By DANA MATTIOLI
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL June 11, 2010
As More Consumers Shop via Mobile Devices, Stores Tailor Sites to Make Viewing, Ordering Easier
As Apple Inc. Unveils its new iPhone, more retailers—from Home Depot Inc. To Lilly Pulitzer—are looking to generate sales from smartphones' surging popularity by making it easier for people to shop via cellphones.
Mobile e-commerce is a small but high-growth area in retail. Shoppers will order $2.2 billion of physical goods from websites via cellphones this year, $1 billion more than last year and five times more than 2008, projects ABI Research Inc., a New York technology research firm.
Regular e-commerce sales, excluding mobile orders, are expected to grow more slowly— around 11% to $144.8 billion this year, says ABI, while retail sales overall are expected to creep up 2.5%, according to the National Retail Federation.
Currently, about 30% of retailers have mobile-commerce websites, simpler versions of their sites that make it easier for shoppers to place orders with cellphones, says Dave Sikora, chief executive of Digby, a software company that helps retailers create mobile sites. It costs retailers roughly $50,000 to $100,000 to create and launch a mobile site, he estimates.
Women's clothing retailer Lilly Pulitzer is launching a mobile-commerce site June 15 and is rushing to debut an iPhone application, which will let users browse its catalogs and place orders. "We're full steam ahead and trying to get it out as fast as we can, since we know the new iPhone will help adoption rates for smartphones," says Michelle Kelly, vice president of e-commerce, online marketing and stores for the brand.
Ms. Kelly says she pushed to create the mobile site after noticing an increase in mobile visits to Lilly's website. In May, mobile visits totaled 4% of Web traffic, up from half a percent in July. Customer-service representatives also noticed that more than half the emails they fielded came from iPhones.
Sales remained slim, however, because ordering via cellphone on Lilly's regular website is clunky. Ms. Kelly says she hopes the new mobile site will make that easier and perhaps drive impulse shopping. "I have a vision of a target consumer being at a party and thinking a friend's dress is gorgeous, looking it up on her phone and buying it," she says.
In August, Home Depot will launch a mobile-commerce site geared toward smartphone users and will introduce an iPhone app at around the same time.
"I think within two or three years a material percentage of our site visits and online revenues will come through mobile phones," says Hal Lawton, president of Homedepot.com. By 2014, he expects perhaps 30% to 40% of Homedepot.com traffic to come from mobile phones.
In January, Home Depot launched a basic mobile site for consumers who don't have smartphones. Mainly, consumers look up store locations, products and call stores. Its current iPhone app, which launched in January, lets visitors browse products, access how-to guides and watch videos, but not make purchases without being redirected to its website; it has about 250,000 downloads so far.
Retailers that have launched mobile-commerce sites say sales are growing. Armani Exchange, owned by Giorgio Armani SpA, launched its mobile-commerce site in November after seeing strong traffic at an earlier mobile site that let visitors view collections and videos but not place orders. The new version lets users make purchases.
By May, 5% of Armani Exchange's e-commerce sales came from mobile phones, and June is trending near 6%, the company says. "We've had some pretty fantastic growth with it," says Harlan Bratcher, chief executive of Armani Exchange, which is the youngest and most casual of the Giorgio Armani brands. Mr. Bratcher says mobile appealed to him because it is the way his customers—who typically are 18 to 25 years old in urban areas—prefer to communicate
1-800-Flowers.com Inc. Created its mobile site in 2006 and has seen mobile orders increase from a few thousand dollars a month to tens of thousands of dollars a month, says spokesman Joe Pititto. The mobile site's homepage features popular items, such as a dozen red roses, and minimizes the number of clicks required for a purchase.
"It's probably our fastest growth channel right now," says Vib Prasad, vice president of Web marketing and merchandising for the flower-and-gift retailer, where overall revenue fell 7% to $502.3 million for the nine months ended March 28.
James O'Brien, a 34-year-old senior Web developer from Levittown, Pa., in the last few weeks has used his iPhone to buy clothes, a bike rack and workout weights. On a recent trip to American Eagle Outfitters at the mall, he discovered the store was out of a style of jeans he likes. He ordered them on his phone instead.
He says he likes the immediacy of mobile shopping. "By the time I get home there's a good chance I'll forget about it," he says.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Five Surefire Ways to Reach the Youth Market
By Donna Fenn
June 7th, 2010
From BNET,
Leading insights from business owners and entrepreneurs
Companies are falling all over themselves trying to reach the youth market these days.market these days. Small wonder. Nearly one in five Americans are in the Millennial Generation and they spend upwards of $300 billion annually. Who wouldn’t want even just a little piece of that? But reaching the youth market is tough: they’re marketing savvy and not easily influenced; they’re not big consumers of traditional media; and they will ignore your carefully crafted brand message in favor of what their friends are saying about your product and/or service. So what resonates with these finicky consumers?
At the Ypulse Youth Marketing Mashup in San Francisco a couple of weeks ago, I learned about some very successful youth-centric marketing campaigns. And while most of them were executed by large companies, there are relevant lessons here for entrepreneurial firms as well. Here are few tips from the Mashup:
Be edgy. What other word could possibly describe Kotex’s new product launch geared toward young women? The U by Kotex campaign actually employs a good deal of self-mockery, including television commercials that poke fun at older Kotex ads. The packaging, black boxes with bright pink, yellow and green accents, also flaunts convention. The video, launched in March, has racked up almost a million views and the product has already captured 8.3% market share.
