not new.  In fact, it’s the same shift that happened after the first dotcom bust.

When we launched drugstore.com, it wasn’t initially clear if the core of the business was e-commerce product transactions or health and wellness information (like WebMD) or an online health magazine.  But, when the economy tanked, the answer became crystal clear: e-commerce was the core of the business because it was the actual way to make revenue.

Now, we’re in Web 2.0 and we’re doing the same thing over again.  The economy has tanked, people need to make money, and…oh, look at that, charging for things is the best way to do it!

In other words, Web 2.0 is the same thing as Web 1.0, it’s just that the players and technologies are different.

There’s an old phrase, “those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it”.  I’m not sure if this is “doom” versus the realization that every business cycle has similar characteristics and phases.  In another 5 years, this phase of Web 2.0 will shake out, and then we’ll be on to some new technologies and Web 3.0.  Rinse, lather, repeat.

From there, Dave goes on to explain who—as part of this great revenue realignment—is going to win.  His points on the winners and losers are interesting.  I can’t say one way or the other if his predictions are correct, but his trendspotting is right on.

To buy an iPad, or to not buy an iPad, that is the question.

The answer is no.

I love the idea.  It would live on my sofa and everyone in my family would use it.  Instantly, it would become an indispensable part of our every day life.  Five years ago my friend Lee had a NEC Tablet which just ran ordinary Windows and used a stylus, but I thought it was awesome.  A perfect integration into everyday life.

So, why won’t I be buying an iPad?

In first place: no front-facing camera.  I’m sitting on the couch, watching a show or a game, I want to talk to my friend about it…video chat.  Awesome.  Except I can’t.  I have to get up to my computer.  In other words, it’s not a complete device.

Runner up: no multi-tasking.  Can’t write an e-mail and listen to audio online simultaneously.  Can’t write a document and research it simultaneously on the web.

Honorable mention: poor typing interface.  I’ll reserve my complete opinion until I have a chance to try it out, but from what it looks like in order to type I will have to set it down.  Lame.  I’m lying on the couch, watching a show our a game, I want type an e-mail.  Except I can’t.  I have to sit up and put it on my lap to type.  Major inconvenience.  In other words, it’s a laptop.

Maybe iPad 2.0 will have these missing features, but as far as I’m concerned without them it’s not a complete device.

Update: overnight, another deficiency occurred to me: the iPad needs to have a built-in kick-stand.  How am I going to watch a movie?  Hold in up for two hours?  It seems too heavy for that.  Set it up on a chair?  How will I be able to get the right angle on it?

I would say that at least twice a week a friend, acquaintance or randomly introduced person asks me for a big of guidance on their web site.  The two most common things I’m asked are:

• I have a web site, but how do I get it to rank higher in Google?
• My small company wants to start a web site, but we want to spend any money, so what should we do?

I’ll skip the first question, but here’s my pretty standard answer these days for the second.

To start, I always recommend Wordpress for any blog or small web site.*

1. Cheapest and easiest thing is http://wordpress.com which is free, and you can get something like http://yoursite.wordpress.com up and running in less than 5 minutes. (If you want something like http://www.yoursite.com or http://blog.yoursite.com it costs $10/year.)
2. If would like more control than Wordpress.com will give you, then the next step up is http://page.ly. It’s about $15/month, but very easy to use.
3. If you want even more control, then you’ll want to get your own web hosting account and install Wordpress on it.   That will give you more control and flexibility than Page.ly, but is more time consuming and requires some technical expertise.   I wouldn’t recommend this until you’ve experimented with #1 and #2 first to see if they fit your needs.

I’m grateful that these people cross my path because all too often they hire a web developer to build them a custom site for thousands of dollars.  Oh, brother, do I have stories I could tell…disaster stories.

The truth is that Wordpress will solve the needs of most people.  Or, at least, it’s a great place to start.

The one knock I’ll make about Wordpress is that many of the themes are “blog-oriented”, while many small businesses just need a simple site…no blog required.  I’ve hacked a number of themes for this purpose, and am thinking of releasing my own theme that is perfect for the sole proprietor or small business who just needs a few pages telling about their business.  If you know of any of these themes, please let me know.

* – Disclosure: I have no financial interest in any of these companies, and none of these links are affiliate links.  I have no financial interest in these recommendations—they are genuine.

I am on the board of a local non-profit.  Like the broader economy, and many non-profits, finances have been tight.  The good news is that our 2010 budget is looking pretty okay.  The not-so-good news is that our 2011 projections are not so rosy.  As a result, we met over the weekend to discuss and plan.

