All

How to be a Christian Entrepreneur

Here’s my “Startup” column from the June 2015 issue of Christian Computing magazine.

Over the past few months, I’ve introduced the concept of a “startup” and we’ve discussed why the church should really care about startups.  We’ve developed this definition for our discussion: A startup is a new venture working to solve a problem where the solution is not obvious and success is not guaranteed. We learned that the Lean Startup methodology introduces the scientific method into the new venture process, with multiple hypothesis-test-observe-refine iterations, and we discussed how we can implement this in our ministries (and our businesses).  This month, I want to talk about the person doing this – what does it mean to be a Christian Entrepreneur?

What is an Entrepreneur?

In my previous articles, I’ve used the phrase “startup” quite a bit and we even developed a good working definition that can be used whether starting a new venture in business or in ministry, but we haven’t used the word “entrepreneur.”  What does that big word mean, and how does it apply to what we’ve been talking about?

According to Merriam-Webster.com, an entrepreneur is “a person who starts a business and is willing to risk loss in order to make money.”  In other words, an entrepreneur is a person who starts a startup.  Of course, the definition that Merriam-Webster uses works great if you’re starting a for-profit business, but just as we had to modify our definition of “startup” to encompass ministry startups as well as business ones, I think it’s worthwhile to do the same for “entrepreneur.”  I propose that we broaden the definition to say “an entrepreneur is a person who starts a new venture and is willing to risk a loss in order to achieve the objective.”

What is a “Christian” entrepreneur?

Hopefully you can get a sense from that definition of an entrepreneur of how we might be “all in” when we’re pursuing the cause of Christ, but I think it’s helpful for us to explicitly think about what might be different about a Christian entrepreneur in contrast to an unbelieving entrepreneur, whether we’re involved in ministry or business.

Some would argue that the word Christian works much better as a noun than as an adjective, and I agree there’s some wisdom in that claim.  If you’re in that camp, then I think it helps if we start by thinking about the term “Christian entrepreneur” as if there were a comma between the two words, so for example I might say: “I want to be a Christian, entrepreneur” – I want to be successful in my calling as a Christian and in my calling as an entrepreneur.

I’m going to look very briefly at what it means to be a Christian, and when I’m done, I’m hoping that you’ll see and believe that the comma we’ve temporarily inserted there can’t act like a brick wall separating how we act as a Christian from how we act as an entrepreneur.  No, in reality, what the comma should be is more like a lens, applying what it means for us to be a Christian on what it means to be an entrepreneur.  I say that now, even though you may not yet agree with me, so that as you read what follows, you’ll have in mind both what it means to be a Christian independent of anything else in our lives and how being a Christian might impact the way in which we act as an entrepreneur.

So, what does it mean to be a Christian?  God has given us the Bible to answer that question.  The entire book speaks to that topic, but especially the New Testament Epistles teach us how to live as redeemed believers in Christ living in a fallen world.  

As a very simple example, I’d like to briefly look at three verses from Colossians: “And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful.  Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.  And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him” (Colossians 3:15-17). 

I think a very simple summary of these three verses is that we are commanded to do three things.  

First, we are commanded to “let the peace of God rule in your hearts” – in other words, the peace of God, which comes through the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, to those who believe in His name, is to rule in us.  When the unruly passions (described earlier in Colossians 3) rise up in our lives, we are to put them off and put on the love of Christ, living our lives in a way that demonstrates the peace that we have through repentance and reconciliation with God.  In other words, the way we live our lives should be different from how the lost around us live their lives, and I believe the way we operate our businesses will also be different.

Second, we are commanded to “let the word of Christ dwell in you richly” – in other words the Word of God is to live in us, as a master over our lives.  We must spend time in the Bible and seek the wisdom of God from Biblical teaching, Godly counsel, and even being encouraged in the Biblical truths reflected in hymns and spiritual songs.  Although this commandment comes second in the list, it is a prerequisite for the first commandment, as God’s Word informs us in how the peace of God should rule in our lives.  As Christians, all of our decisions in life (and in our business) must be approached prayerfully and seeking the wisdom and will of God as revealed in His Word.

