The single biggest challenge I have every time I click “Write a Post” is to balance that delicate line between being an executive and covering the industry on this site.
As the CEO of WatchMojo.com, I see and hear a lot of juicy tidbits from the front lines as it pertains to the video space. I also am privy to some discussions with regards to business and corporate development.
Generally speaking, even devoid of an actual NDA in place, I usually write pieces for HipMojo.com as if one were in place with the companies that are the subject of a piece in question… just to err on the safe side. Make no mistake about it, I do aggregate all of the data and insight from the front lines to try to make my pontifications be as realistic as they could be… and I think this is why CEO bloggers add to the landscape.
The downside is that I don’t try to “break” stories, be it something (all of the following are things in the past) on YouTube’s monetization efforts, or Adobe’s latest video player, or the date of Hulu’s launch, or an impending shift in strategy or tactics of another player. I also don’t tell YouTube what MySpace TV is about to do, either, or vice-versa. In all fairness, people have the courtesy not to ask either.
Of course, I presume if you read between the lines, you can probably pick up some Freudian slips or subconscious references… and that is human nature.
In fact, apart from one period in particular when I used this blog as a soapbox to defend myself against an unfair, meritless and frivolous lawsuit brought forth by my petty and jealous erstwhile partners, I try not to use it as an inter-company communications channel or medium. It’s an insider’s blog, basically… but not one that is used for communications between companies or executives even though sometimes I will comment on what industry leaders ought to be doing (last year for example, I lashed out at GooTube’s efforts to monetize videos…).
That all being said, I absolutely love this post by Zoho’s CEO Sridhar Vembu: he’s commenting on Google’s partnership with Salesforce (the two compete with his firm) and chronicling - in depth - how Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff offered to buy Zoho.
Just to protect his neck, he explicitly mentions a few times that he is NOT under any DNAs; I would too if I would be writing with such details on an actual, specific exchange… but the danger is: how will other CEOs feel about sharing ideas or pitching to him in the future? Then again, I am sure some people worry about me going public, but that’s why I generally speaking step away from the machine…
Either way, interesting read and insight into the life of a CEO behind the scenes, from the front lines.
In Dec. 2006 I penned “Google could so create a Salesforce killer“. If you look at Google’s products, namely:
- Gmail
- Docs and Spreadsheets
- Google Payment (what’s the name again?)
- Google Talk (replace all of the other instant messaging services you use as a sales person)
- Google Maps (for directions to clients’ offices, or meeting spots)
- Google Calendar (obvious, to track dates, calls, meetings, etc.)
- Picasa (so you can see what people look like or people can put a face to their favorite salesperson’s voice and name)
- Video player (for demos, presentations etc.)
- Analytics (prospecting tool par excellence, I mean most sales people rely on Alexa, not Nielsen Net Ratings or comScore)
- Blogger (so your clients can read about you, your products and services)
- Jotspot (so employees can share intelligence, or clients and salespeople can share information)
- Alerts (a prospective client announces something, you can hit them up ASAP)
- Finance (so you can check out the size of the company you are hitting up)
- I could go on.
You can bundle it and create something compelling to take on Salesforce. Google can launch many X-killers, but executing on the product to make it even compete with, let alone kill it…
A younger, brasher Google would have done just that, but I think Google now realizes that a go-at-it-alone strategy does not always make sense. So today Google and Salesforce finally announced plans to collaborate. This is a no-brainer: Google has its hands tied on many fronts and short of simply buying CRM, this business development relationship is a first step towards that, or simply launching a competing product if Marc Benioff’s price is too high.
Read more.
Ok, stop laughing.
When I read that MSFT will launch three products in one day, I can’t help but wonder.
I’ve owned MSFT back in the day and sold my shares. I’m actually considering getting into the stock again, here’s why:
- MSFT launched a competitor to Salesforce.com, I had long ago written that Google could bundle a bunch of its apps and launch a Salesforce.com killer. It didn’t, and in fact partnered up with Salesforce.com.
