Author: Paul Wallbank

  • Are Australians too risk adverse for startups?

    Are Australians too risk adverse for startups?

    Last week I had coffee with Clive Mayhew who chairs the board of Sky Software, a Geelong based student management cloud service.

    Clive covered a lot of interesting aspects about Sky’s business; including the opportunities for regional startups, government support and his experiences in Silicon Valley during the dot com boom. All of which I’ll write up in more detail soon.

    One notable point Clive raised was how he struggles to get Australian staff to take equity in the business – people want cash, not shares.

    The question Clive raises is why and that question is worth exploring in more depth.

    My feeling is that it’s a cultural thing related to property – four generations of Australians have been bought up believing housing is the safest way and surest way to build wealth.

    As a consequence young Australians are steered into getting a ‘safe’ job and plunging as much money into accumulating property equity as early as possible. Just as mum and granddad did.

    Even those who don’t want to play the property game are affected as property speculation pushes up prices and rents; the landlord or bank won’t accept startup stock to pay the bills so employees need cold, hard cash to keep a roof over their heads.

    The other angle is tax and social security policies, through the 1970s and 80s various business figures used share option schemes to minimise their taxes and successive Australian governments have passed laws making it harder for businesses to offer these incentives.

    Interestingly this not only affects the Silicon Valley tech startup business model but also hurts the aspirations of Australia’s political classes to establish the country, or at least Sydney, as a global financial centre.

    Putting aside the fantasies of Australia’s suburban apparatchiks – which if successful would see the country being more like Iceland or Cyprus than Wall Street or the City Of London – it’s clear that the existing government and community attitudes toward risk are reducing the diversity of the nation’s economy.

    That the bulk of the nation’s mining and agricultural investment, let along startup funds, comes from offshore despite the trillion dollars in compulsory domestic superannuation savings is a stark example of risk aversion at all levels of Aussie society, government and business.

    For those Australian entrepreneurs prepared to take risks, the risk adverse nature of most people becomes an opportunity as it means there’s local markets which aren’t being filled.

    The problem for those local entrepreneurs is accessing capital and that remains the biggest barrier for all small Australian businesses.

    How this works out in the next few decades will be interesting, it’s hard not to think though that Australians are going to have to be weaned off their property addiction – whether this takes a harsh recession, retired baby boomers selling down their holdings or government action remains to be seen.

    In the meantime, don’t base your business plan on staff taking equity as part of their employment package.

    Similar posts:

  • Too many presidents spoil the enterprise computing broth

    Too many presidents spoil the enterprise computing broth

    Last week Oracle, the world’s third largest software vendor, had an eight percent drop in its stock price  after the company missed earning estimates.

    Part of the research for are article I’m writing on the company involved digging into the organisational structure of the company and interestingly it has a pair of ‘co-presidents’ – Mark Hurd and Safra Katz.

    Safra is the Chief Financial Officer who has a pretty powerful CV and seems well qualified for the job of controlling the finances of a $150 billion dollar company.

    Mark on the other hand is my favourite IT executive, his tenure at HP is a case study in the entitlement culture of modern managerialism and no small reason for that company’s present day problems.

    The analyst briefing (free subscription might be required) following Oracle’s disappointing reports betrays a little bit of tension between the two. First Safra;

    We’re not at all pleased with our revenue growth this quarter. So it didn’t help that our quarter ended on the same day as the sequester deadline. What we really saw is the lack of urgency we sometimes see in the sales force as Q3 deals fall into Q4.

    Since we’ve been adding literally thousands of new sales reps around the world, the problem was largely sales execution, especially with the new reps, as they ran out of runway in Q3.

    It seems there’s a touch of ‘dog ate my homework’ in mentioning the US political sequester, but the message is clear – “what we really saw is the lack of urgency we sometimes see in the sales force.”

    These are IT sales people we are talking about, ‘a lack of urgency’ is an insult to a group of people who have been known to work 120 hour weeks and sell their grandmothers if it means getting a fat commission.

