On Riding a Trojan Horse

On September 5, 2012, in All, Big Data, Brand Aid, HR Technology, HR Trends, HRExaminer, by John Sumser

On Riding a Trojan Horse - by John Sumser - HRExaminer

This 'Trojan Horse' marketing scheme is what we're hearing most often from small startups who might be better advised to actually build an enterprise sales force.

On Riding a Trojan Horse

Big companies no longer pursue Research and Development the way they once did. There is no contemporary equivalent of Xerox Parc or AT&T’s Bell Labs. Not that long ago, innovation was the product of the laboratories that every major company owned. There has been no real move to replace the investments that those large companies used to make in R&D. The massive refinancing of the private sector made it impossible to afford the lack of predictability in innovation departments.

When companies were financed in a more straightforward way (and not saddled with debt), they could afford to be freer with their internal investments. With the right management, brilliance was a result. With bad management, operations like Parc delivered their innovation flow to guys like Steve Jobs

Much of what happens in the merger and acquisition marketplace is a reflection of this disconnect. Companies need innovation to grow. The management of innovation is to tricky and risky for a public company to handle. So, new functionality comes in the form of a purchased company.

A deal like last week’s purchase of Kenexa by IBM simply wouldn’t have happened. Neither the Oracle – Taleo nor the SAP – Success Factors arrangements would have made sense. The coming wave of consolidating purchases would have been unthinkable.

Today, big companies purchase innovation on the open market. Most contemporary software startups are built to sell, not built to grow.This phenomenon, which some people call the ‘appification’ of enterprise software, is a perfectly reasonable adjustment to the fundamental financial shift in the marketplace.

Innovation has to happen whether or not big companies can afford it. As a result, smaller and smaller increments of value are worth more and more. A good look at the startup battlefield will suffice to remind you that most of the offerings are not more than an item on a drop down menu. The shape of today’s innovation is a small company experimenting with a very narrow range of functionality. If there ever was a test of the market’s invisible hand, we’re witnessing it today.

In the old model, an innovation didn’t have to be much more than a good idea. The transistor (which is the foundation of the computer chip industry) was invented at Bell Labs. Many consider it to be one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century. It was never assessed for economic viability. Even though it now drives the computer industry, it was never imagined that it would serve the purpose it does.

Today’s innovations are infinitely less impressive than the transistor.

Today’s entrepreneurs, investor backed or otherwise, are faced with twin demons. They have to innovate and then sell the innovation while still innovating. It’s a challenging set of obstacles. Most of the members of the entrepreneurial class are better engineers than salespeople.

That explains the flood of companies whose sales plan is to “turn users into buyers”. It’s an oft-repeated refrain. A good number of the commentators on last week’s Kenexa purchase cited the idea that the user is now the customer.

That belief underlies the flood of tools trying to enter the enterprise in the pockets of its employees. The theory is that once an internal groundswell is reached, the person who signs the contract won’t have any choice. User-centric freemium tools that propose to generate meaningful new data extracted from their users are the current vogue.

This ‘Trojan Horse’ marketing scheme is what we’re hearing most often from small startups who might be better advised to actually build an enterprise sales force. From here, it looks like the entrepreneurs are betting on an early purchase of their company by a bigger player in search of additional increments of innovation. There are a ton of companies peddling freemium services to users in hopes of snagging corporate accounts.

Imagine, now, that you are the department head responsible for signing the check on these deals. Employees, who have a somewhat limited view of corporate needs and resources, now want to have meetings to tell you about the latest cool app on their cell phone. How many of those meetings will happen before the sifting process gets really extreme?

Not many.

 
  • http://www.facebook.com/george.larocque George LaRocque

    Timing is everything, John. I just concluded some research and found most of the new entries to the HR Tech market over the last 10 years are under-invested in marketing and sales. They are also hitting a ceiling in sales performance and seem to be entering “reactionary” mode. Not a good place to be as the VC looks at return. The challenge has always been there for many start-ups, but it’s compounded by the issues you outline as well as the increased volume of entries to the market.

  • http://twitter.com/CEOofChequed Chequed.com

    John, speaking for the entrepreneur here, there are tremendous dueling forces that you nailed above. Investors and many CEO’s are entrenched in the thinking that users equal revenue much the same way that clicks equalled revenue in 1999-2000. This theory has not been proven however and does require a real sales force to begin monetizing the strategy. Oracle, SAP, IBM can take the market traction that is being gained, segment the app purchased and monetize as a broader, holistic solution. That is something that start-ups simply can’t afford to do without greater and greater levels on investment, which require traction … and the vicious cycle continues. The Trojan Horse strategy can work for an early stage startup to test their underlying product designs, certain business assumptions, etc. but will not build a truly sustainable business. But, in today’s frenzied M&A market within HR technology, a board and CEO have to question the timeframe. Once the deals slow down, the Trojan Horse strategy will subside.

  • Pingback: HRExaminer v.3.36 | HR Examiner with John Sumser

  • http://amitaigivertz.com Amitai Givertz

    John, great post and insights although you’ve left me confused.

    Don’t pharmaceutical companies continue to run huge R&D operations? I don’t know what the numbers are but for every drug successfully brought to market there are hundreds that don’t make it.

    And if the auto industry is typical of the large corporation whose R&D departments have seen huge reductions in R&D spending in recent years, I wonder how much of that is due to the recession and/or the off-shoring of R&D to countries like China?

    Your analysis is perfect for the space where the IBMs, Oracles, and SAPs of the world intersect with verticals like HR, but the implication that innovation is going in the same direction for all industries, especially for multinationals, is where you get me muddled up.

    Don’t apologists for global conglomerates say off-shoring to countries where the education system produces workers capable of pushing the technical and scientific boundaries–places where the combination of an institutionalized work ethic, and tax breaks, etc. far outweigh the possible disdain you and I might have for a mildly repressive regime or two–makes perfectly good sense?

    Isn’t it true that there is more technical and scientific innovation coming out of China, Vietnam, Korea, India and other exotic, industrialized countries than any other time in history?

  • http://www.hrexaminer.com John Sumser

    The problem is even more complex than you suggest. VCs rarely fund marketing and sales adequately. This trend has grown more pronounced as the end game has moved towards acquisition. You are exactly right about the overall pattern, George. It seems to be getting worse.

Page 1 of 11
More in All, Big Data, Brand Aid, HR Technology, HR Trends, HRExaminer (200 of 1228 articles)