Third, we are to let the name of the Lord Jesus be glorified in all that we do.  We must be thankful for God’s grace and blessings in our lives (and our businesses), acknowledging that He is the source of all good things, and desiring to please Him, to glorify Him, and to proclaim Him to the lost world around us.  As a Christian, our driving motivation is different from the world’s.  There’s nothing wrong with wanting to operate a profitable business, but we can’t let our desire for profits rule how we run our business.  Instead, we must seek to glorify God in all that we do, including in operating our businesses with excellence.

With that as a foundation, I propose this definition: A Christian Entrepreneur is a person, driven to glorify God in all he does, and ruled by the Word of God, who starts a new venture and is willing to risk a loss in order to achieve the success of the venture.

How to be a Christian Entrepreneur Read More »

How to be Lean

Here’s my “Startup” column for the May 2015 issue of Christian Computing magazine.

Over the past couple of months, I’ve introduced the concept of a “startup” and we’ve discussed why the church should really care about startups.  As you’ll recall, we’ve developed this definition for our discussion: A startup is a new venture working to solve a problem where the solution is not obvious and success is not guaranteed. Last month we learned that the Lean Startup methodology introduces the scientific method into the new venture process, with multiple hypothesis-test-observe-refine iterations.  But how can we implement this in our ministries (and our businesses)?  What does it look like in practice?

The Business Model Canvas

For startup businesses, the Business Model Canvas has become the foundational tool for building a Lean startup.  Strategyzer.com developed the canvas and makes it freely available for anyone’s use.  The Canvas replaces the traditional 100 page business plan with a one page summary of how the business will work.  In the center of the canvas is the Value Proposition.  The right half of the Canvas is about the target markets, channels to reach those markets, relationships to deliver the value proposition to customers, and the resulting revenue.  The left half of the Canvas is about the key partnerships, resources, activities and resulting costs of running the business.  In each of these 9 boxes, you would spell out your hypotheses.  What do you think the value proposition is?  Who do you think the target market is?  What do you think are the key resources?  Who do you think will be key partners?  In the Lean methodology, the key then becomes testing all of those hypotheses, continuing to refine the business model until you have something that will really work – delivering real value to specific target customers in a way that is financially sustainable.

Steve Blank is one of the best teachers on the Lean Startup methodology.  He has created a series of videos for the Kauffman Foundation that provide an excellent introduction, explaining these different components of the business model and how to test hypotheses.  The videos can be found online at http://www.entrepreneurship.org/Founders-School/Startups.aspx.  One of Steve’s students at the University of California at Berkeley, Eric Reis, has written an introductory book on the topic, simply titled The Lean Startup. If you like having a book to guide you through the process and as an ongoing reference, I highly recommend this volume.

The LEAN Startup Machine Validation Board

While the Business Model Canvas is a great tool for startup businesses, it likely is a poor fit for startup churches, ministries, and programs.  We care about loving and serving others to the glory of God rather than being focused on revenue and profits.  A much more streamlined tool has been developed by LEAN Startup Machine, an organization that holds 3 day workshops around the world to help entrepreneurs quickly launch new startups.  The initial version of their tool was called the Validation Board and it can be found at https://www.leanstartupmachine.com/validationboard/.  The company has developed a new version called the Experiment Board, but for our purposes I prefer the simplicity of the Validation Board.

The Validation Board is designed around three key elements: the customer, the problem, and the solution.  You start with hypotheses around the customer and their problem.  Who needs to be served and what is their problem that you can address?  The problem needs to be stated in the terms they would use, not the terms that you would use looking at their situation from the outside.  For example, you might identify male college students as the people who need to be served, and from your perspective, the problem is that they aren’t coming to church.  But from their perspective, the problem might be that they have no transportation to get to church.  The problem you need to capture is the one from their perspective.

The very first thing you need to do is to recognize that you have made a number of assumptions to reach the conclusion that this group of people has this particular problem.  For example, assumptions could include that college men want to go to church, that they aren’t currently going to church, and that they don’t have their own transportation.  Once you have a good list of assumptions, you need to decide which is the riskiest assumption.  Which one, has a decent chance of being wrong, and if it’s wrong then your whole opportunity will be redefined?  For example, from the above list, I might identify the assumption that college men want to go to church is the most risky assumption.