Provide valuable content and information. On the U by Kotex website, you’ll find a page called The Straight Scoop where young consumers can ask questions about their periods to a panel of advisors; every question gets an answer from a health professional, a mom, and a peer. There’s no selling here, but the feature establishes Kotex as a company that cares enough to provide an information forum for its customers and that, of course, helps sell the brand.
Have a social mission. GenY, or Millennials, care deeply about social causes. A study by Cone revealed that nine out of ten consumers in this generation would switch to a brand associated with a good cause if quality and price were comparable. So when Avon launched Mark, a new brand of cosmetics for young women, they signed on MTV celebrity Lauren Conrad to help create a cause-related product. Sales from Conrad’s “Have a Heart” necklace go to Avon’s m.powerment campaign, which makes donations to organizations that help end dating and partner abuse. So far, the campaign has raised over $400,000 and Avon’s campus rep sales have increased by 174%.
Connect with their parents. This is not a “don’t trust anyone over 30″ generation. GenY’ers tend to be very close to their parents and often consult them on life decisions, large and small. The folks at Avon knew this, so when they were ramping up the campaign for their youth brand, Mark (see above), they blasted emails to both college students and their parents. The goal: to spread the word that Mark was looking for campus sales reps. Remarkably, the parent-targeted email got an open rate of 43%, which is well above average. The campaign, combined with other efforts by Avon, resulted in a 60% increase in campus reps.
Co-create with your customers. Last January, VitaminWater created a new flavor called Connect. Or rather, its customers did. Connect, which is black cherry-lime flavored and contains caffeine, was the result of a Facebook Fan Page contest that encouraged fans to design their own VitaminWater flavor. Connect was launched in March and its creator, Sarah from Illinois, won $5,000. Young consumers love this kind of co-creating using crowdsourcing because it creates a two-way conversation with a brand. Companies love it because it’s a pretty cheap way to validate new ideas and to get buy-in from consumers before new products hit the shelves.
June 7th, 2010
From BNET,
Leading insights from business owners and entrepreneurs
Companies are falling all over themselves trying to reach the youth market these days.market these days. Small wonder. Nearly one in five Americans are in the Millennial Generation and they spend upwards of $300 billion annually. Who wouldn’t want even just a little piece of that? But reaching the youth market is tough: they’re marketing savvy and not easily influenced; they’re not big consumers of traditional media; and they will ignore your carefully crafted brand message in favor of what their friends are saying about your product and/or service. So what resonates with these finicky consumers?
At the Ypulse Youth Marketing Mashup in San Francisco a couple of weeks ago, I learned about some very successful youth-centric marketing campaigns. And while most of them were executed by large companies, there are relevant lessons here for entrepreneurial firms as well. Here are few tips from the Mashup:
Be edgy. What other word could possibly describe Kotex’s new product launch geared toward young women? The U by Kotex campaign actually employs a good deal of self-mockery, including television commercials that poke fun at older Kotex ads. The packaging, black boxes with bright pink, yellow and green accents, also flaunts convention. The video, launched in March, has racked up almost a million views and the product has already captured 8.3% market share.
Provide valuable content and information. On the U by Kotex website, you’ll find a page called The Straight Scoop where young consumers can ask questions about their periods to a panel of advisors; every question gets an answer from a health professional, a mom, and a peer. There’s no selling here, but the feature establishes Kotex as a company that cares enough to provide an information forum for its customers and that, of course, helps sell the brand.
Have a social mission. GenY, or Millennials, care deeply about social causes. A study by Cone revealed that nine out of ten consumers in this generation would switch to a brand associated with a good cause if quality and price were comparable. So when Avon launched Mark, a new brand of cosmetics for young women, they signed on MTV celebrity Lauren Conrad to help create a cause-related product. Sales from Conrad’s “Have a Heart” necklace go to Avon’s m.powerment campaign, which makes donations to organizations that help end dating and partner abuse. So far, the campaign has raised over $400,000 and Avon’s campus rep sales have increased by 174%.
Connect with their parents. This is not a “don’t trust anyone over 30″ generation. GenY’ers tend to be very close to their parents and often consult them on life decisions, large and small. The folks at Avon knew this, so when they were ramping up the campaign for their youth brand, Mark (see above), they blasted emails to both college students and their parents. The goal: to spread the word that Mark was looking for campus sales reps. Remarkably, the parent-targeted email got an open rate of 43%, which is well above average. The campaign, combined with other efforts by Avon, resulted in a 60% increase in campus reps.
Co-create with your customers. Last January, VitaminWater created a new flavor called Connect. Or rather, its customers did. Connect, which is black cherry-lime flavored and contains caffeine, was the result of a Facebook Fan Page contest that encouraged fans to design their own VitaminWater flavor. Connect was launched in March and its creator, Sarah from Illinois, won $5,000. Young consumers love this kind of co-creating using crowdsourcing because it creates a two-way conversation with a brand. Companies love it because it’s a pretty cheap way to validate new ideas and to get buy-in from consumers before new products hit the shelves.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Parents: It's a Whole New Playground
MediaPosts' Engage: Gen-Y
Kristine Shine Friday, May 28, 2010
Recent statistics show that Gen Y has already given birth to more than 13 million babies. With the generation being nearly 80 million strong, they will produce more children than baby boomers. What does this mean for marketers? Strap yourself in for a few decades of a wild ride! This generation is big and spans many years. It is also unruly, fickle, elusive and smart.