- MSFT’s Silverlight is also a promising platform to take on Adobe and Flash (probably more, too). The thing is, Flash video became ubiquituous largely via YouTube. When we launched WatchMojo.com we adopted flash as our publishing format, and as late as summer 2006 it was not an obvious choice. Today it is. But we’ve consistently seen a) early platforms fizzle out to an alternative platform and b) MSFT catch up a competitor. Could Silverlight suck out some value out of Adobe?
Of course, I myself might want to lay off the MSFT koolaid, I’ve criticized Redmond for being too envious of others:
- Video games vs. Sony, Nintendo
- Music players vs. Apple, Sandisk
- Portals vs. Yahoo!
- Search vs. Google.
And, oh yes, Google is also trying to eat away at MSFT’s software business by making it free and taking it online.
I’m not saying I suddenly have become bullish on MSFT, but I think that with Google at $165B and Yahoo! being somewhat comatose, MSFT at $292B seems like a growth oppoortunity.
All right, that’s the fatigue kicking in…
In December 2006 I penned: “How Google could bundle its products and launch a Salesforce Killer,” today they partnered instead.
I think this shows that bravado notwithstanding, Google is still in many ways scared - or rather, concerned - with Microsoft. MSFT’s awesome cash hoard would scare anyone. Point is: Google can’t
- necessarily launch just any product even if it can, Salesforce has a distribution channel and large user base in place.
- does not really have the financial wherewithall to buy Salesforce, with its $5B market cap. Bear in mind that Google is set to part with $3.1B of its $10B to buy Doubleclick.
But given Salesforce.com’ SaaS model, this is one partnership that Google needs to have in its back pocket…
There’s been a lot of talk about the steep premium MSFT paid to acquire AQNT, and there are many reasons for that, one being that in the ad networks marketplace, it had become a seller’s market, quickly, after DCLK sold to GOOG for $3.1B.
But in light of the bidding war between MSFT and GOOG for DCLK, I’m not surprised at all that AQNT fetched that much (I own shares in AQNT). I gave my two cents as to why “AQNT is absolutely worth 2 times DCLK” here. Of course, anyone’s guess is as good as mine. Today, TheStreet.com joins the camp of supporters who are bullish on the deal.
But ultimately, I think that they paid so much because a) AQNT was the jewel in the online ad crown in its segment and b) there were other suitors. Whether Google was one of the companies, I’m not sure. If it was, it was a defensive move. And if Google was interested, then MSFT wanted to show Google that goodwill, positive press and user euphoria notwithstanding, MSFT had the financial firepower to beat Google in the one area that in some ways counts: at the cash register.
Google is making a lot of money, we’re talking $3B in profits on $10B in revenues in 2006. But it has $10B in cash, and parting with $3.1B for DCLK. Even if it wanted to buy AQNT, it could not have spent $6B out of a remaining $7B on them.
This deal, besides getting MSFT into the red-hot online advertising space in a major way puts Google on the defensive in a few ways.
This is also why, you saw yesterday talk of a Google/Salesforce partnership. In the past, I had suggested Google could launch a Salesforce killer just by bundling some of its features. But the fact that Google is partnering with CRM and not launching a competitor or buying them shows the limits of Google’s capabilities.
Ever since Nick Denton took over the reins at Valleywag, I began to follow the site. Don’t get me wrong, that’s no knock against Nick Douglas, Vallyewag’s former lead writer; it’s just that I never followed it at all and Denton’s shakeup not only changed writing styles but also added a spotlight onto the site. Hey, any PR is good PR, I presume.
Denton - who co-founded and sold First Tuesday back in the day - is now the head honcho at Gawker Media, the parent company and blog network that includes, amongst other popular blogs Gizmodo, Jalopnik, Defamer and Gawker, Valleywag.