Before you even start to consider solutions to the problem, you need to validate your highest risk assumption.  You need to develop a test and determine what criteria you will set for whether your test validates the assumption or invalidates it.  For example, you might decide that you’re going to go on campus and talk to 50 young men to see if they want to go to church and if even 5 of them do, you might determine that your assumption is valid.  (While you’re talking to them, you might as well go ahead and ask any that do want to go to church whether they are regularly attending a church service and if not, why not.  This could save you some time and trouble later.)  You may find that you were exactly right, but more likely you’ll learn that you need to redefine the definition of the “customer” (maybe it’s college-aged Christians) or that you need to redefine the problem statement (maybe campus commitments conflict with church service times).  With this new hypothesis, it’s time to test again, observe again, and continue to refine until you understand the problem well.

Once you understand the problem, you can start to consider potential solutions.  Of course, throughout this entire process, the most important test is alignment with God’s revealed will.  Prayer and time in the Word are integral to all decision making.  As Psalm 119:105 says “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.”  Will solving the problem that you’ve identified honor God?  Is the solution that you’ve envisioned one that would be pleasing to Him?

Testing potential solutions in Lean fashion will involve multiple iterations with increasing levels of confirmation.  People may say that the solution will meet their needs, but are they willing to sign up (e.g. give you their e-mail address or phone number to be notified when you implement)? Do they really show up when you try a small scale version of the solution?  A video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhoducyStMw explains the complete process.

Titus 3:14 tells us “And let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful.”  It is my hope and prayer that these articles will help you be fruitful to the glory of God.

How to be Lean Read More »

Introducing the Lean Startup

Here’s my “Startup” column from the April 2015 issue of Christian Computing magazine.

Over the past couple of months, I’ve introduced the concept of a “startup” and we’ve discussed why the church should really care about startups.  As you’ll recall, we’ve developed this definition for our discussion: A startup is a new venture working to solve a problem where the solution is not obvious and success is not guaranteed. Starting this month, we’ll talk about the latest thinking on how to successfully launch a new startup.

The Old Model and Why It Changed

For the past dozen years, I’ve served as an executive for a large corporation.  I’ve worked with startups in various ways over those years, but my head hasn’t been completely “in the game” of entrepreneurship.  Over the past several months I’ve reimmersed myself in the startup community.  What I’ve found has been very refreshing and encouraging.

In the past, the generally accepted approach for starting a new business was to spend a few months developing a detailed business plan, raising all the funding needed to get the business off the ground, and then seeing if it worked.  One way this has been described is that startups were managed as if they were simply tiny versions of big businesses.

The general rule of thumb is that 9 out of 10 new businesses fail.  In the old model, if your business failed, you would have invested months of your time and significant amounts of money typically invested by family members, friends, and others.  This type of failure can be devastating and often makes a second attempt impossible.

This approach naturally constrained the number of new businesses that were even attempted.  Most successful small business owners continued to run their business just like big businesses and didn’t feel significant kinship with other “entrepreneurs.”  That started to change, somewhat, with the emergence of “rock star” entrepreneurs emerging from the computer revolution including Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.  However, it was the Internet revolution that fundamentally changed the nature of startups.

The New Model

With the emergence of the Internet, and follow-on capabilities, such as e-commerce, social networking, and cloud-based services, the upfront investment (in time and money) to launch a new business has been dramatically reduced.  Also, the Internet has ushered in new models for funding startups including Angel Investors and Crowd Funding (e.g. Kickstarter).

While I was quite aware of these changes, what I had missed was how these changes fundamentally altered how entrepreneurs launch new businesses.  I think the two most significant impacts have been the emergence of startup communities and the development of the Lean Startup methodology.

