 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Emotion Key to Acquisitions of Small Businesses
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Wall Street Journal recently issued a special section on small business. An article by Li Yuan (requires subscription) caught my eye, on the critical difference between buying a small business and buying a larger business.
The article profiles Pete Pike, who started a nursery business in his 20's and has worked at it for almost 50 years. The article points out that trust and personal chemistry play key roles in any sale or acquisition of a small business:
In some ways, the acquisition was like any company buying another. But when it comes to the purchase of a small business, the stuff that's important is often on a whole different plane.
Roark, for its part, needed to know the Pikes' business inside and out to be sure it had the brand reputation and customers to meet Roark's goals for growth, as well as the leadership to get it there. The Pikes wanted to be sure that Roark shared their business philosophy, that its other investments were sound, and that the family would still run the business.
"When you think of businesses being bought and sold, you think of lawyers and investment bankers, the highest price wins, and it's all very cold and canonical," says Neal Aronson, founder and managing partner of Roark. "In small family companies, all those conventional approaches many times go out the window. It's much more about really spending time, getting to know people, really building trust and rapport and a real relationship." I used to work in a large corporation seeking out businesses to acquire. Many of those businesses were entrepreneurial companies that had been started and nurtured by the business owner. A high percentage of deals we evaluated never went through.
Convincing an entrepreneur to sell his or her "baby" was a huge emotional hurdle. They had been sustained for so long by the drive of achieving their dream, that in order to convince them to sell you had to paint a picture for them of a new dream. And they had to be comfortable with that new dream. It's not an easy thing for an entrepreneur who has devoted his every working hour to a business to up and turn around and walk away without looking back.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
By Anita Campbell | Permalink |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Sunday, November 28, 2004
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
PowerBlog Review: Patent Pending
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Editor's note: Can it possibly be the forty-first in our regular weekly series of PowerBlog Reviews of business weblogs? Yes, it is!
This week's PowerBlog Review is about the blog Patent Pending.
Or, as the full title describes the site, "Patent Pending - Inventions and Technology Updates For Fans of Inventions and Technology, Startup Companies and Entrepreneurs."
The Patent Pending blog is the brainchild of Robert Shaver, an attorney from Boise, Idaho, USA who enjoys technology.
Patent law blogs are nothing new -- there are dozens already. But Patent Pending is different. It is so interesting.
Robert says he didn't set out to write a typical "blawg" or law blog. Mostly those are read by lawyers and as he says, patent law is "a boring subject even for me."
Instead, he wanted to write about things that were of interest to non-attorneys -- things that inventors or other people interested in inventions and technology would want to read.
Robert has always liked to read facts about inventions, such as the items that trivia columnist L.M. Boyd used to write. He thought that if he liked it, so might others. So he decided to write about what interested him, using L.M. Boyd for inspiration. He says he looks for "...information that is readable, interesting, and something that the average person would have a hard time finding. Patents are good for that, because there are 6 million of them to choose from."
What you will find at Patent Pending is not typical blog fare. For one thing, it is mostly original content. For another, it is often about events that were news a long time ago, instead of something that happened yesterday or last week. Yet somehow it all seems fresh and relevant. History, technology, inventions, historical patents and trademarks are all covered -- often with a sense of intelligent humor and wit.
Some of the historical patent posts are absorbing -- even when they're about subjects you'd think would be a snooze. Take for instance, the plow. There is a great post on the history of the plow, replete with diagrams of a John Deere patent for a plow. Boring it sounds, but boring it is not. A lot of interest is added by the different patent diagrams and images Robert inserts in the post.
The way Robert approaches his subject matter heightens the interest. One of the techniques he uses adeptly is to tell a story using background information about inventors. One of my favorite posts is about Thomas Edison's invention of the ticker tape. The post illustrates Edison's capabilities as a negotiator, and how he received over ten times the amount for the invention than he expected -- all by knowing when to ask a question rather than answering one. While the post is ostensibly about the ticker tape, it is really a vignette about Thomas Edison the entrepreneur.
In addition to all the invention and technology topics, Patent Pending also gives practical tips about patents for inventors. For instance, did you think getting a patent was expensive? Well, perhaps it's not as expensive as you think, as this post, Patenting Basics, Q & A, points out.
