Friday, February 29, 2008

Highlights from the 2007 Software Industry Equity Report

On a recent flight from New York, I read the 2007 annual Software Industry Equity Report ($495) by the Software Equity Group. I think they do a great job with these reports and they're a great value. I thought I'd share a few highlights here.

  • Among the "high flyers" in their public equity software index, the median trailing twelve month (TTM) revenue growth was 51% and the median enterprise value (EV) / revenue ratio was about 8x.
  • In 4Q07, the median EV/revenue was 2.3x, EV/EBITDA 15.2x, EBITDA margin 11.2%, and TTM revenue growth 14.4%. Put differently, while the median software company is worth only 2.3x sales, that company has only 11% EBITDA margins and is growing at only 14%.
  • My favorite arbitrage in software continues to exist: the median software company with revenues < $100M is valued at 1.6x sales, while the median with revenues > $1B is valued at 3.6x sales. This means that big software companies can buy revenue from little software companies all day long and make money at it. Example: Business Objects buys Cartesis and its $125M revenues for 2.4x ($300M) and then sells that revenue to SAP for 4.5x sales, effectively $562M. How's that for a simple explanation of consolidation in enterprise software?
  • The median software as a service (SaaS) EV/revenue was 7.5x in 4Q07, with median revenue growth 42.5%, and median EBITDA margin 7.5%. These increased valuations -- and more predictable revenue streams -- help to explain the market's continued enthusiasm for SaaS.
  • There were 26 total software initial public offerings (IPOs) in 2007. The median offering amount was $107M, enterprise value $689M, EV/revenues 9.2x, and EV/EBITDA 37.2x.
  • In the current US IPO pipeline, the median offering amount is $86M, annual revenues $56.4M, and net income -$4.8M. (This suggests to me that the current "IPO window" is set to 50/0/50 -- $50M in revenue, 0 profit, and 50%+ growth.)
  • In 2007, $5.1B in venture capital was raised by software companies (a 3% increase compared to the prior year).
  • 408 software M&A transactions closed in 4Q07, representing $32.5B in value.
For more information, the executive summary of the report is available for free, here. The full report is $495, here.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Tim 1.0 on Web 3.0 (The Semantic Web)

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who I now call Tim 1.0, as opposed to Tim 2.0 (O'Reilly), recently did an interesting one-hour interview with Paul Miller of Talis on their Nodalities blog.

You can listen to the interview here. Because the sound quality isn't great, I suggest listening to the interview while reading along with the full transcript here.

To me the themes remain the same:
  • It's about a machine processable web as opposed to simply a human readable one
  • It's about structuring data from pages so it can be used by programs
  • It's then about integrating data from across multiple sites and/or inferencing across information from one or more sites
  • He's a big believer that people should publish information (e.g., a catalog) in both HTML format for human viewing and RDF format for machine processing
  • RDF is all about triples, which go something like: object-1 property object-2 (e.g., Dave is-brother-of Fred, Dave is-son-of Judy).
  • Creating new knowledge then involves inferencing using these triples (e.g., knowing the two triples above you can induce that Fred is-son-of Judy)
Note that the whole "social graph" captured by Facebook or LinkedIn could easily be dynamically recreated if everyone had some universal profile that listed a bunch of friend-of-a-friend triples (Dave is-a-friend-of Tim, Dave is-a-friend-of Joe, ...)

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Cusumano: Microsoft Should Buy SAP, Not Yahoo

I had the pleasure of working with MIT's Michael Cusumano when I was at Business Objects in Paris in the late 1990s. At the time, he'd just published Microsoft Secrets and we'd hired him to help with defining and improving our software development process.

So I was happy to see he was the force behind the idea that Microsoft is perhaps stalking the wrong prey in this recent New York Times article. Excerpts:
Michael A. Cusumano, who has written several books about the software industry and about Microsoft, is not impressed with Microsoft’s rationale for its Yahoo offer. He said the bid seemed to be a pursuit of “an old-style Internet asset, in decline, and at a premium.”