A pastor from a local church with a lot of experience in non-profit management and fundraising who counsults with other non-profits came to meet with us.  We had a long meeting, but he shared a few key thoughts on fundraising that somehow seemed applicable to the world of startups:

• Philanthropy directly correlates to volunteerism.
• If you need money, ask someone for advice.  If you need advice, ask someone for their money.
• People will not contribute to a non-profit because it has needs; they will contribute because it meets their needs.
• Fundraising is about having relationships…with people who make decisions about money.

How I word translate these to startups:

• Revenue from customers directly correlates to participation.
• If you need to raise money for your startup, build a circle of advisors to can guide you.
• Customers will pay for your service because it meets their needs.*
• Business is mainly about relationships, but revenue is about relationships with people who make spending decisions.

A final note on the item I starred (*): Kathy Sierra extends this thought in a way that I am fond of.  She says making great products isn’t just about serving customer needs…it’s about making them feel that they’re more excellent for using your software.

I’m have a friend with a web site who sells laptop cases online (which he designs and has manufactured in China). In the month of January, year-over-year his sales are down quite a bit, so he asked me to help him figure out why.

First, I checked to see if visits were up or down. He has an increase in visitors, and his search engine traffic is way up, so that’s not the problem.

Next, I looked at conversion. Way down. I mean double-digit down. This explains the difference in revenue.

Digging a little further, since search traffic was up, but conversion down, I took a look at his top keywords. For his top keyword, you could tell they were highly qualified customers because they were searching for “ laptop cases”. Even for these types of visitors, conversion was down.

This made no sense to me. He hasn’t changed his site, yet highly qualified prospects were converting at a much lower rate. How could this be?

The answer lied in acting like a user. In went to Google, and searched just like a user would. His site was the first three natural results–awesome, the SEO is working.

The problem was that Amazon, Target and others who resell his product were buying all the paid results. And you know what else they were doing? They were selling his product at a discount!

The exact same product that he was selling for $99 wad on sale at Amazon for $64! All thing considered equal, why would a potential customer have any reason to buy from him when Amazon, Target, et al, are completely trusted sources?

The lesson here is that not all conversion problems are solved by twiddling with your web site. You can redesign your landing pages and checkout flows and what have you until the cows come home, but it won’t make one lick of difference if the store next door is selling the same thing for less.

It reminds me of the expression: to a man with a hammer, everything is a nail. All too often companies spend time fixing something that will never, ever solve the problem because it’s the only “hammer” available. Or, if not the only, then the most convenient.

A web site is just one of the many components to an online retail business–it is the equivelant of the physical store in the real world. Price, product, and location are the other components. All of these work together to convert ptospects to customers.

This applies not only to online retail, but to all businesses that are selling goods or services. The web site is only part of the equation.

• Case Study: Continuous deployment makes releases non-events

I just took a few days off. And by “off” I mean “completely off the grid”. No phone, no e-mail, no Twitter or Internet or anything. Nada.

It takes me a few days to let go of all these things.  Truth be told, the Internet is part of my life—my entire professional career has been spent working on the web—so it’s like turning part of me off.  But, I think that is healthy for me, and it helps clear my mind to see with more perspective.

Oh, what did I see, you ask?

For one, that the world rolls on just fine.  Online, people keep on tweeting and Facebooking and doing whatever it is that they do.   At the office, emergencies were handled and LOL continued to be had.  At home, the garbage was not taken out, so I will have to pay an extra $5 this week for a second can.  Not exactly what I would call a tragedy.

Another thing I saw was how the pace of everyday life really is stressful. I mean, as a culture, we get seriously wound up with stuff to do.  Deadlines and schedules and goals and deliverables.  I hadn’t even been back 24 hours and I’m already thinking about all the stuff I have to do.

Clean the gutter above the garage that is filled with pine needles.  Take the car to have the bumper repaired.  Go to the doctor to have my sore thumb checked out.  And, of course, take out the garbage.

The list goes on. And on.  The blood pressure rises.  The rat race begins.

I’m going to try to bring a little of that vacation spirit back to my every day life, maintain relaxation for a while.  I’m not entirely sure how, but I have a few ideas that I’m starting with (and, please, share any other ideas you have in the comments).

To begin, I’m going to focus on scheduling my time better.  Instead of constant threads in my mind worrying about when I’m going to get stuff done, I’m going to try putting those things on a calendar.

And, I’m going to try to keep my inbox empty.  Instead of having a worrysome backlog of messages to respond to, I’m going to treat each as a task and move it onto a schedule (or a list of unscheduled things).

I suppose both of these are just really techniques for getting the clutter out of my mind and on to paper (or virtual paper, as it were).  This reminds me of a book I read a few years ago called The Power of Now by Eckhard Tolle.  I don’t remember exactly what it was about, but it had something to do with clearing one’s mind.  I also recall having a conversation with my friend Monica afterward, about the book, and she uttered the phrase “leave your mind alone”.  That seems fitting now.

• Romance 101: How to Use Feminine Words That Sell