The obligatory disclosures: back in 2000, I was a member of the local FT organization but never met Denton. HipMojo.com is a part of the BloggerMojo.com blog network, which does not really compete with Gawker Media (we only hope, one day…) and well… when I launched BloggerMojo.com, I certainly tried to take as many cues from both Mr. Denton and his chief rival Jason Calacanis, who had co-founded and subsqeuently sold Weblogs Inc. to AOL.
Back to the story:
Incidentally, Valleywag, or rather, Gawker Media, is exactly the kind of company that is getting people, namely investors and advertisers, excited about the Web’s prospects once again. Gawker has been around for a while, is an established brand, probably generates far $500,000 per quarter (if not per month, frankly) and is exactly the type of company that many expansion stage venture capital investors look at backing.
One such venture capital firm was none other than OpenView Partners. The Web’s a funny place, and Web entrepreneurs a funnier crowd. Denton had always stated (though maybe was a ploy) that Gawker was “unacquirable.” We’re putting that in quotation marks because it’s a quote and, well, it’s not a word. For more on that, click here.
In that light then, Denton is implying that Gawker is also “uninvestable” from a venture capital perspective. Much to his credit, Denton used the proceeds of his sale of FT to launch Gawker Media. He’s probably printing money now and making quite a fortune; good for him.
He probably does not need a massive payday in the form of an exit strategy so he will gladly grow the company and live off the cash flow. Of course, venture capital investors who pony up a large, sizable investment are happy with cash flow returns (i.e. they demand cash flow profitability), but unlike Denton, we presume, they do want a massive windfall either in an initial public offering (IPO) or a sale in a merger or acquisition (M&A).
Denton could very probably sell, but something tells me that he’ll remain independent and grow his company the old fashion way. It was thus surprising, I guess to both he and I, that a venture capital firm hit Denton’s Valleywag up and inquired about investment opportunities.
We actually give mad props to Denton for doing so: but Denton turned around and published that email on Valleyway.
Dear Nick
I’m following up on an email I sent to you. Just checking to see if you have any interest in discussing the possibility of a future investment by OpenView Venture Partners (www.openviewpartners.com) in Valleywag. As I mentioned in my previous email, OpenView is a 100 million dollar venture capital fund based in Boston, focused exclusively on investing in information technology companies.
I would like to set up a quick call with, Kobie Fuller, one of our investment professionals, at your convenience.
Thanks,
Glenn Michael
___________________________
Glenn Michael
OpenView Venture Partners
We’re not sure we would have done that (though I guess we just did - but our post ends up much better - we swear!), but running a site like Valleywag made sense to do so, I presume. As well, I am not sure that Gawker loses much by doing so, they gain that all worthy street cred.
Anyway, when I saw the email, I thought: “hmm… never heard of Openview.” Naturally I checked out their website.
Personally we’re in the slow process of talking to early stage angel investors, a couple of venture capital funds and a few companies who are looking to invest in digital media. So I checked them out to see what their investment focus was. While we have a lot of IT under the hood, we’re more content than tech, as such, I emailed OpenView to set up an interview for this blog. For the record, had I emailed them for financing, I would have also written about them as well as to potentially help another company. Ah blogs… the land of excessive disclosures.
I got an email back from Scott Maxwell, OpenView’s Managing Partner and Senior Managing Director. Like many VCs, he’s turned to blogging, writes the Now What blog which “focused on the issues surrounding building information technology companies from the expansion stage.” I checked it out and figured that his fund was spanking new.
I was right.
[I’ve since added added a link under the Blogroll under VCs I’ve Never Met, if you know of other VCs who blog, email me at ash@mojosupreme.com; as well, if you are a VC and would like to grant us an interview to talk more about your investment fund, its focus etc., feel free to do so].
I told him that I saw the email they had sent to Valleywag, was interested in writing on his firm’s focus and that I was not just a writer but also a Web entrepreneur but that we definitely did not fit his profile (in order for him not to think I was setting him up to hit up for dough, basically).
He graciously offered his time. We spoke yesterday.