If Microsoft thinks this is the right time to try a major acquisition on a scale it has never tried before, it should not pursue Yahoo. Rather, it should acquire another major player in business software, merging Microsoft’s strength with that of another. This is more likely to produce a happier outcome than yoking two ailing businesses, Yahoo’s and its own online offerings, and hoping for a miracle. [...]

Professor Cusumano has a suggestion: Rather than acquire Yahoo, Microsoft should pursue SAP. [...]

If Microsoft is to rededicate its attention to its most valuable assets, business customers, a prerequisite is dropping its ill-advised bid for Yahoo. And to find the best acquisition strategy, ask, “What would Larry do?”

If Microsoft tries to fight Google with wobbly legs, scared witless, it will lose.


Personally, I agree. Microsoft's essence is a business software company. Given the choice between buying an ailing Internet company that (1) just had its butt kicked by Google and (2) never figured out what to do about it, or a powerhouse in business software to shore-up its position against a Google attack, I'd pick the latter any day.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

How to Develop a Marketing Message

I've had a few marketing inquiries of late so I thought I'd devote a post or two to some of my favorite marketing topics: messaging and the marketing mission.

This post’s on messaging. Surprisingly, when you Google “how to develop a marketing message” you don’t find much. It’s an area I’ve put a huge amount of thought into during the past 20 years, so I’ve decided to share my tips here.

Messaging isn’t rocket science. It’s largely a question of two things: audience and discipline.

Know Thy Audience
The first thing you need to know when building a marketing message is to whom you’re speaking. Quick quiz: which of the following target audience statements provides you with clear guidance in building a message?

  • Global 5000 CIOs and line-of-business executives
  • General managers of online products at publishers
  • Directors of security in IT organizations
Trick answer: I think both 2 and 3 are clear. I think is 1 is appalling and it’s shocking how often you encounter it. If you’re at a startup and your target audience is “global 5000 CIOs and line-of-business executives” (note my clever attempt to basically slide in “everyone”) then you have a strategy problem, not a messaging problem. Sometimes what sounds great at the strategy offsite sounds a lot worse the following week. When that happens marketing has the obligation to tell the company that the target audience isn’t sufficiently focused. So go back, re-work the strategy, and find a target audience that’s precisely defined enough to be reachable.

Marketers typically make a few mistakes in defining the audience: defining it too broadly (per the above), over-reaching, and speaking low.

Over-reaching results from marketing’s optimistic tendency to assume sales will call quite high in the target customer’s organization. So, for example, they assume sales is speaking to the CIO when they are actually talking to the director of data warehousing. (I used to have a slide a Business Objects that said the CIO’s business card says “chief information officer” on it and not “director of data warehousing.”) So be realistic in assuming who you’ll be able to reach when defining your audience.

Speaking low happens because product marketers have technical backgrounds and typically just love talking about the product and how it works. Senior executives, on the other hand, don’t care about how the product works; they care what it does, and specifically how it can help them solve their top problems. Remember this truth: you are delegated to the level at which you speak.

So in the unlikely event that one of your salespeople actually gets to the real CIO, if he starts talking about “aggregate awareness” and “hypercube data structures,” I can guarantee that the following will transpire.
“Joe, please stop a second, Joe. Thank you. Thank you so much. It was so kind of you to come by today. From what you’re saying it’s clear to me that you need to be talking to Bob, our director of data warehousing. Please go contact Bob – I’m sure he’d love to know this important information – and please don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.”
Once you know who you’re speaking to, then you need to walk a mile in their shoes to understand them. Read their books, blogs, and periodicals. Rub elbows with them at their conferences. Try to pass what I call the cocktail party test – how long can you last at one of their cocktail parties before they realize you work in software, not their industry? Your goal: never.

The typical way to avoid this messy and difficult work is to frame the audience too broadly as “business and IT executives” and then safely assume that everyone cares about “increasing revenues” and “reducing costs.” You can spare yourself a lot of work in so doing, but you’re also sparing yourself from creating a compelling, relevant message.

Ironically, I’d note that over-reaching and speaking-low are actually offsetting errors so many marketers work their whole careers never knowing they’re making them. Ideally, make neither mistake, but if you’re going to make one, then be darn sure to make them both.