Gen Y women are re-casting the mold for what "mom" looks like. They don't sit in one place for long and don't define themselves by their "mommyhood." They are confident, know nothing but multi-tasking and believe their balance is found within their personal interests and global responsibility -- more than just work and family, as previous generations may have.
So, who are these millennial moms and how do marketers reach them?
It's important to understand that just because they have had children doesn't mean they have changed their outlook, activities, or personal beliefs -- they have just added "baby" to the mix. Being a parent is only one part of who they are and it co-exists with everything else they embody. There is less separation between "mommy time," "work time" and "me time," but rather a more infused state where all of their passions and interests come together.
Because multi-tasking is fully ingrained in this generation, moms' online time toggles between updating their Facebook pages, building their personal blogs and following, jumping in and out of multiple conversations within various communities, all while celebrity-watching and seeking out the latest fashion and beauty trends.
Consequently, don't limit your advertising to traditional parenting magazines and mommy sites. Yes, moms will pop into parenting sites to chat with friends about specific child-related topics but this is not where they are spending the bulk of their time nor is parenting their primary interest online. Research shows that moms' fourth task online behind email, banking and search is shopping.
This is a group that cares about how they look, the fashions they are wearing and the image they project. Some brands understand this and have already evolved their product and messaging appropriately. The Detroit automotive industry, for instance, has come out of the economic downturn, replacing the caravan with the crossover. Sleek designs coupled with safety, is what makes vehicles such as the Ford Edge or the GMC Acadia attractive to this new generation of parents.
Lastly, let's not forget -- daddies matter, too. With nearly 20% of fathers serving as the primary caregiver, it's not just about moms. This generation has a deep respect for each other and parenting carries equal responsibility. Moms are still the influencers but they are not the sole decision makers.
Brands need to think about a family approach to their messaging, not just mom-targeted communications. This doesn't mean stroller ads should appear on ESPN, but thoughtful family- oriented creative on your female-targeted sites will resonate much better than addressing moms only.
Gen Y moms are well-rounded women. Think about their various passion points and bring that into the discussions. We all know this generation likes to be communicated with, not to, so make sure the dialogue you are creating involves more than just "kiddie talk." They will have more interest in your brand and be more apt to stick around for conversations if you can connect with them personally and understand the many dynamics that make up their lives.
Kristine Shine Friday, May 28, 2010
Recent statistics show that Gen Y has already given birth to more than 13 million babies. With the generation being nearly 80 million strong, they will produce more children than baby boomers. What does this mean for marketers? Strap yourself in for a few decades of a wild ride! This generation is big and spans many years. It is also unruly, fickle, elusive and smart.
Gen Y women are re-casting the mold for what "mom" looks like. They don't sit in one place for long and don't define themselves by their "mommyhood." They are confident, know nothing but multi-tasking and believe their balance is found within their personal interests and global responsibility -- more than just work and family, as previous generations may have.
So, who are these millennial moms and how do marketers reach them?
It's important to understand that just because they have had children doesn't mean they have changed their outlook, activities, or personal beliefs -- they have just added "baby" to the mix. Being a parent is only one part of who they are and it co-exists with everything else they embody. There is less separation between "mommy time," "work time" and "me time," but rather a more infused state where all of their passions and interests come together.
Because multi-tasking is fully ingrained in this generation, moms' online time toggles between updating their Facebook pages, building their personal blogs and following, jumping in and out of multiple conversations within various communities, all while celebrity-watching and seeking out the latest fashion and beauty trends.
Consequently, don't limit your advertising to traditional parenting magazines and mommy sites. Yes, moms will pop into parenting sites to chat with friends about specific child-related topics but this is not where they are spending the bulk of their time nor is parenting their primary interest online. Research shows that moms' fourth task online behind email, banking and search is shopping.
This is a group that cares about how they look, the fashions they are wearing and the image they project. Some brands understand this and have already evolved their product and messaging appropriately. The Detroit automotive industry, for instance, has come out of the economic downturn, replacing the caravan with the crossover. Sleek designs coupled with safety, is what makes vehicles such as the Ford Edge or the GMC Acadia attractive to this new generation of parents.
Lastly, let's not forget -- daddies matter, too. With nearly 20% of fathers serving as the primary caregiver, it's not just about moms. This generation has a deep respect for each other and parenting carries equal responsibility. Moms are still the influencers but they are not the sole decision makers.
Brands need to think about a family approach to their messaging, not just mom-targeted communications. This doesn't mean stroller ads should appear on ESPN, but thoughtful family- oriented creative on your female-targeted sites will resonate much better than addressing moms only.
Gen Y moms are well-rounded women. Think about their various passion points and bring that into the discussions. We all know this generation likes to be communicated with, not to, so make sure the dialogue you are creating involves more than just "kiddie talk." They will have more interest in your brand and be more apt to stick around for conversations if you can connect with them personally and understand the many dynamics that make up their lives.
Friday, June 4, 2010
5 Business Fundamentals I Learned the Hard Way
by Tim Berry on June 3, 2010
in Business Management, Business Mistakes, Reflections
Two days ago I had the pleasure of being interviewed by John Caddell, founder of the Mistake Bank, for a podcast focusing on mistakes. That made me think about some of the things I learned that came from the business mistakes I’ve made. This is over the more than 27 years since I was last an employee, and 22 years of running my (well, our) own business. And despite a fancy business degree.
1. Your employees can’t also be your friends.
Most business owners want to treat employees like friends. We hire people we think we like, we work with them, we share values, so it’s only natural. But I’ve found, I’m afraid, that it doesn’t work.
Sometimes friends become employees, and sometimes former employees become friends, but don’t kid yourself. People you pay aren’t really friends. And business requires management, which means goals and tracking and accountability and feedback, which, ultimately, means you aren’t equal. You can’t be both equal and effective.
As a test, ask yourself: when those people you thought were friends leave the company, are they still friends?
This was really hard on me because I brought my anti-establishment quasi-hippie former ’60s persona with me into my business. I’m not naturally comfortable with hierarchy. But in a real business, it has to be there. I learned this the hard way.
2. Profits aren’t cash.
Profits are just an accounting concept. You get them by adding up the sales you make over a specified time and subtracting the costs and expenses. But having the sale doesn’t mean you have the money; and the cost associated with that sale might be something you paid months earlier. And furthermore, the money you spend to repay debt or buy assets is completely ignored by profits.
So it’s not hard to go broke while still being profitable. I learned that in business school first but then had to relearn it 15 years later when my company suddenly doubled sales and profits, but it nearly killed us. We were selling through channels, so money from sales came five months later, but we were building inventory and spending on marketing months in advance. So we were spending in October for sales made the following March that generated deposits into the bank in the next July. We nearly went under during our first big growth spurt. So I learned about cash flow the hard way.
3. Good liars are rare but dangerous.
Most liars are obvious and easy to spot, but last week I was chatting with an investor whose firm got into trouble for not catching a problem before they invested. He felt bad. It looked like their “due diligence” process failed. But he said:
“If you think about it, we rarely run across a person who can look you straight in the eye and lie through their teeth without showing it. We’re not equipped for that. When people answer straight direct questions with straight direct lies, they can get away with it.”
That made me think. Lots of people tell lies at odd moments, make excuses, try to squeeze out of things; but with normal people, that kind of behavior trips them up on a regular basis. But the power of the person who lies very well is something else altogether. That’s another one I learned the hard way.
4. You have to live with mistakes.
If you can’t stand mistakes, don’t make them, and don’t tolerate them, then you’re not cut out to have your own business. You are going to make mistakes, you can count on it. You have to be quick and flexible about recognizing mistakes, acknowledging them, and taking whatever steps need to follow them.
In Robert Sutton’s 12 Things Good Bosses Believe, posted last Friday at the Harvard Business Review, he says:
One of the best tests of my leadership — and my organization — is “what happens after people make a mistake?”
I agree. I had to learn that the hard way.
5. You can’t do everything, so at least try do the right things.
I call it displacement: everything you do rules out something else that you can’t do. Every entrepreneur wants to build every possible product to please every possible customer. I do an you do too. But we don’t realize, or at least I certainly didn’t for a long time, that trying to do everything doesn’t work. You end up not doing the really important things as well as you should, getting things only half done.
You try to focus. Take a step back out of the chaos, clear your head, and revisit priorities. What really matters? No matter what brilliant ideas you may or may not call your strategy, your real strategy is how you spend your time and your money. I learned that the hard way.
in Business Management, Business Mistakes, Reflections
Two days ago I had the pleasure of being interviewed by John Caddell, founder of the Mistake Bank, for a podcast focusing on mistakes. That made me think about some of the things I learned that came from the business mistakes I’ve made. This is over the more than 27 years since I was last an employee, and 22 years of running my (well, our) own business. And despite a fancy business degree.
1. Your employees can’t also be your friends.
Most business owners want to treat employees like friends. We hire people we think we like, we work with them, we share values, so it’s only natural. But I’ve found, I’m afraid, that it doesn’t work.
Sometimes friends become employees, and sometimes former employees become friends, but don’t kid yourself. People you pay aren’t really friends. And business requires management, which means goals and tracking and accountability and feedback, which, ultimately, means you aren’t equal. You can’t be both equal and effective.
As a test, ask yourself: when those people you thought were friends leave the company, are they still friends?
This was really hard on me because I brought my anti-establishment quasi-hippie former ’60s persona with me into my business. I’m not naturally comfortable with hierarchy. But in a real business, it has to be there. I learned this the hard way.
2. Profits aren’t cash.
Profits are just an accounting concept. You get them by adding up the sales you make over a specified time and subtracting the costs and expenses. But having the sale doesn’t mean you have the money; and the cost associated with that sale might be something you paid months earlier. And furthermore, the money you spend to repay debt or buy assets is completely ignored by profits.
So it’s not hard to go broke while still being profitable. I learned that in business school first but then had to relearn it 15 years later when my company suddenly doubled sales and profits, but it nearly killed us. We were selling through channels, so money from sales came five months later, but we were building inventory and spending on marketing months in advance. So we were spending in October for sales made the following March that generated deposits into the bank in the next July. We nearly went under during our first big growth spurt. So I learned about cash flow the hard way.
3. Good liars are rare but dangerous.
Most liars are obvious and easy to spot, but last week I was chatting with an investor whose firm got into trouble for not catching a problem before they invested. He felt bad. It looked like their “due diligence” process failed. But he said:
“If you think about it, we rarely run across a person who can look you straight in the eye and lie through their teeth without showing it. We’re not equipped for that. When people answer straight direct questions with straight direct lies, they can get away with it.”
That made me think. Lots of people tell lies at odd moments, make excuses, try to squeeze out of things; but with normal people, that kind of behavior trips them up on a regular basis. But the power of the person who lies very well is something else altogether. That’s another one I learned the hard way.
4. You have to live with mistakes.
If you can’t stand mistakes, don’t make them, and don’t tolerate them, then you’re not cut out to have your own business. You are going to make mistakes, you can count on it. You have to be quick and flexible about recognizing mistakes, acknowledging them, and taking whatever steps need to follow them.
In Robert Sutton’s 12 Things Good Bosses Believe, posted last Friday at the Harvard Business Review, he says:
One of the best tests of my leadership — and my organization — is “what happens after people make a mistake?”
I agree. I had to learn that the hard way.
5. You can’t do everything, so at least try do the right things.
I call it displacement: everything you do rules out something else that you can’t do. Every entrepreneur wants to build every possible product to please every possible customer. I do an you do too. But we don’t realize, or at least I certainly didn’t for a long time, that trying to do everything doesn’t work. You end up not doing the really important things as well as you should, getting things only half done.
You try to focus. Take a step back out of the chaos, clear your head, and revisit priorities. What really matters? No matter what brilliant ideas you may or may not call your strategy, your real strategy is how you spend your time and your money. I learned that the hard way.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Entrepreneurs: The Elevator Pitch Is Dead
While there has been much said about shortening the "pitch" to a new business client as they are beseiged with a deluge of media reptiles on a daily basis, I have found a contrast to that idea from a essay regarding hooking a venture capitalist to lend seed money for a new enterprise which negates the so-called "elevator pitch." Dr. Philip Jay
Jun. 1, 2010, 9:28 AM
Business Insider War Room
by Mark Peter Davis, who is a New York City VC and member of the DFJ Gotham Ventures team
When I first started attending panels and VC events, there was a lot of hype around the concept of an ”elevator pitch”. An elevator pitch is an overview of a new business idea that an entrepreneur can explain to an investor in the length of a chance elevator ride shared by the two parties. In approximately one minute, the entrepreneur needs to bait and hook a VC so that he can reel the investor in later.
At business plan competitions and pitch events, “pitch coaches” spent hours with entrepreneurs sharing with them the secrets of the arcane art of the elevator pitch. And once their disciples were fully indoctrinated, the newbies would get to show off their elevator pitching skills. Most entrepreneurs are trained to pack as much information as possible into that minute, driving most pitches to sound like they were being delivered by the spokesman for MicroMachines.
While there are always cases where stories hyped by the media and entrepreneur folklore do come to life (I suppose entrepreneurs do occasionally share elevators with VCs), this generally isn’t how business gets done. While entrepreneurs can meet investors at networking events, at pitch events and, yes, in elevators, they don’t need to feel that they have to corner the investor and deliver a canned 1-minute light-speed monologue about their business before the investor can get away.
More commonly, when an investor meets and entrepreneur, the former wants to know what the latter is working on and will typically ask. Investors by nature are seeking great entrepreneurs and are therefore likely to be interested in hearing the pitch if they think they are speaking to a credible person. Because the investor is interested in hearing a little bit about the business if it matches their interests (sector and otherwise), entrepreneurs will typically get to describe their business through the course of a regular conversation, not a monologue. You don’t have to trap them and you don’t have to rush.
When asked what they’re working on, good entrepreneurs provide a plain English overview of the company (and sometimes describe the pain point when it’s not obvious). That explanation can come in as little as one sentence. "We’re helping people do X by offering a service that does Y". Typically, if an investor doesn’t get it from your description, they’ll ask some clarifying questions. And, if they’re interested in learning more about key elements of the opportunity (market, competition, etc.) an investor will ask.
In some cases, investors will ask the entrepreneur to send along an executive summary after just hearing the overview of the service or after a few questions. The executive summary is the document that should fill in the rest of the blanks about the business – this document should cover all of the other elements that are often packed into an elevator pitch.
In other situations, the investor will determine that the opportunity isn’t a fit for them and not ask for any more information. That’s an okay outcome for entrepreneurs to – they don’t have to waste time with an investor that isn’t going to get interested.
While I do think you should be able to speak succinctly and intelligently about your business, I don’t think you need to have a canned elevator pitch on hand. Ultimately, I contend that elevator pitches are relevant for pitch events and not much else.
Jun. 1, 2010, 9:28 AM
Business Insider War Room
by Mark Peter Davis, who is a New York City VC and member of the DFJ Gotham Ventures team
When I first started attending panels and VC events, there was a lot of hype around the concept of an ”elevator pitch”. An elevator pitch is an overview of a new business idea that an entrepreneur can explain to an investor in the length of a chance elevator ride shared by the two parties. In approximately one minute, the entrepreneur needs to bait and hook a VC so that he can reel the investor in later.
At business plan competitions and pitch events, “pitch coaches” spent hours with entrepreneurs sharing with them the secrets of the arcane art of the elevator pitch. And once their disciples were fully indoctrinated, the newbies would get to show off their elevator pitching skills. Most entrepreneurs are trained to pack as much information as possible into that minute, driving most pitches to sound like they were being delivered by the spokesman for MicroMachines.
While there are always cases where stories hyped by the media and entrepreneur folklore do come to life (I suppose entrepreneurs do occasionally share elevators with VCs), this generally isn’t how business gets done. While entrepreneurs can meet investors at networking events, at pitch events and, yes, in elevators, they don’t need to feel that they have to corner the investor and deliver a canned 1-minute light-speed monologue about their business before the investor can get away.
More commonly, when an investor meets and entrepreneur, the former wants to know what the latter is working on and will typically ask. Investors by nature are seeking great entrepreneurs and are therefore likely to be interested in hearing the pitch if they think they are speaking to a credible person. Because the investor is interested in hearing a little bit about the business if it matches their interests (sector and otherwise), entrepreneurs will typically get to describe their business through the course of a regular conversation, not a monologue. You don’t have to trap them and you don’t have to rush.
When asked what they’re working on, good entrepreneurs provide a plain English overview of the company (and sometimes describe the pain point when it’s not obvious). That explanation can come in as little as one sentence. "We’re helping people do X by offering a service that does Y". Typically, if an investor doesn’t get it from your description, they’ll ask some clarifying questions. And, if they’re interested in learning more about key elements of the opportunity (market, competition, etc.) an investor will ask.
In some cases, investors will ask the entrepreneur to send along an executive summary after just hearing the overview of the service or after a few questions. The executive summary is the document that should fill in the rest of the blanks about the business – this document should cover all of the other elements that are often packed into an elevator pitch.
In other situations, the investor will determine that the opportunity isn’t a fit for them and not ask for any more information. That’s an okay outcome for entrepreneurs to – they don’t have to waste time with an investor that isn’t going to get interested.
While I do think you should be able to speak succinctly and intelligently about your business, I don’t think you need to have a canned elevator pitch on hand. Ultimately, I contend that elevator pitches are relevant for pitch events and not much else.
Upfront TV Ad Market Moving Fast, Fox Sells Out A Big Chunk
OK....it seems there is a good indication that ad $$ are moving up and media sales teams should no longer be too prone to client cutbacks. It's time to push ahead as the future of 2010 looks brighter. Dr. Philip Jay
by Wayne Friedman MediaDailyNews Wednesday, June 2, 2010
The TV upfront advertising market is moving fast and furious, with Fox -- the leading broadcast network -- nearly completing a big chunk of its upfront negotiations, according to a number of executives, well ahead of other networks.
One media agency executive believes Fox grabbed 8% to 9% cost per thousand (CPM) price increases, which would put Fox well over a $30 average CPM for the price for advertisers to buy key 18-49 viewers on the network. Fox executives didn't comment.
Last week, big media agency Zenith Media was rumored to have registered upfront budgets with most of the networks, much to the chagrin of competing media agency executives, who claimed the move might force the market to move too quickly. Zenith executives would not comment about any upfront activity.
As in years past, movies and automotive media budgets were the first to move the market. Movie studios can stir the market in grabbing high premiums for key must-have inventory, especially on Fox, which has many young-skewing shows that studios seek.
ABC, CBS and NBC are well behind Fox in doing upfront deals, according to media buyers.
"Fox is the industry leader; they wanted to go out first," says one veteran media agency executive. In regard to the other networks, "I'm sure they'll want even bigger increases -- around 12%."
CBS executives have publicly said they expect to ink upfront deals at double-digit percentage price increases. Media executives expect networks to aim for that range to make up for other lost ground -- including audience erosion at around 5%, as well as price declines of a year ago at around 2% to 7%.
This is setting out to be one of the quickest upfronts in recent memory. Last year, most of the market moved in late July. Executives expect much of their upfront business to be completed by the end of the week.
Estimates are that this year's upfront market is expected to rise 20% in revenues over year-ago levels to around $8 billion for prime-time broadcast network programming; as well as a 15% hike for all cable networks' programming, getting to around $7.5 billion.
by Wayne Friedman MediaDailyNews Wednesday, June 2, 2010
The TV upfront advertising market is moving fast and furious, with Fox -- the leading broadcast network -- nearly completing a big chunk of its upfront negotiations, according to a number of executives, well ahead of other networks.
One media agency executive believes Fox grabbed 8% to 9% cost per thousand (CPM) price increases, which would put Fox well over a $30 average CPM for the price for advertisers to buy key 18-49 viewers on the network. Fox executives didn't comment.
Last week, big media agency Zenith Media was rumored to have registered upfront budgets with most of the networks, much to the chagrin of competing media agency executives, who claimed the move might force the market to move too quickly. Zenith executives would not comment about any upfront activity.
As in years past, movies and automotive media budgets were the first to move the market. Movie studios can stir the market in grabbing high premiums for key must-have inventory, especially on Fox, which has many young-skewing shows that studios seek.
ABC, CBS and NBC are well behind Fox in doing upfront deals, according to media buyers.
"Fox is the industry leader; they wanted to go out first," says one veteran media agency executive. In regard to the other networks, "I'm sure they'll want even bigger increases -- around 12%."
CBS executives have publicly said they expect to ink upfront deals at double-digit percentage price increases. Media executives expect networks to aim for that range to make up for other lost ground -- including audience erosion at around 5%, as well as price declines of a year ago at around 2% to 7%.
This is setting out to be one of the quickest upfronts in recent memory. Last year, most of the market moved in late July. Executives expect much of their upfront business to be completed by the end of the week.
Estimates are that this year's upfront market is expected to rise 20% in revenues over year-ago levels to around $8 billion for prime-time broadcast network programming; as well as a 15% hike for all cable networks' programming, getting to around $7.5 billion.
What's in Store for Retailers in the Second Half of 2010
Paul Leinwand, a consultant at Booz & Co. The Economist June 2010
As they decide how to stock their shelves later this year, America’s shopkeepers are debating whether the recent rise in consumer spending will last.
THE mood of executives at retail firms normally moves in lockstep with that of their customers. But in America the news on May 25th that consumer confidence had reached its highest level in two years left them oddly subdued. Consumer spending per person, which fell for two years in a row for the first time since the Depression last year and the year before, has been rising again in recent months. But as retail executives place orders for the crucial end-of-year rush, they are anxiously debating how strong and lasting the consumer’s revival will be.
In the first quarter both fancier retailers such as Gap, Macy’s and Saks and workaday ones like Target, Wal-Mart and Home Depot all announced improved results. The rebound has been strongest in luxury stores: same-store sales at Neiman Marcus, for example, were 11% higher this April than last. But there was also reason for cheer at Home Depot, which relies on humbler consumers and the still-low housing market: revenues were up by 4.3% on the first quarter of 2009. Sales of home-improvement gear such as paint and gardening tools were especially strong.
Although profits were up at Wal-Mart, sales at its American stores fell by 1.4% compared with a year earlier. “More than ever, our customers are living pay cheque to pay cheque,” says Tom Schoewe, its chief financial officer. “I’m worried,” admits the boss of another large retail chain, privately. “Things seem a little rougher now than in the first quarter.” The effect of the government stimulus is running out and consumers’ finances remain stretched, he confides. The International Council of Shopping Centres, a trade group, recently trimmed its sales projections for May.
Everyone agrees that American consumers are more cheerful than they were last year. A new survey by Deloitte, a consultancy, found that nearly two-thirds of them say their financial situation is as good as or better than it was a year ago, and that accordingly they plan to spend the same as last year or more. “Retailers should be encouraged by consumers’ tone as they plan for the critical fall and winter selling seasons,” says Stacy Janiak, who heads Deloitte’s retail practice in America.
Yet the recent improvement is from a very low base, especially at the grandest stores. Neiman Marcus’s strong April marked a rebound from a 22.5% decline in the year to April 2009; the 3.2% increase in revenues reported by Saks in the first quarter followed a 32% decline in the same period a year earlier, points out Steven Dennis, an analyst at Gerson Lehrman, a research firm.
The typical customer “still has a lot of fear in her heart, and she is still being very cautious,” says Michael Silverstein, a consultant and co-author of “Women Want More”, which argues that women control the lion’s share of household spending. “She had over-consumed before the recession. At the bottom of the recession, she had nothing unworn, nothing new. This spring, she looked at her closet, her kitchen, said, ‘Goddamit, I still have a job’, and decided to loosen the purse strings.”
This might explain the recent sharp increase in spending on lingerie, dresses, coats and even the higher sales at Home Depot, given that women, Mr Silverstein argues with dogged consistency, tend to initiate redecorating sprees. Loosening the purse strings did not mean abandoning the frugality that was the clearest consumer trend during the recession. “She still bought everything on sale,” says Mr Silverstein. Moreover, the volatile economy is clearly taking its toll; falls in the stockmarket are quickly showing up in lower sales. In short, says Mr Silverstein, “It is going to be a stressful summer for the consumer. She will be moody.”
“The assumption that when the recession was over consumers would return to where they were has already been disproved,” says Paul Leinwand, a consultant at Booz & Company. Retailers are investing heavily to track consumers’ behaviour in an attempt to work out what they might want to buy and how much they are willing to pay.
In general, retailers have learned to focus far more on lowering prices, and in particular to stock a larger proportion of products at the low end of the price range. Saks has been especially astute at this, not least by increasing significantly the share of goods on its shelves that carry its own label. This has been a trend across the retail industry in the past two years, and no one expects it to be reversed now that consumer sentiment is starting to improve. On the contrary, the proportion of private-label sales may well continue to rise to levels long seen in Europe.
Nor does anyone expect any reversal of another trend: consumers have been buying through a growing number of channels, from department stores to discount warehouses to the internet, often going online first to hunt for the best prices. All of the leading retailers have tried to spruce up their online act during the downturn, but few have done as well as start-ups such as Gilt Groupe, which uses social networking to carry out discounted sales of designer-label clothes and homeware, and luxury holidays.
Retailers have also tried to shorten the ordering cycle, so that manufacturers end up carrying more of the risk of managing stock. Many are trying to replace the standard four annual “seasonal” orders with as many as 16 orders a year, says Mr Leinwand. Five years ago only Zara, a Spanish clothes retailer, followed such a strategy, but firms such as J.C. Penney, Saks and Macy’s have since adopted it too.
In some respects, it was easier for retailers to plan during the recession, provided they had accepted the gruesome reality, since plunging sales were all but assured. Now, there is great uncertainty about what consumers will do. If the recent uptick in sales proves short-lived, retailers who extrapolate from the latest numbers will spend a miserable holiday season trying to offload unwanted stock at crippling discounts. Conversely, excessive pessimism could lead to empty shelves, disappointed customers and red faces in the executive suite. “I am trying to create the flexibility in our supply chain to deal with both these scenarios,” says the worried boss of the large retail chain. He, unlike the typical consumer, is finding little comfort in retail therapy.
As they decide how to stock their shelves later this year, America’s shopkeepers are debating whether the recent rise in consumer spending will last.
THE mood of executives at retail firms normally moves in lockstep with that of their customers. But in America the news on May 25th that consumer confidence had reached its highest level in two years left them oddly subdued. Consumer spending per person, which fell for two years in a row for the first time since the Depression last year and the year before, has been rising again in recent months. But as retail executives place orders for the crucial end-of-year rush, they are anxiously debating how strong and lasting the consumer’s revival will be.
In the first quarter both fancier retailers such as Gap, Macy’s and Saks and workaday ones like Target, Wal-Mart and Home Depot all announced improved results. The rebound has been strongest in luxury stores: same-store sales at Neiman Marcus, for example, were 11% higher this April than last. But there was also reason for cheer at Home Depot, which relies on humbler consumers and the still-low housing market: revenues were up by 4.3% on the first quarter of 2009. Sales of home-improvement gear such as paint and gardening tools were especially strong.
Although profits were up at Wal-Mart, sales at its American stores fell by 1.4% compared with a year earlier. “More than ever, our customers are living pay cheque to pay cheque,” says Tom Schoewe, its chief financial officer. “I’m worried,” admits the boss of another large retail chain, privately. “Things seem a little rougher now than in the first quarter.” The effect of the government stimulus is running out and consumers’ finances remain stretched, he confides. The International Council of Shopping Centres, a trade group, recently trimmed its sales projections for May.
Everyone agrees that American consumers are more cheerful than they were last year. A new survey by Deloitte, a consultancy, found that nearly two-thirds of them say their financial situation is as good as or better than it was a year ago, and that accordingly they plan to spend the same as last year or more. “Retailers should be encouraged by consumers’ tone as they plan for the critical fall and winter selling seasons,” says Stacy Janiak, who heads Deloitte’s retail practice in America.
Yet the recent improvement is from a very low base, especially at the grandest stores. Neiman Marcus’s strong April marked a rebound from a 22.5% decline in the year to April 2009; the 3.2% increase in revenues reported by Saks in the first quarter followed a 32% decline in the same period a year earlier, points out Steven Dennis, an analyst at Gerson Lehrman, a research firm.
The typical customer “still has a lot of fear in her heart, and she is still being very cautious,” says Michael Silverstein, a consultant and co-author of “Women Want More”, which argues that women control the lion’s share of household spending. “She had over-consumed before the recession. At the bottom of the recession, she had nothing unworn, nothing new. This spring, she looked at her closet, her kitchen, said, ‘Goddamit, I still have a job’, and decided to loosen the purse strings.”
This might explain the recent sharp increase in spending on lingerie, dresses, coats and even the higher sales at Home Depot, given that women, Mr Silverstein argues with dogged consistency, tend to initiate redecorating sprees. Loosening the purse strings did not mean abandoning the frugality that was the clearest consumer trend during the recession. “She still bought everything on sale,” says Mr Silverstein. Moreover, the volatile economy is clearly taking its toll; falls in the stockmarket are quickly showing up in lower sales. In short, says Mr Silverstein, “It is going to be a stressful summer for the consumer. She will be moody.”
“The assumption that when the recession was over consumers would return to where they were has already been disproved,” says Paul Leinwand, a consultant at Booz & Company. Retailers are investing heavily to track consumers’ behaviour in an attempt to work out what they might want to buy and how much they are willing to pay.
In general, retailers have learned to focus far more on lowering prices, and in particular to stock a larger proportion of products at the low end of the price range. Saks has been especially astute at this, not least by increasing significantly the share of goods on its shelves that carry its own label. This has been a trend across the retail industry in the past two years, and no one expects it to be reversed now that consumer sentiment is starting to improve. On the contrary, the proportion of private-label sales may well continue to rise to levels long seen in Europe.
Nor does anyone expect any reversal of another trend: consumers have been buying through a growing number of channels, from department stores to discount warehouses to the internet, often going online first to hunt for the best prices. All of the leading retailers have tried to spruce up their online act during the downturn, but few have done as well as start-ups such as Gilt Groupe, which uses social networking to carry out discounted sales of designer-label clothes and homeware, and luxury holidays.
Retailers have also tried to shorten the ordering cycle, so that manufacturers end up carrying more of the risk of managing stock. Many are trying to replace the standard four annual “seasonal” orders with as many as 16 orders a year, says Mr Leinwand. Five years ago only Zara, a Spanish clothes retailer, followed such a strategy, but firms such as J.C. Penney, Saks and Macy’s have since adopted it too.
In some respects, it was easier for retailers to plan during the recession, provided they had accepted the gruesome reality, since plunging sales were all but assured. Now, there is great uncertainty about what consumers will do. If the recent uptick in sales proves short-lived, retailers who extrapolate from the latest numbers will spend a miserable holiday season trying to offload unwanted stock at crippling discounts. Conversely, excessive pessimism could lead to empty shelves, disappointed customers and red faces in the executive suite. “I am trying to create the flexibility in our supply chain to deal with both these scenarios,” says the worried boss of the large retail chain. He, unlike the typical consumer, is finding little comfort in retail therapy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)