    Mark is in the poo. We quickly learn why when it’s his turn to speak,

    We’ve added over 4,000 people to the Oracle sales force in the last 18 months. We’ve significantly expanded our customer coverage. We’ve seen material growth in our pipeline. But Q3 [conversion rates] were below what we expected, while our actual win rate went up.

    An investor would hope there’s material growth in the sales pipeline when you’ve added 4,000 salespeople to your workforce.

    In Oracle’s case though revenues have fallen .8% for the year and are only up 2% over the time Mark’s added all those go-getting Willy Lomans to the company’s payroll.

    The interesting thing with Oracle’s figures is the company has spent nearly $400 million on restructuring costs over the last year, has hired over 4,000 new sales people and yet total operating costs, and margins, have barely moved in that time.

    Which indicates somebody in Oracle is bearing the costs of Mark’s hiring spree.

    During Hurd’s tenure at HP, he was notorious for penny pinching and cutting worker’s benefits. While staff were finding they were stuck in economy for international business meetings, Mark himself was staying at some of Europe’s best hotels and showing off his bank account to attractive employees.

    Hopefully history isn’t repeating itself.

    Probably the most perplexing thing with Oracle today are Mark’s and Safra’s roles of c0-Presidents. What on Earth are those roles?

    Most telling with the co-Presidents is that they aren’t really in charge – if Larry Ellison, the CEO and founder, wakes up one morning and decides either Safra or Mark have to go then they’ll be out of the company well before lunchtime.

    Along with carparking spots, inflated executive job titles are good indicator an organisation’s management is focusing on it’s perks, benefits and privileges rather than delivering for customers and shareholders.

    Perhaps Oracle’s analysts and common stock holders should be focusing more on management’s behaviour more than the details of the company’s sales performance.

    Similar posts:

  • Apple and the argument for hybrid cloud computing

    Apple and the argument for hybrid cloud computing

    There’s two different philosophies about cloud computing, hybrid and ‘pure’. In recent days the hybrid school hasn’t been doing so well, but the matter isn’t settled yet.

    Pure cloud computing means doing everything in the cloud with all your software running over the net with the data stored on other people’s computers and everything is accessed through web browsers.

    Hybrid cloud is where some of the work is done on your computer or smartphone with data often being synchronised between the device and the cloud storage.

    Most smartphone and tablet computer apps do this and increasingly software like Microsoft Office and Apple iLife have a hybrid cloud computing angle.

    Apple’s hybrid cloud service, iCloud, promised Apple users the ability to work on any device – laptop, desktop, tablet or smart phone – with the synchronised with central servers. Every Apple product you own can then access your iCloud data.

    Recently though stories in the The Verge and Ars Technica report how Apple’s developers and customers are becoming steadily irritated by the lousy reliability of the company’s iCloud service.

    Incumbent software and hardware vendors like Microsoft and Apple are pushing the hybrid idea for a good reason, it allows them to maintain their existing PC and laptop based products while being able to offer cloud services like their competitors.

    For Microsoft and Apple, along with companies like Oracle, Dell and MYOB, the hybrid cloud gives them an opportunity to wriggle out of what Clay Christensen called The Innovator’s Dilemma.

    Customers actually like the hybrid cloud as many distrust ‘pure’ cloud offerings as they don’t trust the providers or their internet connections. Basically they like to have a copy of their data stored in house.

    The problem with the hybrid cloud is that it’s complex as Xero’s founder Rod Drury, one of the ‘pure cloud’ evangelists, said at his company’s conference last year, “hybrid technologies are cumbersome and add far more complexity into software. Cloud technologies are the right technologies.”

    Complexity is what’s bought Apple’s iCloud unstuck as even some of best developers struggle with getting their programs to work with it.

    All is not well for the ‘pure cloud’ evangelists either, as the shutting down of Google Reader has shaken many technologists and made them question whether the cloud is as safe as they would like.

    Added to this uncertainty about the cloud is lousy service by providers, arbitrary shutting down of user accounts and the corporate boycott of Wikileaks – all of which have forced people to reconsider the wisdom of saving all their data or running applications in the cloud.

    So the debate between the cloud purists is by no means over and it may well be that some form of hybrid, even just for local backup to your own computer, may turn out to be the common way we use cloud services.