Question Lists
Once we know who we’re speaking to, we need to figure out what to tell them. This is largely a matter of hard work and discipline: the hard work to think about the best answers to a rather basic set of questions, and the discipline to hone those answers down to the shortest possible form and to not attempt to be all things to all people.

Those typical questions include:
  • What problem(s) does it solve?
  • Why would I buy it?
  • Why is it different from the other seemingly identical ones? (Intra-category differentiation.)
  • Why is it different from the usual approach?
  • Who else uses it in my industry and/or to solve my problem?
  • What is it? (Positioning.)
What goes wrong in this seemingly simple exercise?
  • Leading with features. I can’t tell you how hard I had to work to beat “schema independence” out of some of our sales people. Yes, it’s important. Yes, we do it. But it absolutely cannot be word 15 out of our mouths when we meet with customers.
  • Failure to make concessions (also known as the “dessert topping and a floor wax” problem). When you introduce a product people struggle to figure out what it is, how it fits in, and what it can and cannot do. Marketers, on the other hand, hate to make concessions. The result: marketers position the product as all things to all people and the customers lose interest because they can’t understand the offering. You cannot sell the cheap, expensive, high-end, low-end, complex, simple, single-machine, massively clustered, search engine / CMS / database.
  • Answering the wrong question. I can’t tell you how often I get “how” answers to “what” questions. Encourage your sales team to listen to the question and answer precisely. For example, when asked “what does it do” do not answer “how does it work” no matter your enthusiasm for the algorithm.
  • Talking too much. There was a time in IT sales when chest-thumping the unique feature(s) of your product was the key to success. That time is long past. Today, you must demonstrate an understanding of the customer’s problem and map your capabilities to solving it. That means using your mouth less and your ears more. As goes the sales adage: you have two ears and one mouth; use them in that proportion.
  • Imprecise language. I can’t tell you how confusing it is when our salespeople say “unlike other search engines, MarkLogic does X.” MarkLogic isn’t a search engine; it’s an XML content server, a type of special-purpose DBMS. So the sloppy “unlike” undermines a lot of hard work in product category definition. (Correct example: unlike other DBMSs, MarkLogic is designed and optimized for XML content.)
  • Failure to use analogy. Not using analogies in marketing is like not using the oars on a rowboat. (Get it?) Marketers should sweat blood trying to create clear analogies for their products. My all-time favorite comes from the anti-virus world: “finding SMEG is like catching smoke in a butterfly net.” (That one gives me goose bumps.) I’m also a big fan of the car/boat: floats like car, drives like a boat – which, by the way, provides a reasonable analogy for XML document support in relational databases.
For a concrete example, let me share the answers to some basic questions for MarkLogic Server in the context of a VP of online products at a publisher.
  • MarkLogic accelerates the creation of information products. Ultimately, it provides you with agility. (Note multi-level benefit structure.)
  • MarkLogic differs from the usual approach of trying to bolt together an RDBMS and a search engine by combining – in one product – everything you need to build content applications from both a database and search perspective. It’s a clock/radio, not a radio wired to a clock.
  • MarkLogic is an XML content server, a type of special-purpose DBMS.
  • MarkLogic lets you load, query, manipulate, and render XML content.
  • MarkLogic helps solve the problems involving content integration, content repurposing, content delivery, custom publishing and search and discovery.
Personally, I love the “problem list” because it sets a problem agenda for the ensuing conversation, and not a feature agenda. “We solve problems X, Y, and Z. Do any of those of interest you? Oh Z does, great, let me tell about customers 1 and 2 who faced problem Z and solved it with MarkLogic.”

This approach keeps you on “your turf” (talking about things you do well) but allows the customer to guide you to the intersection of “your turf” and “their problems.”

Message Trees for Memorization
Because the ultimate purpose of a marketing message is to serve as a blueprint to guide collateral and sales tool creation, web content creation, and real live sales conversations, you need to make the messaging something that everyone can remember. That’s one reason I like question-lists: because you can decompose the message into short answers to a series of basic questions.