The Power: The Power of Patent Pending is in the content that is full of trivia, but hardly trivial. And it is also in the way the blog tells stories, covers unusual topics, and uses images and diagrams to make for fascinating -- even addicting -- reading out of what would otherwise be dry subject matter.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
By Anita Campbell | Permalink |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Why the U.S. Presidential Election Doesn't Matter
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Recently we had the opportunity to interview small business expert, Andy Birol, www.andybirol.com.
Andy is the author of "Focus. Accomplish. Grow... the Business Owner's Guide to Growth." He is also a noted small business coach, consultant and speaker who has been interviewed on CNN, Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Entrepreneur, and Fortune Small Business.
Andy is a colorful guy who doesn't hold back. His incisive, get-to-the-point remarks make for interesting reading. He talked about the U.S. Presidential election and why the election really doesn't matter much for small business.
..........
Small Business Trends: What did you think of this last U.S. Presidential election for small business?
Andy Birol: It was bitter sweet.
Whoever was going to win, I knew there would be a lack of impact for the small business market. Although President Bush is said to be a bit more small business friendly, the reality is: small business has no friends and few advocates.
There is only one unifying issue in this country for small business owners: health care. Beyond health care there is no unity of interest among small businesses.
Small business is really "Everyman."
Take the steel tariff a couple of years ago. That helped one set of businesses and at the same time it hurt others. Their interests were not all the same, and so it didn't affect all businesses the same. The issues were more complex.
Have you ever heard the Paul Simon song "One man's ceiling is another man's floor"? For every action in favor of one small business, it means something against another small business.
Small Business Trends: Would it have made much difference if small business owners had gotten involved in politics and lobbied?
Andy Birol: I'm not sure that spending time and effort on the elections would have done small business owners much good -- unless they happened to be printing companies with a contract to print bumper stickers or ballots.
This election dumbed us down. All the issues are so much richer and more complicated than the way they were presented.
The trial lawyer issue is a great example. On the one hand everyone would agree that in the case of the woman who burned herself sipping hot McDonald's coffee, trial lawyers took advantage of that. But without trial lawyers we would not have gotten padded dashboards, seatbelts or airbags nearly as fast as we did.
A small business owner can't afford to unilaterally add safety items. Small businesses can only do so after the industry has adopted these and prices reflect them. And it took the trial lawyers to force big business to implement these safety features first.
Small Business Trends: You said "small business has no friends and few advocates." What about small business advocacy associations, such as the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB)?
Andy Birol: Many associations just create co-dependence.
The entrepreneur is a hunter gatherer. Entrepreneurs don't make money when they're together. They make money when they are out in the marketplace.
I have a little saying. "Business owners should get their lovin' at home."
Associations can't be effective lobbying for legislation because there is little legislation that impacts small businesses the same across industries.
Big companies can lobby for laws or special consideration, but small biz can't do that. A small business is selling only 1% or less of whatever market they're in.
Workers comp is not a small business issue, it is a business issue. So guess who legislation will be designed for? Big business.
Small Business Trends: Talk to us about outsourcing trends. Do small businesses outsource much?
Andy Birol: Tons of outsourcing is going on -- tons.
And yet in this election you had all this ranting and raving about bringing jobs back to the U.S. But that's not the way business works today. It was another oversimplified issue.
I am a one person company and I outsource nearly everything. I have at least 20 service providers.
Outsourcing offshore is the only answer for any commodity business. Small manufacturing companies are outsourcing production to China. I advise all my small business clients to move the commodity portions of their business offshore.
Right now I am imploring an accounting firm to consider moving its 1040 personal tax return work -- the type of work done by H&R Block -- overseas. How can a small accounting firm compete against H&R Block's prices? Anyone who tries is suicidal.
Small Business Trends: What one thing does every small business need to do today to be successful?
Andy Birol: At the end of the day business owners have to move from ambivalence and apprehension, to confidence and conviction. The single biggest destroyer of business is lack of confidence.
I've been working with small business owners my entire professional career. I started out working in Corporate positions and ran a $40 Million unit of New England Business Service, now a division of Deluxe Corporation.
Then I realized I am unemployable and proud of it. So I started my own consulting business.
The lesson I've learned is... you have to walk the talk. I eat my own dog food -- I'm a small business owner and I follow my own convictions. That's why whoever is in office as U.S. President doesn't really matter. Business owners have to find their own confidence and convictions.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
By Anita Campbell | Permalink |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Information Technology Spending Trends
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
In 2004 small and medium businesses (SMBs) spent an average of 6.6% more on information technology than in 2003. In 2005, spending will grow again, but not quite as fast -- 4.8%.