OpenView: A Venture Capital Startup?
OpenView might be new, but the people behind are not. Openview’s partners hail from Insight Ventures, one of the most successful late stage VCs around. More disclosure: my former company got approached by Insight at the time we were in talks to sell the company to IGN Entertainment. I cannot really tell you how much or how little my boss considered raising expansion-stage VC then, but I think his mind was set on cashing out.
As Insight grew, it became more successful and its money under management mushroomed. Of course, the larger the fund, the larger the companies they seek to invest in. Insight was looking for opportunities to invest even more than the $5-10M it was investing initially. Running the Boston office meant that the men from that office could approach Insight and venture out on their own. The separation was friendly, and venture they did.
Armed with $100 million in money under management (including money from Insight’s partners - invested personally), OpenView is up and running and looking to invest in companies.
OpenView’s Focus
The fund prides itself in being extremely focused, either by market or stage. Insight invests in expansion stage companies, looking to plunk down $5 to $10 million in companies that make at least $500,000 per quarter. In fact, the fund would consider investing more or less in any company and in any geographic area so long as it’s in somewhat of a leadership position in Information Technology.
This ensures that the fund extracts as much as risk out as possible:
a) Financial Risk: by committing to companies who are making $500,000 per quarter in any country, they withdraw some risk by virtue of the company already being way past the idea or proof of concept stage.
b) IP Risk: And, by looking at IT companies, they ensure that there is some intellectual property under the hood.
It’s not a bad idea, on paper, but in practice, you get the sense that venture capital investing is at a crossroads due to some major macro trends and this focus and technique might actually be going against the grain.
I asked Mr. Maxwell what he looked for in companies that met his criteria, he listed:
- A great entrepreneur
- The right focus.
Geographic Focus: Global Outlook
OpenView did not care about the geographic focus, and that he’d invest in Canada, Australia and Russia if the opportunity merited it.
Mark Tluszcz, Mangrove Capital Partners’ Managing Partner who invested in Skype and made a bundle, is quite convinced that Eastern Europe will spawn some of the best opportunities in high technology. As such, I asked Maxwell if his geography-agnostic approach meant that he actually chased any market that he saw as booming or rather that he did not disregard any.
“We keep our eyes open, a lot of micro trends lead to some great companies being built by someone somwhere, when we come across one such opportunity, we study why instead of looking for some macro trends as to why not.”
I must say that while that sounds like something that gets said with violins being played in the background, if true, it is quite refreshing because a lot of VCs do seem to take a contrarian view to everything. Then again, by virtue of investing in expansion stage firms, it could be argued that it’s not like Mr. Maxwell sees embryonic ideas that are easy to strike down. In other words, if a company is generating $500,000 per quarter, it’s doing relatively fine and won’t have a hard time raising financing, let alone convincing that it’s a potential winner.
Here’s a Check, Just Don’t Cash It
This, of course, highlights one of the major problems with VCs altogether. It’s not all that different than banks: they’ll give you money when you don’t need it but won’t when you do.
Last year when I started my company, I spent a little bit of time scanning the horizon and quickly realized that my time would be better spent on business development and not corporate development. Today with our company having grown 2,500% in the second portion of 2006 and our 2007 revenues already matching our entire 2006 revenues (after 13 days of business, mind you), it’s awfully easier to get attention.
Great Entrepreneurs Recognize Great Opportunities and Guild Great Companies
Of course, before you have great companies, you have great opportunities. And to have a great opportunity, you need a great entrepreneur.
Having written about successful entrepreneurs and worked alongside two of the most successful ones of the past 10 years in the Web space, naturally I asked what made a great entrepreneur.
“A great entrepreneur is someone who has passion, has the ability to work with people, is charismatic and has a clear point of view on things. I don’t think an Ivy League education is required to be one, but if you’ve got those traits,” you’ll be well received by Mr. Maxwell and investors in general.