But sometimes, you will have a lot to say. For example, let’s zoom back to 1996 and examine the intra-category differentiation of BusinessObjects 4.0. We had plenty of whizzy features:
  • Aggregate awareness
  • Dynamic microcubes
  • Multi-pass SQL generation
  • A new semantic layer designer
  • A new security utility
  • A repository for BI information
  • The first integration of query, reporting, and OLAP techniques
  • Usability-tested, hyper-friendly UI
  • One-step query panel
But how can you remember nine features? You can’t. Most people can remember three things, not nine. Here’s the million-dollar trick. Remember nine things by structuring them into three groups of three. This is what I call a (ternary) message tree.
  • Power: aggregate awareness, dynamic microcubes, multi-pass SQL
  • Deployability: security utility, designer utility, repository
  • Ease of use: integration, friendly UI, one-step query panel
Twelve years later I still remember the PDE message from that launch.

Some people don’t like this approach because you end up grouping precise differentiated claims (e.g., aggregate awareness) under vague concepts such as power and then asserting that BusinessObjects 4.0 is “more powerful” tool than its competition.

I believe that objection is spurious because those who assert it miss the point that marketing is a conversation. In the end, you want the customer to draw his own conclusions at the “advantage” level (i.e., PDE) and you will support your contention that your product is the most powerful / deployable / easy by discussing the underlying features.

I don’t expect to assert that we’re the most powerful and have the customer say, “yes.” I expect the customer to say, “why?” That gives me the chance to support my assertion and all the while I’m practicing the “tell 'em, tell 'em, tell 'em” approach that all good salespeople, teachers, and speakers use: tell them what you’re going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you told them.

The Green Spots in Cheer
When discussing “features” it helps to have a mental model for features, benefits, and the like. Let’s use my favorite example to demonstrate, which I call FABC (feature, advantage, benefit, consequence):
  • Feature: the green spots in Cheer detergent
  • Function: they work through [amazing chemical process]
  • Advantage: they make the towels whiter
  • Benefit: your spouse kisses you when you get home
  • Consequence: your children will be ostracized at the local swimming pool because their towels are less white than the other kids’
The next time you watch TV, hold off the Tivo, watch a few commercials, and you’ll invariably find a few “slice of life” advertisements that demonstrate the feature, advantage, benefit paradigm of marketing.
  • Some marketers speak of feature, function, benefit marketing. I don’t like this because “function” encourages you to talk about how the feature works – i.e., to describe the amazing chemical process. While this is sometimes necessary, I don’t like assuming it into every conversation.
  • One person’s feature is another person’s benefit. That’s why I use the term “advantage” to describe the result you get from a feature (or another advantage). In my model, advantages are stacked recursively up to the final one, which I call the “benefit.” Example: green spots mean whiter towels mean less insecurity means happier spouse means happier children means kiss when you get home. In this example, I call all the stuff in the middle the advantages stack and I call the top of that stack the benefit. That’s why I always tell marketers the ostensibly confusing statement: “don’t forget the kiss.”
  • Here’s a technology example of the advantages stack: checkpoint feature in new debugger means easier to find problems with the software means more productive programmer means happier programmer means on-time project means faster time-to-market means competitive advantage means increased win rate means more sales means more profit means promotion for general manager. Personally, and this will tell you something about how warped I am, I think it’s fun to build these stacks and to figure out at what level your “kiss” (i.e., benefit) should be.
  • Many salespeople believe that it’s not a benefit until it’s personal, so my kiss metaphor conveniently works well and, in the preceding example, it’s not a kiss until you get to the promotion for the general manager.
  • Logically, I’d argue that there are three archetypal benefits (sex, money, and power) but it rarely works to walk that far up the stack and, in business, you will usually end up at money and then need to drop down a level or two to have a tangible linkage to your offering. (Cynics would argue there is only one archetype, money, but we won’t go there.)
  • Don’t define "feature" too narrowly. Most features are regular features in the software, but “Tufte-designed user interface” (if you actually hired Tufte for design help) or 100-TPS capable engine (if you benchmarked at that speed) both qualify for my definition of feature.
Let’s go way back to 1987, when leg warmers were all the rage and for $10 you could see Jerry Garcia at the Keystone Berkeley, for our final example, taking a nice DBMS feature from that era: fast commit.
  • Feature: group commit
  • Function: flushes the commit records from multiple users to the log file in a single I/O. (I slaved twenty years ago to distill this complex function to one sentence.)
  • Advantage: enables high-volume online transaction processing (OLTP)
  • Benefit: saves money by putting OLTP systems on minicomputers with RDBMSs instead of on expensive mainframes with IMS
  • Consequence: lacking this feature, your system will bottleneck at 30 TPS

