Category Archives: Venture Minded

B2B: Large Partners and Deals

Closing deals early and quickly can make or break your startup. It is great to have a pipeline of deals, especially strategic, larger deals that can help you scale faster than you could on your own. However, you have to be able to walk a fine line when signing a much larger partner because of the risk and pressure it puts on your team AND technology. Here are some things to keep in consideration, especially for enterprise:

Push your limits: Large partners are great to have, especially early. Your initial reaction would be the opposite because of the risk involved and the fact that you may not be 100% ready. You have to realize that this pressure is great for your startup because it gets you moving faster than you would on your own. It will help push the threshold of what both your team and technology are capable of if you can balance their demands with your capabilities.

Understand needs: It is critical that you clearly understand your partners needs and intentions. Their needs are more transparent because they will have to explain what they are looking for. However, their intentions are not always aligned with their needs. Since it is uncommon for large partners to work with early stage startups, they obviously have intentions that may not be aligned with your long-term goals. You need to make sure during the negotiation process that you are candid about where you are taking your company to make sure both parties are completely aligned.

Your technology is key: At the end of the day it is all about your technology, which is a huge function of the quality of your team. Large companies cannot iterate and build new technology or platforms as fast as a startup can. That’s the beauty of the large opportunities out there in enterprise. However, you absolutely have to have the foresight to build your team and your technology with the long terms needs of larger partners in mind. You have to make it bullet proof and scalable. Very scalable.

One last thing to keep in mind when working on closing a big deal. Don’t look desperate or too excited. Keep calm and play hard to get. You and your team are the ones with the advantage in that you have either superior or complementary technology. Keep those cards ready.

Google+…More Like Google-

Yesterday Google unveiled its super-stealth social project, Google+, to a variety of reactions – from amazing to embarrassing. On the aforementioned spectrum, my reaction probably falls somewhere closer to embarrassing, but the best word to describe how I feel is underwhelmed. There is nothing in Google+ that blew me away. Each of the features seems like a slight derivative or virtual clone of something that is already out there.

Circles prides itself on being a more efficient way of sharing things, but sharing with different groups of people is why I use Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. I like how I have 3 distinct places to go to for 3 very distinct groups of people with whom I interact. Sure, some people overlap between the 3, but I’d rather not have to manually create these groups using Circle, especially when I’ve already done it (i.e. switching cost). Sparks reminds me of Twitter lists – I can already create a list of people that tweet about a particular interest I have. Hangouts is Skype group chat. Huddles is GroupMe. The whole site, in its current state, feels like a “nice to have” but not a “must have.” It is certainly not a Facebook or Twitter killer. It is hardly a complement right now. And, despite what some people have suggested on Twitter, I certainly don’t think that these services will ever replace enterprise social networks or WebEx (or Go To Meeting). Gmail hasn’t replaced Outlook (or Lotus if you’re stuck using that still), so why would companies switch to Google+?

The way Google went about selecting features seems like they took all the social features that Facebook hadn’t done yet. For a while now, I’ve bemoaned to friends that nothing about Facebook is original: the basic idea is MySpace, pictures is Flickr (or another photo sharing site), video is YouTube, status is Twitter, Places is Foursquare, Deals is Groupon (or another daily deals site), chat is IM, the list goes on. I give Zuckerberg 2 pieces of credit: seamlessly integrating all these ideas fromother people and not selling. This seems to be exactly what Vic Gundotra is doing with Google+ – let’s take a bunch of features that other social sites are doing and mash them together into one service. It’s as if they said to themselves, “Well it worked for Zuck with Facebook, so it should work for us too!”

However, perhaps the biggest thing working against Google+ right now is that it’s Google. Google used to be synonymous with creativity, innovation, and things that were just plain awesome. But when you hear Google and social in the same sentence, you think of words like Buzz and Wave. There is a stigma attached to Google+ already, and people who try the service will be doing so with a heaping pile of salt. They decided to call the service Google+, but for now, in my mind, it’s Google-.

Enhanced by Zemanta