    What is for sure though is cloud software is biting deeply into the revenues of established software companies as people find the attractions of running programs and storing data on other people’s computers outweighs the risks.

    Like all relatively new concepts it’s going to take a while for us to figure out how to use cloud computing most effectively in our business. The first step is how we manage the risks.

    Similar posts:

  • Social media’s irrational exuberance comes to an end

    Social media’s irrational exuberance comes to an end

    Last week saw the annual Y Combinator demo day where the startups funded by the incubator get to strut their stuff and it appears the age of social media hype is over.

    In the Wall Street Journal’s Digits blog, Amir Efrati reports Social is Out, Revenue is In as the companies showed off their income streams rather than the number of users which has been the measure for free social media apps.

    That social media is out shouldn’t be surprising as the services have been tracking a standard Gartner Hype Cycle with a boom in services, coverage and investments that’s now turning into the inevitable bust and a fall into the trough of disillusionment.

    Coupled with that fall for social media services are the disappointing stockmarket floats of Facebook and Groupon which have cruelled the enthusiasm for investing in tech startups with lots of user but not much revenue.

    Last week’s headlines featuring Yahoo!’s purchase of Summly for $30 million and Amazon’s acquisition of Goodreads for an estimated $150 million show how the days of greater fools writing billion dollar cheques is over as more sensible valuations take hold.

    Amazon’s purchase of Goodreads is more interesting than Yahoo! buying a teenage wunderkind’s venture in that Amazon is cementing its position at the centre of the global book publishing industry.

    Goodreads has been one of the quiet social media success of recent years having built its subscriber base to over 16 million members sharing book reviews and reading lists.

    The book review site is a natural fit for Amazon although the head of the US Authors’ Guild rightly worries the company is becoming a monopoly.

    Of course the obvious retort to this is that someone else could have bought the site and Forrester’s James McQuivey speculates on why an established publisher didn’t do so much earlier.

    This year’s Y Combinator Demo Day and the acquisitions of Goodreads and Summly show the era of irrational tech exuberance is over.

    For good businesses operators and investors this is not a bad thing as everyone can now focus on building good businesses rather than worrying about hype, spin and fools with more money than sense.

    Photo of Ashton Kutcher speaking at Y Combinator by Robert Scoble through Wikimedia commons

    Similar posts:

  • Walmart pays for cutting staff

    Walmart pays for cutting staff

    Along with the carpark test, a lack of customer service is one of the best indicators that a company has lost its way.

    Unattended reception desks, closed cash registers and deserted delivery docks are reliable indicators management has focused on short term staff savings which will ultimately cost the business dearly.

    Walmart is the latest example of this with Bloomberg Businessweek reporting that US shoppers are deserting the chain because shelves are empty and stores don’t have enough staff.

    The claim stock is piling up out the back of stores is particularly concerning, the just in time inventory management of modern retail chains means there’s little room for error as outlets don’t have a lot of space whil the cash flow of the business and its suppliers is based on getting goods quickly into the hands of eager consumers.

    Some of Walmart’s pain will be spread among suppliers as the store’s contracts will push undoubtedly some of the costs of rejected deliveries back onto logistics companies, effectively creating problems through the entire supply chain.

    No doubt there’s plenty of angry suppliers and truck drivers who are grumbling about lost time and payments on Walmart contracts. That won’t be good news for the company’s buyers when contracts come up for negotiation.

    Even though Walmart’s management can throw some of their problems over the fence, the fundamental issue of losing customers can’t be missed.

    Walmart’s isn’t the only retailer who’s fallen for the short term fix of cutting store staff to give a quick profit boost as department stores and big box outlets around the world struggle with the damaging effects of not being able to serve customers.

    That Walmart, one of the industry’s global leaders, would make such a mis-step shows the pressures on managements as economies deleverage and credit wary consumers decide that don’t need more junk in their homes.

    Cutting costs isn’t going to address those bigger trends, it’s going to take original thinking and management commitment to adding real value to customers.

    Service is just the start of a long process of refocusing the retail empires.

    Image of Albany Walmart courtesy of UpstateNYer through Wikimedia

    Similar posts: