Working with Entrepreneurs to
You are here: Home > Our People > Aaron Ralby > Aaron Ralby's Posts

Aaron Ralby's Posts

22/03/13

Commercials are Secondary

We all need to make a living, but when it comes to entrepreneurship, commercials are secondary to solving real problems. Solve problems — solve big problems — and the money will be there.

It’s important to have the right commercial model in place. Charging £20 for a solution worth several thousand is a mistake. The point is that the value is easy to demonstrate when you can show the solution to a real pain point.

On a person-to-person level, no one wants to deal with someone who is just focused on commercials. People will be much more willing to deal with someone who is passionate about understanding and solving the problems they have. The proposition must be attractive to both sides, and there must be a commercial opportunity for the entrepreneur; but if a real problem can be solved, many of the other issues of a commercial deal can fall into place out of the solution.

Too many entrepreneurs I’ve met are focused on getting huge quantities of money into their business immediately and lose sight of the problems they are purportedly solving. For a young company without a lot of resource, getting money coming in is critical, but the paradoxical truth is that the fastest way to do that is to solve the problems of the target customers.

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


08/03/13

Managing the Chicken and the Egg

In starting new ventures, one confronts many chicken-and-egg type problems. Support for development of a new technology cannot be garnered without proven test results; proven test results cannot be demonstrated without development. One cannot build something without clear specifications; but in charting the unknown, one cannot get clear specifications without first showing something to prospective customers.

Managing these types of chicken-and-egg problems can be critical in getting something off the ground. Achieving success in this largely amounts to minimising risk to the point where one or both sides are willing to take the remaining leap of faith. Such a process often comes down to relationships: in the case of a chicken-and-egg problem, one can always fall back on the people involved. Is this entrepreneur someone who inspires confidence in me? Do I trust this team’s ability, even if I cannot see results of their technology?

From the entrepreneur’s standpoint, it’s important to see the risks from the other side. If someone is pitching money into a project, they may not be subject experts, and they may not know the team well personally. It can therefore be difficult to understand why a project will be successful or what its full differentiation will be. These issues must be understood and the entrepreneurs must find effective ways of communicating responses to the natural concerns that arise among investors—responses, not defences. As the entrepreneur, one must seriously ask, “Would I trust me if I were the investor? What would or could establish that trust?”

Managing and overcoming chicken-and-egg problems can be disheartening and frustrating, but will almost invariably involve significant back and forth between the parties involved: a little bit of chicken, a little bit of egg at a time, until there is both a chicken and an egg. Get it really right, and by the time the long and laborious process is over, you’ll have lots of eggs for plenty of chickens in the future (just don’t count them til they’re hatched).

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


22/02/13

The Value of Video

It is amazing how disarming a camera can be in the face of an otherwise articulate person.

It happens to virtually everyone: they are calm, confident, and eloquent normally, but turn on the camera, and suddenly it all goes to the dogs. We see this blinkless eye beaming at us and suddenly our brilliant trains of thought vanish and we are left dumbfounded, self-conscious, and fumbling. And it’s all being recorded.

Speaking on camera is a skill and it takes a lot of practice. This is maybe one reason a lot of companies opt for animations these days instead of live filming. Regardless of whether it is live filming or some form of animation, the value of video for a business can be tremendous.

For starters, every frame in video is important. This forces you to streamline your message down to the absolute essentials — a powerful exercise in itself. The limitations of time make you focus your message and articulate what your business does in its essence. Perhaps a narrative or analogy will be most effective; perhaps a case study. Whatever it is, the message must be clean, clear, and easy to understand, typically in 2 minutes or less.

Once you have a good video made, there is a lot you can do with it. Video is more easily digested than text or still images. It’s the fastest, simplest way of communicating a message, and that message can travel quickly to any number of people.

But the use of video doesn’t have to stop at just having a clear description of your business for your website’s homepage. If you can make video a core competence of your organisation, you can begin to use it for all kinds of applications. A presentation of a proposal can be watched by board members on their own time and passed around to all relevant parties. Customers can be educated on how to use a product or service. A video can be made quickly to explain a company’s process for maintaining a CRM and that video will not only be accessible to the whole sales team immediately, it will also be available for future reference if something has been forgot.

Video as a medium is very powerful, but creating good videos is not easy. Something with a clean look can be made relatively simply, but the message behind that video must be streamlined and focused, and that’s what takes the most work. It is, however, work well worth doing. Whatever business you may have, it is worth exploring the potentials of video in relationships with team members, customers, investors, and anyone else involved.

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


11/01/13

Build Engines, Sell Cars

We often need to reinvent a concept entirely in order to improve it. Small tweaks here and there are only worthwhile if the underlying technology is as advanced as it can be. When we tear something apart and start over, however, we need to remember that the customer will want a car not an engine.

Building an engine is the hard part. It takes the most research and development. The majority of customers won’t want to buy the engine, but rather the vehicle that is powered with that engine. The same engine could power all sorts of vehicles or equipment; the customer pays for that functionality.

The analogy holds true for many businesses and innovations. Look at 3D printing, for example. Not many have really figured out how to build businesses around this technology, though most agree it has immense potential. A 3D printer itself is an engine. It allows you to do all kinds of cool things, from rapid proto-typing to creating bespoke parts. Most end users don’t want a printer, however; they want the things made with the printer.

Some people in 3D printing are trying to build businesses selling the printers and printing equipment. This is something of a mistake, in that the total market for printers will be relatively small, and the printing technology is likely to advance further before that market could actually be addressed. Other 3D printing businesses operate around a combination of products and services, capitalising on the flexibility of the printers and the knowledge of those in the business (it still takes a lot of know-how to work with 3D designs and CAD technology). Such a model plays to the strengths of the technology in question as well as the people working with that technology. From the customer’s perspective, it’s not even necessary to know that a 3D printer is being used to produce the product they are ordering or commissioning.

Developing 3D printers took far more research and work than it does to print objects with them now. They are an engine that will power all kinds of innovative businesses. Most people won’t want to buy that engine on its own. If developing a new technology with real IP, then in the process of turning that technology into a business, you’ll need to ask yourself: is this a vehicle, or just an engine? Developing a new engine is ultimately more valuable, as long as you remember to put it in a car before selling it.

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


30/11/12

CamTech Meetup

Last night I had the pleasure of attending the CamTech Meetup – Resurrection Edition. A series of Cambridge-based entrepreneurs gave 7-minute demos of their businesses. Though the time for the demos was run with machine-like precision, the atmosphere was more relaxed than many “pitching” events, as this was more of a forum to share work than to sell business ideas. Ironically, I found these demos more compelling pitches than most investor-style pitches I’ve seen.

Among the more interesting demos was Cambridge Intelligence, a web-based software that sits atop existing databases and provides visually compelling means of interpreting various kinds of network data. Their target is security, and the demonstration they gave showed (as their website does) the way their tool can be used to visualize the connections between known terrorists and terrorist organisations.

Skin Analytics and PatientSource presented two different healthtech innovations. Skin Analytics provides algorithms for detecting changes in the size, shape and colour of moles and lesions on the human body. The software is designed to account for differences in camera angle and lighting conditions. It is not a diagnostic tool itself, but if used consistently, could provide important information for early detection of melanoma as well as data not currently available on the development of skin cancer.

PatientSource provides a solution that seems like a no-brainer, but which will likely be difficult to get off the ground as a successful business. The software provides digital versions of doctors’ notes and patient records that are structured like current paper-based notes, but which can be easily updated by doctors on wards using tablets or PCs. The software goes a step further by facilitating analysis of patient data in a way not possible on paper. As an off-the-shelf solution, the software seems like a logical buy for small and medium-sized hospitals; but as with any sale into the NHS, the process will likely be longer and more difficult than it appears it should.

Other demos included KowledgeTransmission, an e-learning platform for packaging and delivering existing content from publishers, and Shaderlight, an easy-to-use rendering system that works with Google Sketchup for 3D models.

The demos were high quality at this “resurrection edition” and it will be interesting to see if they remain at such a high level at subsequent events, which are likely to be held every 6-wks.

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


21/11/12

Selling Without Selling

Some people like selling things. They are natural, born salespeople. I, sadly, am not.

I’ve never liked “selling.” Nor have I enjoyed the feeling of “being sold to.” It has always struck me as artificial and forced. There are too many potential ulterior motives for the salesperson that I’ve always felt distrusting whenever someone tries to sell me something other than Girl Scout cookies. I suspect many people feel the same way. Crossing the fence into the role of seller made me very uncomfortable at first because I felt like I had to become like all the pushy salespeople I had never liked.

I knew it was not feasible to just live in a transactionless world where no one buys and no one sells. I knew as well that if I were to succeed at all in business, I would have to do some selling. So I tried to “sell.” I knew it wasn’t good to be aggressive or too enthusiastic, but I still thought there was a kind of game to play. Over time, however, I learned to trust my gut feeling. I realised I could not only avoid becoming my idea of a “salesman,” but also actually “sell” more by doing so.

Here are a few reflections on the art of selling without selling:

1) Elucidate value, don’t justify – Justifying the validity of a product or service often comes across as though you’re trying to convince yourself more than the customer. If you don’t believe in your product, you shouldn’t be selling it.

2) Cultivate Sprezzatura – As the medieval courtier, Baldassare Castiglione writes in his Book of the Courtier, one should cultivate a sense of sprezzatura, an unaffected ease or nonchalance. You cannot make the fish bite, so don’t worry about whether the fish bites. Appearing desperate is plain terrible, and eagerness should only be shown when actually excited about the working relationship, not when excited about the potential financial reward.

3) Put clear boundaries on capability – Selling a product or service you don’t really have is bad business. You might make some cash in the shortrun, but the customer will not be happy and that will lead to poor reviews and lower sales in the future. Being upfront about capabilities and resources might cost you a deal, but the price you’d pay for closing such a deal would be even higher.

When you believe in the product or service you’re selling, it comes down to finding the right means of articulating and communicating value. To me, this is a fun challenge of story-telling, and does not feel at all like my old idea of “selling.” It also works a lot better. If you think what you’re selling is crap, then you shouldn’t be selling it. These ideas are nothing new, but it’s easy to forget them sometimes.

Good sales require no “selling.” When executed properly, they just make sense.

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


12/10/12

Keep No Secrets

A lot of people I meet involved in entrepreneurship are very cagey about discussing their projects — particularly the less experienced entrepreneurs. There are, however, only very few circumstances in which secrecy or some form of the ridiculously named “stealth mode” are necessary.

If you can convey to me all the value of your business — its foundational idea, its model, the progression from start to revenue to exit… everything — in five minutes… then you don’t have much value to communicate.

An “idea” for a business is valuable, and there is great worth in the initial conceptualisation that gets a business started; but the “idea” is often overrated. Anyone who has gone and tried to take an idea and turn it into a business knows that it usually takes a monumental amount of work, time, and energy (not to mention money) and still fails a lot of the time. So, if you just met me at a cocktail party, do you really think I’m going to steal your idea and go run with it myself? Sounds like too much work!

Real differentiation in a business can come in many forms, from the niche market expertise underlying the creation of a product, to the technological research, to the business model. Real differentiation is essential to a successful startup, but is difficult to generate. Because it is so difficult to generate, it is usually difficult to replicate. If you find yourself cagey about discussing your startup plans, perhaps you should be questioning, “How differentiated is what I’ve got?”

In my view, there are only limited circumstances when one should keep a project secret. If you’re working on a consumer-based app that is easily replicated, but which relies on virality and swift adoption, maybe keep things to yourself for a bit. But you won’t be keeping things secret long in any case because that kind of concept will either be a success or a failure in a short amount of time. I would hope, too, that you know what you’re doing if you try for this kind of project.

Perhaps you’re working on a project for government or security, or there could be some other factors that would make you want to keep things under wraps for a while. In most other cases, however, secrecy betrays inexperience on the part of the founders and can be detrimental. It gets in the way of having the types of dialogue that can help shape and advance a new business concept.

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


21/09/12

Bootstrapping

Bootstrapping

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


10/08/12

Everyone has a “Suggestion”

Recently, Jessica Tayenjam posted a defense of the consultant in which she wrote about the importance of not just offering advice, but of combining advice with action. I’d like to expand on that discussion here.

One of the most annoying realities entrepreneurs face when starting a business is the way that everyone seems to have “suggestions” for their new business venture. Suddenly, it seems, everyone is an expert on something and is quick to share that expertise. “Have you thought of…” or “Have you looked at…” are often the first words out of someone’s mouth when you tell them you’ve started a business.

Sometimes these suggestions can be helpful, but often they appear as insufferable and gratuitous displays of another person’s knowledge designed not so much to be helpful to the entrepreneur, but instead to bolster the ego of the one providing the “suggestion.” In other words, it’s a not-so-subtle way of saying, “See how much I know.”

When working to the bone on a project, it’s hard not to get attached and personally involved. It then naturally stings when someone you don’t know, who hasn’t done a lick of work on your project, and who might not even have any apparent qualifications to provide advice gives “suggestion” after “suggestion,” or even criticizes your MVP or business outright for one reason or another. It can feel more like a criticism of you personally than of the business you are building.

It takes zero effort, zero expertise to offer an “opinion.” Everyone has one. Real advice is not about opinion; sometimes it can be difficult, though, to distinguish between useful and frivolous suggestions. Startups do not need stream-of-consciousness thoughts about their new ventures; targeted advice from an experienced person can be helpful, but still doesn’t do anything. It’s always easier said than done. What startups really need is a combination of advice and action.

At Rapid Innovation, we often come up against this barrier with prospective clients who sometimes see initial advice as affronts to their businesses or even to themselves personally. It can also be difficult to communicate that we do not just provide advice; RIG creates educated hypotheses based on experience, and then actually goes and tests those hypotheses, acting alongside our clients as a single team. We execute our plans and always aim to practice what we preach.

As someone who has started a business, I understand all the frustrations of the numerous “suggestions” one can receive from people purporting to be “experts” on a particular topic, even something as basic as an image on a website. If you want to be helpful, don’t just write to me saying my website banner looks like crap — that is not helpful. If you really want to be helpful, draw me a new banner and see if I like it.

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


20/06/12

RIG Presents at Cambridge Cleantech

RIG strategists, Simon Jackson and Paul Higgins, recently presented at a Cambridge Cleantech event held at Mills & Reeve law firm in Cambridge, UK. Presenting on the issues surrounding taking high-IP technologies to market, Simon began the presentation by covering a series of issues essential to establishing an effective strategy in terms of moving out of product development and into the market:

Paul Higgins then went on to provide a couple of case studies of how to put this theory into practice:

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed


27/04/12

“Building a product that people want” – An Interview with Dragos Ilinca, CMO and Cofounder of UberVU

Dragos Ilinca is the CMO and cofounder of UberVU, a social media intelligence company with bases in London, Bucharest, and the USA. Dragos began our interview by describing the genesis of UberVU as it evolved out of a web-marketing consultancy into a social media posting platform, into a social media monitoring tool, into its current form as a social media dashboard with social media intelligence.

In your opinion, what is the most difficult part of getting a startup off the ground? Is it getting funding, working together as a team, is it actually developing the product, or something else? Or is it everything in combination?

I think it’s everything in combination. It all comes down to building a product that people want because I think everything falls into place from that. Of course in order to build that product, you need a team. We were lucky because we had known each other for a lot of years, we had started other businesses together, but I look around and a lot of people are looking for co-founders and I think that’s really, really hard, finding someone to start a business with. And once you do that, its about just building something that people want—even if it’s a minimal sort of version—because if you do that, raising money shouldn’t be difficult. If you manage to build that product, that kind of means you’ve got a team, and if you’ve got that team and product, raising money should come pretty easily. So in our case, I think it was definitely figuring out what product to build, but I see a lot of entrepreneurs who are starting with building a team, especially in places like London where developers have so many options to choose from. They could work for, you know, the finance industry, or an already-established startup, and if you’re just starting out it’s difficult to get talented people to join you.

Perhaps it’s too early to ask this question, but in terms of your experience working with social media, how do you adapt? How do you know when to stay your course with your vision for developing a product, and how do you know when to pivot? The social media world is constantly changing, so how do you adjust for that?