The VC Game Has Changed
The problem many VCs face these days is that it takes a lot less capital to launch a company. What exasperates matters is that most IT projects can launch using cheap hardware, open source software and companies’ APIs to test the concept. Once the idea goes from concept to reality, then it’s easier to build a community around it. That makes investors line up to back your company, turning tables on the VCs, since a VC can only sign a check while a company can outright acquire a startup or take a stake in a startup in exchange for cash and sales, marketing and IT support.
“It certainly depends on the VC, some investors will come in and simply sign a check, yes. But we have a very unique approach. Each and every VC tells a different story. When it comes to the first half - of taking capital - yes, you might be right. But we are in a different category due to what we offer after we sign the check,” argues Maxwell, echoing what many VCs say.
With Money Comes “Burden” of Accountability and Responsibility
“When an entrepreneur accepts VC money,” continues Maxwell, “there is a burden that is undertaken, it’s one thing to accept money from friends and family, it’s another to sign a contract with a VC, where there are legal documents that outline specific responsibilies. It’s really the difference between dating and getting married.”
We appreciate the candor. But since I’m already married, literally speaking, we dug deeper: what kind of investor is OpenView, I asked:
Active vs. Passive Investments
“We’re definitely a very active investor. There are passive investors and there are active ones. For active investments to work out, there needs to be a mesh of culture and values,” concedes Maxwell, who worked as a Research & Development Engineer at two start up companies developing robotic systems after graduating from M.I.T. with a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering and an MBA from the M.I.T. Sloan School of Management. He’s also got a BS and MS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of California, Davis, if you’re keeping tabs.
Before OpenView, he was a Managing Director at Insight Venture Partners, having joined the firm in 2000 as Chief Operating Officer. He was the partner responsible for investing in eight Insight investments.
But don’t feel too bad for him, before Insight, he was a Partner at Putnam Investments, where he was Managing Director, Corporate Development. Before that, he was a Senior Vice President at Lehman Brothers, where he was the Chief Financial Officer of the Global Equity Division and a member of the Global Equities Executive Committee. Prior to Lehman, he was a management consultant at McKinsey & Company from 1990 to 1994.
Yeah, I know, let’s hope that OpenView works out, otherwise Mr. Maxwell would have nothing noteworthy to boast about on his resume.
Jokes aside, judging by the pedigree, one can imagine that OpenView is looking to charge out of the gates. The company’s got $100 million but has yet to make any investments, or at least, disclose them.
That’s right. As of this writing, if you fit the criteria and are looking for financing, you just might want to drop OpenView a line. If you get any cash, don’t forget to send us a box of oranges. Or, if you need to build up your case before you hit them or anyone up, feel free to drop me a line as well.
Do note, that OpenView does not focus on biotech or related companies, but is actively looking for investments in Internet, software or entertainment related industries (as in delivery mechanisms thereof to consumers).
Maxwell admits to being a very active investor, helping out as much as possible in sales and marketing. “We look to add a permanent 2-3 person team to every company we invest in.” One example he cited was investing in a software company and adding a service team to support clients. Admittedly, that is a make or break kind of commitment to company. It adds a lot of costs, further pushing out profitability, but understanding that it takes money to make money, in this context the right investor surely makes the difference between a winner and a wannabe.
2007: Return of Software?
We chatted for quite a bit, and due to the fact that many people expect software to be of great interest in 2007, the conversation turned to that.
Netsuite is slated to IPO this year. Salesforce.com is on fire with its share price having quadrupled since the IPO. Read more on our coverage of this sector here.
Admittedly I am more of a publishing/advertising guy than a software guy. From 2000-05, I worked in publishing and sold advertising. Since 2006, I’ve been producing videos and publishing a blog network. When it comes to software and hardware, I use it to develop services like our meta search engine, video search engine, our database driven services and solutions for marketers, so my perspective and vantage point is unique in that sense; I am not a programmer or engineer by any stretch of the imagination, but show me two different products and I’ll tell you which one is the winner, or if you’re lucky, I’ll pick one and make it the winner.