That's according to Forrester Research in a survey of over 1,000 IT decisionmakers. Here is the breakdown between small and medium businesses:
 Forrester Research Chart - click for larger image
So what are SMBs going to be buying? Listen up Cisco, Symantec, Dell and Quicken (and your re-sellers and competitors). Here is what Forrester says:"Security tops buyers' wish lists, and nearly two-thirds of SMBs will buy new servers and networking equipment this year. Dell dominates mindshare among PC buyers, who on average expect to replace one in four PCs next year. The direct channel will receive the lion's share of PC and other hardware purchases by SMBs, but buyers are split on where they'll turn for hardware support. On the software front, many are in the market for finance and accounting software, and a surprisingly high number will consider hosted apps." The Forrester report is here (requires free registration to view the summary; full report must be purchased).
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
By Anita Campbell | Permalink |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Friday, November 26, 2004
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Just Say No to Taxpayer Money for Venture Capital
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
In a previous article, I pointed out Guy Kawasaki's humorously blunt advice about venture capital. I stressed this point: very few companies are good candidates for venture capital funding.
This is precisely why I do not support the continuation of the U.S. Small Business Administration's SBIC program. The SBIC (Small Business Investment Companies) program uses federal money as venture capital.
News reports make it sound like eliminating the program would hurt needy entrepreneurs. But few entrepreneurs qualify for venture money.
Besides, it is not as if the government is giving money away directly to entrepreneurs. The money goes to special venture capital funds to help minimize their investors' risk and give them more money to play with. And their use of that money hasn't exactly had a stellar track record. The program is more than US$1.2 Billion in the hole.
That's $1.2 Billion of taxpayer money lost.
And it's likely the losses will approach US$2 Billion before all is said and done.
The Office of the Inspector General of the SBA issued a report critical of the SBIC program in May 2004. The report concludes that too much risk is being taken on by taxpayers.
There are wiser uses for taxpayer money. More small businesses can qualify for loans than for venture capital -- by far. More good can be done for more small businesses through the SBA's lending programs. Congress and President Bush should continue to fund the SBA loan programs.
However, they should let the SBIC program die a natural death. Government should not be subsidizing the venture capital industry, which is what the SBIC program amounts to. Providing high risk venture capital is for private investors, not taxpayers.
Unfortunately, it looks as if the Omnibus Appropriations bill that was passed this week in the U.S. Congress has given a reprieve to the SBIC program, at least insofar as Congress is concerned. U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe, Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, generally has been an excellent advocate for U.S. small business. However, she is off base on this one.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
By Anita Campbell | Permalink |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Venture Capital: The Illusion of Easy Money
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I am reading Guy Kawasaki's The Art of the Start. For anyone who doesn't know, Guy Kawasaki is a venture capitalist and managing director of Garage Technology Ventures.
This is a snappy book filled with street smarts about startups. It's set up so that it is easy to read a section here and there when you have time.
In one part he offers FAQs about raising capital for startups, with his trademark blunt wit:Q: If I do not have an IPO or acquisition as my exit strategy, will I ever be able to attract investors? Would investors ever be interested in making their return through profit sharing or a buy-out from the founders of the company in five to ten years?
A: Only if the investor is your mother. If the investors are professional investors, you can forget about raising money without a shot at an IPO or acquisition. Venture capital is an unattainable illusion for the vast majority of small businesses. Most small businesses will never be initial public offering (IPO) material. And entrepreneurs who are so emotionally attached to the business that they cannot stand the thought of selling it should forget about venture capital.
Bottom line: Guy describes key reasons that most businesses are not good candidates for venture capital. That, and minor little points such as:(a) most companies don't have a high growth business model with a potential market size of US$ 500 Million, and
(b) most can't show the VC that he or she will get a 10x return on their money in 5 years. The vast majority of small businesses have more modest expectations. Their path to success lies in bootstrapping and small business loans at the right time. As Barry Moltz pointed out here on Small Business Trends, what's wrong with having a business that's only going to grow to $3 Million?
UPDATE November 29: Andy Birol emailed me a link to his article on venture capital. His advice? Get customers to fund your business, rather than venture capitalists.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
By Anita Campbell | Permalink |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|