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Mark Logic CEO Blog Named Codie Award Finalist


I've just learned that the Mark Logic CEO Blog has been named a finalist 2008 SIIA Codie awards in the "best corporate blog" category. But don't hold your breath to find out if I win -- the winners will be announced in May 20, 2008 at the Codie Awards Gala in San Francisco at the glitzy Palace Hotel.

The other finalists (aka, my competition) are:

Thank you to my readers for your support!

Lest I be self-centric, I should also note that MarkLogic Server has been named a finalist in the "best content management solution" and "best vertical market business content solution" categories.

Tim O'Reilly on Free

I'm here at the O'Reilly Tools of Change for Publishing conference in New York this week and had the pleasure of hearing Tim, himself, speak about his own media business in a speech entitled Free is More Complicated than You Think.

Here are some excerpts and tidbits:
  • Wikipedia has 5M articles and 6 staff
  • The computer book market is basically stagnant over the past 3 years; forcing O'Reilly to re-think their business and innovate in growth strategies
  • For a long time Tim thought advertising support for free content was the right way to approach the Internet, but that he was just bad at doing it.
  • The question he focused on was: could he / how could he replace his ~$50M book publishing business with a pure online model?
  • Then he did some interesting math. Assume (hypothetical but probably close to his real business) that he sells 200K books/month @ $20 = $4M/month = $48M/year. Average book is 446 pages, which is equivalent to 90M page views per month. At a $1 CPM, that's $90K/month. At a $20 CPM, it's $1.8M -- roughly half the size of the book business.
  • But there's a catch, Tim says that online readers view only 5% of the pages in book. All of sudden you down to a mere thousands of dollars per month. So he stopped thinking about a solely ad-supported book publishing business.
  • So, Tim thought, if not ads then what? His answer: a mix of 5 things. (1) sponsored content (e.g., shows, sites), (2) subscription content (e.g., Safari, Make), (3) services, (4) e-commerce, and (5) advertising.
  • He talked a lot about content and community, for example, speaking about their experience with Make webzine, the concept of "the maker", and the Maker Faire event which attracted 45K people last year.
  • To Tim, the events business is about: (1) community, (2) concept (e.g., the maker), (3) brand, and (4) a sponsor ecosystem.
  • "IP is not our core asset -- it's our mission / brand / community. Let the products flow from that mission and community. Then do the math on the business opportunity, and let the math pick the business model for pursuing it."
Basically, Tim stuck to his core messages: engage the community, innovate, don't be afraid of the Internet. Great stuff -- especially when delivered in this unique "from a publisher to a publisher" format.

Final thought: who'd have believed that you could build a 800-person publishing tools conference that I'm sure is highly profitable? It all speaks to the power of focus and to focus on the audience (publishers) as opposed to technologies (e.g., ECM, KM).

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Tufte on the iPhone

Go here (QuickTime required) to check out an interesting, if rather deadpan, review of the iPhone user interface by UI and data presentation master, Edward Tufte.



Click here (not on the image, sorry) to see the video.

I'm a big fan of Tufte's work and in particular love his book, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, his PowerPoint rant called The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint, and his analysis of a single slide in the space shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation Board.

The Future of XML: The Web and Web Publishing

Elliotte Rusty Harold recently wrote an interesting post, entitled The Future of XML.

Excerpts:
The crystal ball might be a little hazy, but the outline of XML's future is becoming clear. The exact time line is a tad uncertain, but where XML is going isn't. XML's future lies with the Web, and more specifically with Web publishing.