Software and the 25/5 Divide
In light of the 25/5 divide: where people spend 25% of their time online yet marketers only spend 5% of their advertising budgets online, everyone is urging free content, software and services that are supported by advertising. Naturally, I inquired about the wisdom of this rationale with regards to software.
Maxwell envisions a blend of the two models: free ad-supported and subscription-based. ”I think you will see consumers adopt free, ad-supported software while enterprises and the Small Office and Home Office (or SoHo) market will remain with subscriptions.”
He adds: “there will be an interesting balance between what goes on on premise and what goes on in the clouds,” referring to browser-oriented solutions against programs you download onto your computer. It’s true that consumers will embrace free software but companies might not care about paying a few dollars to get added services and ensure up-time.
Is Google Evil?
Naturally, I ask him about the Google threat. I had previously written about how Google could bundle all of its features and services, combine Ad Sense into it (as a lead generator) and create a Salesforce.com killer here.
“I view Google as a bigger threat to Microsoft, than to Salesforce.com. The consumer market threat is more considerable than the enterprise one, I think that Salesforce.com has established itself as the leader in its space, it’s well positioned. It has a good consumer base and purpose. Also, Salesforce.com has service people working on support, Google does not. That makes a considerable difference and gives Salesforce.com an edge. There’s a lot of benefit in being the industry setting standard.”
But companies should be very worried, “really worried” by Google, continues Maxwell. “Google is actually two companies: the advertising and syndication one, and the search one. And any company that has experienced such high growth rates, has high profit margins, employs smart people, has deep technical expertise and is data mining” at Google’s rate should be perceived as a threat, particularly the “consumer companies.”
Brash, Bashful Entrepreneurs
I was about to ask him if Google was in fact evil… but as we zig-zagged in our conversation, we got back to Salesforce.com, and seeking to bring up the Valleywag post, I asked him what VCs thought of brash entrepreneurs (Nick Denton, Salesforce.com’s Mark Benioff) who were sometimes too vocal.
I was also curious to see if potential, would-be stakeholders view my disclosing of my litigation against Rupert Murdoch’s firm (technically, it’s their litigation against me, right now… but at this rate, I might be returning the favor pretty soon) as a negative or understood it as something I need to do to clear my name and fight back against a bully…
It also gave me safe cover to bring up the Valleywag post.
“We invest in CEO and teams. No individual is perfect, everyone has a package. Benioff’s personality has been good. his team has followed him and he has energized the market. There were lots of naysayers… but you cannot fault anything he’s done as demonstrated by his company’s market cap. There are jerks everywhere, and he is not one, but even when some people are seen as jerks, those who know those people would tell you that you cannot believe everything that is written… in fact, I am sure if you got to know those people, you would see that they do a lot of good things for people.”
Of course, coming from a VC, it’s not surprising to hear that “not all you read is true.” I believe the devil was played by an investment banker in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s End of Days. Had the film been set in the 21st century, it just could have been played by a VC.
Enter the Blogosphere
From Benioff I shifted the chat to Valleywag’s post directly and asked him if his feathers were ruffled by the post.
“I’ve been a blogger for a year,” answers Maxwell, who covers his journey as a VC on the Now What blog, “[blogging] is a rich approach to openly express opinions - good, bad and ugly. It adds to a viewpoint. In fact increasingly I find myself moving more towards blogs that traditional media to get many, many more points of views. Some blogs will be very positive, others not. I’ve always joked that so long as you get the URL right, I am fine with it…” laughs Maxwell.
Not sure if he is kidding or not, but the rise of VC bloggers in itself does make for a storyline. It’s almost a sign of the times, VCs no longer brag about the size of the money under management, scope of their returns, or even the size of their houses, but rather, by how popular their blogs are… or maybe that’s just me.
But, that is a different story altogether. The flip side of course, is that VC bloggers start discussions, open up and add transparency to the craft, which is always welcome, “the saying is that emerging companies tend to approach VCs, well we believe that VCs should approach emerging companies to see if there is a good match.”
The Network is the Computer Company
Has the VC landscape changed? “Of course, the Internet presented a lot of opportunities over the past 15 years. Some things can be done with very low capital.” But, the need for expansion begets more capital, “and advice. There’s always a need for a network,” adds Maxwell.
And, take it from an entrepreneur, he is right. All this talk about the Web putting VCs out of business is rubbish. All that the Web has done is improve the financing process, of which VC is one subset. It’s both reinvigorated the VC sector by adding more competition amongst VCs and between VCs and alternative sources of financing.
“There is certainly a lot of capital,” admits Maxwell. But “you have to ask what’s the value that is being contributed. That is the question, the value we provide is substantial.”
The Tale of the Tape
OpenView has 15 people on board as they look for 2 to 4 opportunities per year. You know the saying, to close 2 to 4 deals, they just might go through 2,000 to 4,000 potential companies.
Is your idea and company one of them?
Well, it might.
With $100 million under management, they’re looking to place $5 to $10 million per investment in high tech companies generating $500,000 and more in revenues per quarter.
If you think you fit the mold, check out their site.
I am so impressed with Google. While many like to bash them because they make 99% of their revenues from search and Ad Sense, I give them credit for aiming for the fence even though they keep, at least financially speaking, striking out. Gmail is great. Their maps could be better. But their spreadsheets (and overall online file management services and productivity system) are what really impress me.
Google has basically made it so I do not use Microsoft Office anymore. That’s pretty impressive. Sure, they might not make money directly from me not using MSFT and using their applications, but who cares about money when you’re sitting on $10 billion in “cash and equivalents.”
But they have also made our office more productive. At my old job, I ran the sales department for a rapidly growing online magazine. I generated some $7 million in sales, closing some thousands of advertising deals with several hundred clients. I never used Salesforce.com. I found it clunky. I also though that integrating it with Outlook was not so obvious. Mind you, this all says more about me than Salesforce.com, a company whose CEO and founder Mark Benioff defined the word cojones, and whose stock I regret never buying, cause I incorrectly thought that its market was limited.
Its market, I still think is limited in some ways, but it’s nonetheless a huge market. The stock IPO’d at $15, plunked down to $10.95 and is now flirting with $40 a share, valuing the firm at $4 billion.
As much as I thought as a sales guy that the service was clunky, as a President, I view Salesforce.com as a great tool for my sales guys and for myself. As such, sooner or later I would consider subscribing to the service. But as I tweak the Google spreadsheet and think of what made my old job hard for myself and our team (Finance, Ad Implementation, President, Sales) I realize that Salesforce.com’s product can become limited pretty soon.
Think about it: Google can essentially take:
- Gmail
- Docs and Spreadsheets
- Google Payment (what’s the name again?)
- Google Talk (replace all of the other instant messaging services you use as a sales person)
- Google Maps (for directions to clients’ offices, or meeting spots)
- Google Calendar (obvious, to track dates, calls, meetings, etc.)
- Picasa (so you can see what people look like or people can put a face to their favorite salesperson’s voice and name)
- Video player (for demos, presentations etc.)
- Analytics (prospecting tool par excellence, I mean most sales people rely on Alexa, not Nielsen Net Ratings or comScore)
- Blogger (so your clients can read about you, your products and services)
- Jotspot (so employees can share intelligence, or clients and salespeople can share information)
- Alerts (a prospective client announces something, you can hit them up ASAP)
- Finance (so you can check out the size of the company you are hitting up)
- I could go on.
Catch my drift? I am not telling anyone to short Salesforce.com here. I’m just saying Google can technically aggregate its products and features and deploy a pretty strong strategy in many markets.
Oh… That’s just half of it: Google should then integrate Ad Sense to create an embedded lead generator. That would be insane. That, my friend, would be the Salesforce.com killer.
PLAY
