The dynamic pricing game – where all is not 99c

Phil Libin the effervescent CEO at Evernote made headlines two days ago when he admitted that Evernote’s pricing strategy had been a bit arbitrary and a new pricing scheme for their premium offering would be launched come 2015. Although little was said about what the approach would be – I do hope it points to adopting a flexible pricing approach, and serve as a forerunner for pricing strategies to legions of firms down the road.

To put some context, many software providers (especially app companies) have adopted a one price fits all approach; i.e. if the price for the app is $5 per month in USA, the price is $5 per month in India. The argument has typically been one of these

1. Companies such as Apple do not practice price differentiation around the world, and yet they sell – so we should also be able to do the same
2. Adopting a one price fits all approach streamlines our go-to-markets and avoids gaming by users
3. It is unfair to users who would end up paying a premium for a product which can be sourced for a cheaper price elsewhere

From a first hand experience I believe that such attitudes have proven to be the one of the biggest stumbling blocks for firms to achieve global success. A good way to explain why is to pry apart these assertions.

• The Brand proposition argument – Although every firm would love (and some certainly do in a misguided manner) to believe that their firm has a premium niche such as Apple – harsh reality points in a different direction. There are only two brands who top $100 bn – and Apple is one of them; and no – unless you are Google, you are not the other! Even though your brand may be well known in your home of Silicon Valley, its awareness most likely diminishes with the same exponential loss as a mobile signal – its value in Moldova for example – may be close to zero. This simple truth is that there are only a handful of globally renowned brands (e.g. Apple, Samsung, BMW, Mercedes, Louis Vuitton etc) which can carry a large and constant premium around the world.
• The “avoid gaming” argument – this does have some merit, but needs to be considered in the grand scheme of things. Yes – this is indeed possible, but is typically limited to a small cross section of users who have foreign credit cards/ bank accounts etc. The vast majority are domestic users who are limited to their local accounts and app stores. The challenge here is to charge the same fee irrespective of the relative earning power in a country. While an Evernote could justify a $5 per month premium in USA (a place where the average mobile ARPU is close to $40), it is very hard to justify it in South East Asia (mobile ARPU close to $2) or even Eastern Europe (mobile ARPU close to $8). It then would simply limit the addressable market to a small fraction of its overall potential – and dangerously leave it open to other competitors to enter.

ARPU	$12.66	$2.46	$11.37	$9.20	$48.15	$23.88	$8.77
Region	MENA	APAC	Oceania	LatAm	USA	W.EU	E.EU

• The unfairness argument – also doesn’t hold true. The “Big Mac Index” stands testament to the fact that price discrimination is an important element of market positioning.

Even if you argue that you cannot buy a burger in one country to sell in another, the same holds for online software – take the example of Microsoft with its Office 365 software product, same product – different country – different price.

• That brings me back to the final point – $5 per month may sound like a good deal if you are a hard core user, but if you compare it with Microsoft Office 365 – which also retails at $5 per month, it is awfully hard to justify why one would pay the same for what is essentially a very good note taking tool.

Against this background, I do welcome the frank admission that this strategy is in need of an update, and also happy to hear that the premium path isn’t via silly advertisements. Phil brought up a good challenge with his 100 year start-up and delighted to know that he still is happy to pivot like one.  I do for sure hope that the other “one trick pony” start-ups learn from this and follow suit.

The new battleground – Uber/ MyTaxi against the world!

Last year, I penned in an article around Airbnb and the upheaval this industry is facing. A that time I had likened it as a “David vs Goliath” fight  – the individual renter on one side versus the big bad “industry” on the other. If one looks at the news feed these days coming out of Uber, MyTaxi and others – I have to wonder, did I by any chance get the “David vs Goliath” reversed?

I use both these services, and my recent experience in Moscow re-emphasizes just this need. If you are a tourist, try hailing a cab and negotiating a decent price; in most cases you end up with a smelly cab paying double if not triple the price. Try Uber, and you are chauffeured around in a luxurious S-Class Mercedes Benz, many equipped with free Wi-Fi for a lower price and a clear emailed receipt at the end. No wonder, for tourists in a strange country where local cabbies are accustomed to well – “taking people for a ride”, such services are a godsend!

But how about the better, efficient taxi services in places such as Berlin? They are forced to compete on prices using apps such as MyTaxi, or by limousine services such as Uber. Or take London, NYC etc – where the cab drivers have to take an exam, pay medallion fees (which in places such as NYC can cost a fortune) – how are they expected to compete with the “private Uber’s” of this world? Even lawsuits in this realm seem to be a bit ridiculous, such as what is happening in London. Transport for London allowed Uber on the justification that “Uber’s kit does not require a physical connection between the device and the vehicle”. Well, take this argument to an illogical end then you may have payment POS solutions using NFC or some other sensing technology arguing that they may not need to pay merchant fees since they didn’t have any “physical contact”…. Such arguments are simply frivolous, and loose sight of the bigger picture. Yes, Uber, MyTaxi etc are using a mobile device – but this device is a clear replacement to the taxi meter – if it wasn’t sitting somewhere in the car, there would be no way to compute a fare!

Authorities all around the world do need to move quickly towards a compromise – with all parties (the authorities, taxi companies and the new upstarts) coming to a agreement which has world wide applicability. What could this look like?

• For authorities – it may herald the end of these costly license fees and strict regulation. This may be especially necessary in regions/cities which have an acute paucity of public transport. This does mean that they either lower/ eliminate fees for the taxi firms, or charge anyone who uses his/her car for such services a similar payment (or based upon hours of use). This may lead to lower tax revenue, but would improve overall transport. There is definitely a risk that accidents may increase due to unskilled drivers – but this risk is mitigated by evaluating and approving drivers before being allowed to join such as service.
• For registered taxi services – it would mean to focus on improving customer experience, even banding together to provide a similar service. No one likes to have a different app per city, but if taxi companies really want – they can work together to create a viable alternative. This is akin to partnerships by Telco operators and other regional players, as a defense against a global OTT player who have a global footprint
• For upstarts – funnily enough, wouldn’t recommend anything apart from to get ready for increased competition. Any rulings similar to the above recommendations would move towards leveling the playing field;

Consumers would undoubtedly benefit with an increased availability and better customer experience. In the end, isn’t that the end result of what innovation does – provide viable alternatives, forces legacy providers to improve and innovate and enhances our quality of life.

Friction-free: enabling happy customers

Last week, I had the good fortune to attend MBLT 2014, a conference all around the rapidly evolving mobile ecosystem. Among the many speakers at the conference, two which piqued my attention were those from Spotify & SoundCloud; both speakers were engaging, and interestingly enough – both talked about growth.

When we talk about growth here, it wasn’t all about entering new markets, or creating new products. It involved a lot of small elements; elements which when brought all together ensured that you gained a lot of users and who kept coming back. Although Spotify and SoundCloud operate in the music space, both (currently) focus on different aspect of this segment. As Andy @ SoundCloud succinctly put it; if Spotify was the Netflix of music, then SoundCloud was Youtube. However, each company seemed to have a common approach when it came to customer acquisition – to develop a friction-less sign up process.

At its core it simply meant reducing the number of clicks, mouse moves etc required to sign up a user and/ or a customer. Both agreed that if any sector was to be considered as “best practice” then it would be mobile gaming – and the king of the hill was… well, King.com. The makers of Candy Crush had got this bang on – all you had to do is download the game and you were good to go.

Their mantra was -> Number of clicks to sign up = 0. Number of users = millions!

Both SoundCloud & Spotify were always on the lookout to make the whole signup process, simpler, quicker and more efficient – fully aware of the fact that complicated processes turned away prospective users, and getting them back wasn’t a trivial matter. That point got me examining different websites to see just how much this mattered (a study done by Spotify as well).  After some pottering around, I couldn’t but wholeheartedly agree with the rationale of such an approach.

If you now compare this mentality with IT solutions at traditional corporations you realize how far behind the curve they are in this respect. Many systems there are built more with the paranoia of security and little consideration for user engagement.  These are what I call “push systems” – where employees have no choice BUT to use these services mandated by IT. The direct result is that either personnel shy away from using these services, or doing so becomes an irritating chore (especially since they use better designed services on a daily basis). Rather than a full scale rebellion, we are seeing services which simply assist existing ones services such as Brisk.io gaining traction because continuously updating SalesForce is tedious.

A takeaway would be for IT personnel to closely work with  end users in deciding how they would like to engage with the services they use on a daily basis. Focusing on small but important elements such as “clicks to complete entries” etc will make employees more enthusiastic on using such services making these more an aid (which was the purpose) rather than a chore!

Bevation – A canary for corporate incubators?

A few weeks ago, my attention was drawn to a small post within Gruenderszene – that of the quiet exit of Bevation, the incubator hosted by Bertelsmann. The exit was so swift, that even the landing page has by now disappeared into cyberspace. This article, coupled with a previous editorial on the same site highlighting the harsh downsizing of other smaller private incubators in 2013 made me speculate where the fortunes of the corporate incubator lay for 2014 and beyond. Was Bevation the proverbial canary for the Old Economy Corporate Incubator as an industry, or was it more as an exception than the rule?

To be fair, the aims and objectives of Bevation had all the makings of a corporate PR exercise, with words such as “innovation”, “exchanging ideas”, “providing insights” liberally interspersed within their vision. My experience has shown that more vague the objectives, the increased likelihood that you will fall short of those objectives. In addition, although Bertelsmann did provide space, facilities and mentoring it stayed away from capital investment. Given that they have a lot of prime real estate in Berlin this would be a cheap way of getting into the startup scene and checking it out, with limited risk. My hunch is that as corporate priorities changed, and management didn’t see any “wow” outcomes interest withered to the point where the validity of its existence itself was challenged. Notes posted on the website of incubated startups such as Snoopet point to this situation. Management was perhaps expecting the next Google or Facebook – what they got were a few startups, some with even unclear business models.

Will this be the same fate for the other corporate incubators? Many of them are doing a lot more, including investing badly needed seed capital in their startups. However, at the same time all of them do need a few heralded and publicized exits (or at least “BIG story”) to validate their approach and business model. In the end it all boils down to some hard decisions – why are we doing this? Is it for revenue, image… or something else (and this something else better be tangible!). If revenue – are we giving the unit sufficient runway to achieve this rather than a quarter by quarter evaluation approach? If image/ PR/ branding – have we achieved this, and is this achievement recognized and aligned with the interest of the management?

My gut feeling is that those that can objectively answer these questions will survive; perhaps even emerge stronger (and better supported) than ever. Those who operate in a wishy-washy environment may be better of in taking heed to the message of the canary…

The nascent VC – Fools rush in!

The good folks at SeedCamp invited me to be a mentor for SeedCamp week in Berlin, and never to miss an opportunity to discover new trends and companies I signed up for the same. The event was very smoothly run, with quite a nice mix of startups ranging from education to financial management, fashion and sustainable farming. Most of them good ideas, but as serial entrepreneurs caution, an idea is one thing… execution is everything.

However, this post is not about the startups – but more about the investor community who were milling around. Before I arrived, I thought I had a good idea of the players within this ecosystem; after yesterday I realized on how much I had undersized this segment. There were players I had never even heard of, and suddenly it seems that there are a lot more VC’s than companies! Some of these firms are niche so if you are not in that industry you may never have heard of them. But among some of the others, I admit if I would be one of their LP’s then I should be justifiably worried. Some definitely seemed qualified, many born out of established VC’s; however there were many running around speaking in platitudes interspersed with jargon. Maybe this impressed some, but left me wondering about their actual capabilities.

The challenge I realize is that there just aren’t a sizeable number of high quality investment opportunities. If you are a good startup, with a good product – you literally have all the VC’s knocking on your door. In this case, major firms such as Earlybird have an advantage since they are well known and can provide you with good, solid advice to help you along the way. Conversely it means that a no-name VC would have to simply outbid an established player (i.e. cough up more cash for lesser equity) just to get a chance to get a foot in the door. They may still lose in this game since most good startups realize the value of strategic advice over money and may still decline such an offer; as Peter Witt (my professor at WHU) liked to say – if you want dumb money, ask your dentist; he will give you the money, and offer no advice!.

What are your options then – well, you then have to target the “not so good firms” to invest. Well that increases your risk…. an odd saying in what is already a highly risky business. Who stands to lose – well, the LP of course! Not only this, even startups should be cautious in working with these – to carefully evaluate what (apart from money) other resources are offered. If you can get money from one, then perhaps you can get money from another – see what else is on the table in terms of support.

But all in all, Berlin is now becoming an increasingly attractive place for folks to come and set up a business. The key is to set up – and hopefully with a well connected Angel investor – who has the right connections and contacts to the right VC’s. So when you grow (with the right advice and investment) you are automatically in the inner circle to help you get to the next stage. And if you are one of those who isn’t sure that his idea is there yet – Berlin is an even more attractive with money floating around…. it wasn’t like this, and not sure how long this will last…. but now it is there… so grab it!

Valley of Dreams – the allure of Silicon Valley (2)

In my last post a few weeks ago, I had alluded to a few reasons for firms wanting to establish a presence in the Valley, and since then have gotten quite a bit of response – with arguments for and against. More than that, people were interested in the “structured argumentation” on how to decide which option best suited them. Took a bit of time to delve into some sound principles to adhere to, but here it is …..

1. Reason 1: I want to increase my brand image and project myself as a innovative firm. What better than to have a prominent Silicon Valley address
   • If you want to do this, you better have a very deep coffer to draw from and make large and aggressive moves. Only an address will not get you noticed – Sand Hill road is peppered with VC’s, but the deals you make – especially the successful ones will.
   • Make sure you hire a few very well connected people who have an established network and get you in the front row seat to maximize visibility. It is all about the network.
   • Ensure that your top management at least has some face time there, or there will soon be questions on the ROI of such an investment. Most people, especially top management love the spotlight!
2. Reason 2: I want to keep abreast of the latest trends which helps my firm be on the forefront of what is out there, not only for myself but also to lookout for what competitors are doing. No better place to find new ideas popping up (even loony ones) than this small spot of land!
   • Good reason; the only question is if this is adequate? You can find enough 3rd party reports and boutique consulting firms who will give you just that – most likely for a fraction of the cost that it takes you to hire and set up an own establishment.
   • If you want to do it cheap – subscribe to primary blogs and follow major VC’s – you may not be ahead of the curve, but will certainly be a fast follower. This may be more than sufficient in your market.
3. Reason 3: I want to find small, agile firms to partner with and get their cool products to my customers. With a good network within this region I will be able to find a plethora of firms to do just this.
   • Even better argumentation than Reason 2. In fact – I would suggest starting with 2 – and if the HQ interest is there, move on to 3.
   • Challenge is that you are still a newcomer – and you need guidance and support from Valley insiders to get you going. That being said – there are two additional obstacles that you need to overcome
     • First one is external – if you are the newcomer, and you do not have an established pedigree – most of the A list firms (the ones you want) are more difficult to talk to…..
     • Second – and a bigger one is internal. We are talking about smaller and much more leaner firms here. They understand and know how to partner with firms like themselves BUT they have little time, money and even less patience to juggle working with a huge firm. To misquote Lou Gerstner – “make sure that the Elephant can first dance”!
4. Reason 4: I want to go the Venture Capital (VC) rout; build a VC capability in my firm and invest in young startups. If there is one place I need to be – it is Silicon Valley
   • This is the close to the holy grail of most firms, but one which is fraught with danger. If you have never dabbled in this business, and have few connections – stay away.
   • A business acquaintance had a saner idea – initially start as a Limited Partner to one of the major VC’s. This does not mean that you will become rich overnight – but will give you two things; help you to gradually understand the ecosystem, and initially start in a “less riskier” approach by leveraging off those who have done it many times in the past (that being said – past performance is not an indicator for the future….)
   • Once you have established yourself, built up capabilities and a network – only then should you jump into direct funding.
   • Oh – and make sure your management is aware of the time-lines of return, and that you have sufficient independence in management and allocation of funds. The worst thing you can do is have a bean counter who is used to typical corporate metrics evaluate your performance on a quarterly basis!
5. Reason 5: I want to engage in serious development at different levels needing close collaboration with experts within the field. Silicon Valley with its proximity to several leading academic and research institutions along with a huge pool of talent is the right place to be…
   • Very good – but know what you are getting into. If you just want a brand such as Stanford – sure, this works. But if you want to really develop the next generation of products – then definitely consider the time frame, your risk profile and dedicate people to the cause
   • Universities and other institutions are always happy to have your money – but you as a business need to know what you are getting out of it. That being said – I think if you have a clear idea of what you are looking for in the long term – this is definitely a worthwhile avenue to pursue!

That pretty much summarizes it – there are use cases and examples for each, but since this was drawn based upon talking to many people in anonymity, will keep it as is. As in many cases – no right or wrong answer, but more a – it depends -based upon what your ambitions and goals are.

Valley of Dreams – the allure of Silicon Valley (1)

Among the most FAQ that people ask me when abroad the “should I go to Silicon Valley” appears as a common refrain. This is not restricted to individuals alone, but is also common for companies. With the relentless barrage of sky-high valuations, mouth watering exits and very cool technology, who could even resist! In this series of posts, aimed at corporations rather than individuals I have attempted to delve into this topic and provide some guidelines to help you make a decision. Are these “best practice” you may ask? Well – I would fathom I don’t quite know what this equates to; but a significant chunk of this thought process is based upon observing how others did and fared in attempting just this.

So lets just get started by attempting to answer the question “Why should I go to Silicon Valley”. For a majority of firms it boils down to the following options

1. I want to increase my brand image and project myself as a innovative firm. What better than to have a prominent Silicon Valley address
2. I want to keep abreast of the latest trends which helps my firm be on the forefront of what is out there, not only for myself but also to lookout for what competitors are doing. No better place to find new ideas popping up (even loony ones) than this small spot of land!
3. I want to find small, agile firms to partner with and get their cool products to my customers. With a good network within this region I will be able to find a plethora of firms to do just this.
4. I want to go the Venture Capital (VC) rout; build a VC capability in my firm and invest in young startups. If there is one place I need to be – it is Silicon Valley
5. I want to engage in serious development at different levels needing close collaboration with experts within the field. Silicon Valley with its proximity to several leading academic and research institutions along with a huge pool of talent is the right place to be…

Are you, or is your firm one of them? To be clear, none of these choices are intrinsically wrong….. but deciding which one is the right approach for you requires some clear and structured thinking….

Look before you leap

This is one of those post’s brought about by self-reflection. Over the past twelve or so months I have had the opportunity to interact and listen to many a soul who want to get into the start-up environment. I have heard everyone – from the naysayers to the happy-go-lucky types…. and from this learning (and some of their tears) have put together a few simple thoughts which you may consider before going down this path…

The best time to get into this type of business is typically:

• When you are in school – spend your time interacting, learning and interfacing with others. You really do not have anything to lose, and the upside is quite high. Worst case at the end of 1 – 2 years you will emerge from an amazing learning experience (with very little money), but a good resume.
• When you are very well settled – by this I mean you have enough and more saved up to take care of yourself and your loved ones for at least 2 years. Don’t kid yourself with the illusion that you can rough it out – without having either tried it out first, or having consulted your dependents. You may have no issues eating 1 Euro pizza and Ramen… not sure you would have a partner who is interested in going a similar route.

Now, for the rest of us who are not in these two categories here are some off the cuff tips (specially for Germany!)

1. If you have your first job, and even if you hate it – do not leave until you have completed at least 12 months in employment. Why? very simple – after 12 months you qualify for unemployment benefits…. helps getting something from the government rather than none.
2. Use the time in the dreaded job to actively examine the following
   1. Evaluate each fanciful idea you have – ask yourself if there is a real need for this, are you solving a problem that needs solving or trying to create a problem that doesn’t exist. The latter isn’t wrong… but well, awfully hard! Talk to people about it – better still, talk to your enemies. No better criticism comes than from those who despise you. Use the feedback to evaluate, improve or discard the idea. Next remember, an idea in itself isn’t bad or good – success typically depends upon how well you can execute upon the idea. Mediocre ideas will brilliant execution have an excellent chance of success.
   2. Search for methods of getting money – as a young start-up, you either have to raise cash by asking friends and family, or find an angel. The raw truth about angels is the fact that more often they tend to be vultures. Sure – they will give you money, but would extract a high price in terms of equity. More often you may soon find yourself more as an employee rather than the CXO! However, there are many avenues to get grants – some need a lot of digging and paperwork, which puts off many people. Don’t be deterred – and make sure you do your research, figure out the whole process such that when you are ready, you will know how to get it.
   3. Save up – you hate your job, and want to start something yourself. Plan ahead and save for it. Pennies count, and they add up. Investors too like it if you can confidently say that you have more than just sweat equity in a firm.
   4. Hire someone to do the ground-work. Well, if you need some analysis done, a website done etc – it costs money and know-how. Don’t leave your job just yet, but engage someone who can do it for you. That way you have cash coming in until the very point when you HAVE to dive 100% into the running of the firm.

This post may be contrary to many others who may advocate a passionate plunge into the fascinating world of entrepreneurship. But there is an often unseen side of it; of sweat, worry and tears. Some of you (and I hope there will be many to this list) will be lucky, be able to raise capital, have a stellar product and succeed – but most will not (and this is plain statistics). And for those, a bit of planning in advance will prepare them for this period. This does mean that you will most likely not be the star performer in your current job, but well – you aren’t putting 100% into it because its not something you want to do! Focus on your passion, make sure it is well thought through, saved up for – and dive right in. One thing is assured – survival will not be your biggest concern

Corporate Venturing – Boom or Bust

Hardly a month goes by when you do not hear of an announcement of another large corporate jumping the venturing bandwagon. Like all things, this seems definitely the ‘in’ thing at present. No CEO would want to be caught dead on the ‘what are you doing for innovation’ question – a corporate venturing, whether as a incubator or an accelerator program seems to be the way to go. Depending upon the amount of spare cash they have – fancy offices are opened in Silicon Valley; if you have smaller budgets – then you need to make sure you at least have a prominent location in your home turf.

Although I readily admit I have no statistics to determine whether we have seen any real ‘successes’ from these endeavors, but from the murmurs I hear from insiders, and from some startups who have gone through the process – there seems to be a ton of hot air. There are several reasons for this – but I want to put some thought on the basic structural issues.

For most if not all – this is not a management priority. Sure, you definitely see the entire management with all smiles for the inauguration event, but dig deeper and one realizes that this is perhaps only of peripheral interest. Whenever such a situation occurs, this is a disaster waiting to happen. At every downturn, or ‘consolidation’ in management speak the incubator runs the risk of having its funding severed – cutting the very lifeblood it needs to survive.They are typically managed like the large parent. Many corporate incubators, although starting with the promise of being independent  in the end are closely managed – and in many times staffed by personnel from the parent. While in theory this is not such a bad thing, reality is that a startup, seed business is very, very different from the life at a corporation. What you hence end up receiving is either too many processes or procedures, or some cut & paste lean copy of existing corporate structures (this is what the management is comfortable with remember!). This to a large extent, serves to burden the startup – at worse, frighten away good ones.

What it does do however -seems to boost the rating of the company, in particular its management in front of its share-holders. Who doesn’t like an ‘innovative firm’

The result is that many of these firms literally spend a good deal of money publicizing themselves. Maybe this is a strategy which does help the company’s share price!

The management at these corporate incubators receive a salary…. why is that important you ask? well – i call it the ‘getting wet’ problem. Managers are made just too comfortable in the venture. This makes them less likely to take risks – since well, they don’t have anything to loose. Behavioral science teaches us just that, people fear losing a lot more than they enjoy winning. Try asking a corporate venturing manager to take a Euro 10K salary per annum – with the possibility of an endless upside (and downside) … you get the story

If these hypothesis are right, it does lead to the credible possibility that many of these ventures are on life-support, rather than thriving. And worse still – at the sight of the next roller-coaster ride in the economy – many will simply be left to rot. Pity – given independence, a strong (and incentive driven) management and the freedom to fly (even at the cost of cannibalizing the parent) – we may yet see a jewel emerging from this.

Have to admit – I do not want to be a naysayer here, but if things do not change, and soon…. it may only be a matter of time….

To Pitch as a Pope – Lessons for an entrepreneur via Pope Francis

You are not the front runner; in fact people don’t even know who you are. They expect one of the favorites – you do not fit the mold of the most eligible candidate by most (if not all) polls. But yet – here you stand, in full glare and knowing that the entire world is watching you, evaluating and interpreting your every move. You have just a few minutes to make a first impression – and you know that this has to count. This was the m-o-m-e-n-t yesterday, as aptly described by the CNN article when a relatively unknown Archbishop from Argentina was named Pope.

Of course, this is a totally different level altogether from an entrepreneur pitching in front of an audience of investors – in many ways it is simply not comparable (with one big factor being that the entrepreneur may have spent endless nights perfecting his pitch while the Pope – well, he may still be coming to terms with the fact that he life has dramatically changed forever before he addresses his audience). However, as I watched the whole episode live on television yesterday, I realized that in those brief moments there were some valuable nuggets which each entrepreneur (and for that extent anyone) could use. This is what I would like to analyze and share today. If you haven’t already watched it, then I would urge you to do so (NBC has a full slideshow, and so does the NYT among many other news services) – the points below would make a lot more sense

1. If you hesitate at the beginning don’t fret – it is only human to do so in what may be an uncertain (and perhaps unfriendly) environment. But do genuinely try to reach out to your audience. When Pope Francis emerged, he definitely would have known that the people were still scratching their heads to figure out who he was. His first gesture was that of a slight hesitation, but followed through with a friendly wave. This was a far cry from the clasped hands of past Popes; it was more a down to earth, “hello there” gesture which connected with the teeming masses gathered below. If anything – it served to break the ice.
2. Understand your audience and address them appropriately – this is genuinely difficult to do if you are trying to address the entire world. But his use of Italian (instead of the more archaic Latin) and simple, well paused sentences allowed him to directly reach out to the people. Entrepreneurs could well learn to keep language simple, be direct and to the point rather than ramble on. If thoughts are complex – make them simple. People understand SIMPLE far more than anything else – although many would love to believe otherwise
3. Be watchful of the unspoken word – inasmuch as people pay attention to what you say, they also pay attention to your non-verbal communication. This is not only important for your audience but many a time equally important for your employees. The Pope’s display was simply masterful here – upon entering he insisted on being on the same level as the other cardinals, rather than on an elevated platform. This and his choice of clothing, preferring a simple white garment compared to the deep red vestments sent a clear message to his own. In a company, this type of message can be critical – maintaining and boosting employee morale when they see their CEO among them, rather than choosing a helicopter status.
4. Get your audience engaged and excited about what you have to offer, be genuine and passionate about it. People can and will recognize a smoke-screen. As it has been said, you can fool a person only so many times. Here the Pope did work the crowd in his own inimitable way. He made a small joke, but more importantly asked the people to pray for him before he blessed them. Remember, here is the guy who for Catholics is God’s CEO on earth – he should be the guy blessing them, but is humble enough to ask people for their prayers. This simply captivated the audience. As an entrepreneur, do recognize that you may not be the best at everything, you are talking to investors or other people in the audience because you need something. Being sincere and humble about it is important. The right people can understand and appreciate that.
5. Always thank your audience – if there was a parting master-stroke this was it, when the Pope requested the microphone after the announcement and thanked the audience for coming and wished them a good night. Remember, he didn’t need to do so – they were there of their own volition. But in reaching out once again, even if they forgot what he had said earlier they were left with a warm and positive impression in their heart. An entrepreneur could well keep this in mind, even though your audience may have come to invest in you and seek returns, still they are taking time out from other things – even if it just for 5 minutes to hear you. And even though they may be interested in investing to seek returns, there are few who will invest if they don’t like the person. You have 5 minutes to make yourself likable – make it count.

This is pretty much what I could gather in a nutshell, perhaps there are more. Although none of what I have written is new or rocket science, just seeing it in action was nice – as for me I was left with a nice and happy feeling in my heart.

If I were an investor – I would have invested in him!