... I believe that XML has a bright and important future. It just isn't a future that has much if anything to do with either classic or Web software development. To understand where XML is moving in 2008 and beyond, you have to first look back to 1997 and even earlier to find the origins of XML.

[...]

XML was an outgrowth of a 20-year-older technology known as SGML. At roughly the same time Codd was at IBM® figuring out how to structure data by shredding it into tiny little unordered pieces, Charles F. Goldfarb, Edward Mosher, and Raymond Lorie were also at IBM figuring out how to structure large ordered documents that would never make sense as tables. Codd was thinking about business data like inventories and financial records. Goldfarb, Mosher, and Lorie were thinking about business documents like annual reports and airplane technical manuals.

The post goes on to discuss the three pieces of publishing on the web: the reader, the publisher, and the author. It then proceeds to discuss a question close to Mark Logic's heart: where to put XML? (Our answer: an XML content server like MarkLogic Server).

Check it out. If nothing else you'll learn a new word: onei·ro·man·cy.

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Thoughts on the Microsoft / Yahoo Deal

The New York Times ran an interesting story today about the impact on Silicon Valley startups of the proposed $45B Microsoft / Yahoo deal. The main thesis is that continuing second-level consolidation might create a dearth of acquirors for the hundreds of startups who have take the $35B in venture capital invested in 2007.
“From a start-up and investor perspective, if there are more companies trying to vie for the same businesses, there are more exits,” said Bismarck Lepe, a former Google employee and now chief executive of Ooyala, a year-old video host and advertising company. “It’s not great for competition if there are only two acquisition targets instead of three.”
I, like many Silicon Valley strategy types wonder if the Microsoft / Yahoo deal is the final salvo in the last war. In many ways, Yahoo's problem was they couldn't get past the fact that Google stole Internet search out from under them. So the company was obsessed with re-catching Google, instead of -- in classic Silicon Valley style -- trying to beat them to next big thing. Most strategy types think Yahoo should have said: "We screwed up. We lost search. Deal with it. Now, let's go find the next big thing."

Much as Steve Jobs might have said: "I screwed up . I lost the PC market. Deal with it. Go find the next big thing. (In the "irony can be pretty ironic" department, the iPod is actually dragging Mac sales behind it. So the best way to improve the Mac's market position was to focus on something else. How's that for perverse?)

One more example of this "can't let go" phenomenon because it's so popular: SPSS. I got to know SPSS pretty well at one point about 6 years ago and I couldn't help but feel the company had an unhealthy attitude about SAS. For SPSS, the same advice applies: "You screwed up. You lost enterprise stats / analytics to SAS. Deal with it. Let it go. And then figure out how to beat everyone to the next big thing." (I don't follow SPSS anymore so I have no idea if they've done that in the intervening six years. Hopefully they have.)

Somewhere there's a probably job opportunity for "corporate strategy therapists" to help companies deal with this sort of anger and loss. But I digress.

Quoting a related Times article:
A Microsoft-Yahoo merger would give Web publishers and online advertisers “a more competitive and compelling No. 2” to Google, thus enhancing competition and consumer welfare, said Bradford L. Smith, Microsoft’s general counsel.
Here's a good tool for corporate development VPs everywhere: if the best your $45B acquisition can do is create "a more compelling #2" than perhaps you should consider doing a different deal.

The question I have is simple:
  • Will this help Microsoft slow down Google by modestly wounding the advertising engine that provides all the funding for Google's attack on Microsoft's core businesses? (Think: the best defense is a good offense.)
  • Or, will this simply enlist Microsoft in Yahoo's Sisyphean quest to catch Google in Internet search, infecting the acquiror with the acquiree's disease?
My personal take is if they can execute it correctly it might work, but it needs to be part of a broader strategy. Effort 1: counter-attack Google's core, not hoping to win, but simply to slow them down. Effort 2: Stop Google Enterprise from attacking Microsoft in on-demand apps and beat them to the cloud computing world of the future.

Ironically, you've got two huge companies and neither one is terribly good at selling to the enterprise. Perhaps while the behemoths are duking it out Oracle will step in and steal the enterprise-cloud computing market.