I don’t think there’s an easy answer to it, but it kind of comes down to traction. If nobody likes your product or buys it, you need to do something about it. If you have a few people who really, really love it, then you need to understand who those people are and why they love it, and if there’s an easy way to reach more of them, that’s your whole market. And if you’re happy with that that’s fine, but if you need a way larger market, you can potentially work with them and figure out what a dumbed-down version of that product is. I think the most difficult thing is actually making the decision. I think deep down you kind of know when things aren’t really going well, and you can stick around for three months, maybe another six months and see: make a plan, and just say we’ve got this deadline and if things don’t pick up we need to do something about it. But I think people deep down kind of know, but they’re just afraid to make a decision. You need to be able to say, “What we’ve done so far, yeah, it’s a lot of effort, but in the end, people aren’t really paying attention to us and aren’t buying the product, so tough luck. We need to start all over again.”

UberVU strikes me as a pretty advanced mechanism, integrating social media and media monitoring. Do you think the days of simplicity in application development are over? In other words, do you think the skill-level required to produce groundbreaking apps will only become higher as times goes on?

Probably. That’s probably true. Because we’re a business tool, so from that point of view, we need a lot of technology to do what we do. But look at something like Instagram, for example: there’s not a lot of technology in there. If you think of technology just in terms of code, you know, other people can build that kind of stuff in a weekend. If you think of technology as also the mechanism by which they’ve been able to build viral coefficients in it so that it spreads and that kind of stuff, then that’s very difficult to replicate by other people. So I think if you’re building consumer apps—if you know what you’re doing—you can still get away with not having a highly technical solution. But even so, if you look at Colour, they’ve got pretty hardcore technology in there, and it’s just a photo app, more or less. So even these things are becoming more and more complex, and I think the reason is that you can do so much more now with the technology and the stuff that would have been impossible to do in real time is now possible, so you can build a lot better experiences for the user; and the second thing is there are so many people looking at the tech space, that if you build something that can be replicated within a week, and you’ve got absolutely nothing else that can make you succeed, then it’s just not worth it, because other people will copy you ASAP. Just look at Groupon as an example. A lot of people think it’s the technology and they built that in a weekend and there are hundreds of clones; but actually the difficult part is the sales behind it, selling to small businesses and being able to scale and that kind of stuff. So if you think about that as sales, not really technology, but technique and strategy, then it’s very difficult to replicate it. In terms of actual code, some people can probably build that in a day. But it’s not that that makes it work.

Since you’re the CMO, I wanted to ask a marketing related question. Since uberVU and so many applications are so heavily grounded in the online world, how important is actual person-to-person interaction in marketing?

I think it’s still important to have the in-person interaction. Not all the time; we started selling online with credit card, so it wasn’t necessary to meet anyone at that point. You could, you know, make the product and the company look more human by having photos of the members of the team on the website, having a video where you present certain stuff, having a blog that’s very human, but now that we’re moving more into the enterprise space and we’re starting to get customers like NBC or the World Bank, for these sort of things it looks like it’s pretty important to meet face to face, and if you cannot do that, at least have a few phone calls. I think the higher price you charge for what you do, the more you need that sort of relationship. And it’s not just because of the person-to-person interaction; usually if you’re charging a lot of money, the solution that you’re selling, you need to really understand the customer’s use case and be able to show them how the product is really going to make an impact. And these solutions are usually pretty complex, so it’s not like a photo sharing app: you take a picture, you share it with your friends, pretty easy to understand. It can be pretty hard to articulate just from a website and understand exactly how that could be used in your organization, and understand how easy it is to use even though it’s got this breadth of features. It’s hard to make the jump from, ok I see this demo video, how could I use it for my specific use case? It’s very difficult to understand that. And people just don’t have the time and don’t want to take the effort, so instead of researching that tool for 30 minutes and not understanding, it’s sometimes more useful to say, ok let’s just have a 30 minute phone call, you’ll tell me about it and I can explain really easily how we can help or how we won’t be able to help and you’ll probably need some other tools.

 

         Subscribe to our RSS Feed