When I founded or co-founded my first two startups, I felt very much like a lone wolf.  Today, entrepreneurs are blessed with tremendous opportunities to network with other startup-minded people who help share the burden and provide encouragement along the way.  This community networking takes many forms from fairly informal meetup opportunities (like 1millioncups.com groups which meet in over 50 cities around the world), to short term opportunities to engage on new business ideas (like Startup Weekend) to extended support engagements including accelerators and incubators.  While most entrepreneurs, and therefore most startup community activities, won’t be focused on advancing the gospel, some (for example Praxis Labs) are emerging at the intersection of faith and entrepreneurism.

Seeing this level of community support for entrepreneurs has been incredibly encouraging to me, but the biggest change that I’ve noticed is in the process of launching a new business.  As I implied above, new technologies have made it easier to launch startups faster and with less upfront investment.  While this hasn’t necessarily changed the rule of thumb that 9 out of every 10 startups will fail, it does mean that startups can fail faster and less catastrophically.  It also means that many more entrepreneurs can take a shot at starting a new business, and can try and try again without crushing discouragement.

The Lean Startup methodology has emerged as the most accepted process for launching a new unproven business model.  In my simplified way of thinking about it, Lean Startup changes the model from emulating how big businesses operate to instead emulating how scientists discover and better understand the wonders of God’s creation.    In the Lean Startup methodology, the business model is viewed as a collection of hypothesis to be tested.  

While we, as founders, probably have a good basis for making a good guess at what customers want or how we can make money, it’s still a guess.  In the old model, we would take our collection of guesses (which we actually considered to be facts or truths), spend months doing as much old-fashioned research as we could to prove they were true, collect the “truths” and research into a 100-page business plan, and then try to convince investors to give us the money to implement this untested business model.  

In the Lean Startup methodology, we acknowledge each hypothesis and figure out how best to test and refine each one.  As with the scientific method, we iterate multiple times through a loop of hypothesis-test-observe-refine until we have great confidence that our hypothesis is true enough to go with.  In fact, even after we launch, we continue to test and refine to improve the business and to adapt to changes in the environment.  Testing may involve hitting the streets and talking to real customers and potential partners.  Instead of assuming what they want and need, we ask them and match that up with the value proposition we are building.  Testing may also involve launching an early prototype of the business and letting real customers use it to see if it really creates value for them in the way we imagined and to see if they really use it in the way that we thought they would.  Depending on the nature of your product, the Internet may make this easier and less expensive than you might imagine.

While this discussion has focused on business startups, I’m guessing that many readers see the old 100 page business plan approach at work in their churches and ministries, and I hope you are starting to see how the Lean Startup approach could be a better model.  Instead of spending months planning and gaining approvals and funding before you test, why don’t you start testing in small ways now?  Instead of waiting until everything is in place before you launch, why not launch a minimized version of what you’re envisioning now and see how the community starts to engage with it?

Of course, we know that “A man’s heart plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps.” (Proverbs 16:9) No matter what methodology we use, the most important thing we can do is to pray for God’s wisdom, direction, discernment, and blessing on our efforts.

With that as encouragement, I hope that this series will prove beneficial to you and that some will start to consider yourselves to be entrepreneurs who can pursue new ventures for the glory of God!

Titus 3:14 tells us “And let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful.”  It is my hope and prayer that these articles will help you be fruitful to the glory of God.

Introducing the Lean Startup Read More »

Why Startups Matter

Continuing on my “Startup” series, here’s my article from the March 2015 issue of Christian Computing.

Last month I started a new series titled “Startup.”  In that first column I defined what I mean by “a startup.” This month I’ll discuss why Christian Computing readers should really care about startups.  Starting next issue I’ll take a couple of months to discuss the latest thinking on how to successfully launch a startup.  After that we’ll consider specific Christian startups (within the church and outside the church), hopefully with meaningful application to your work.

Last month I talked through different aspects of the definition of a startup, but I didn’t provide a concise definition that we can use for our purposes in this series.  To correct that oversight, I’d like to use a slightly modified version of Neil Blumenthal’s definition: A startup is a new venture working to solve a problem where the solution is not obvious and success is not guaranteed.

Many people care about startups, and for good reason.  It has long been recognized that small businesses are the drivers of economic growth and job creation, but recent analysis has actually shown that “young” businesses (i.e. startups) create virtually all net new jobs in the United States.

Should Churches Care About Startups?

That’s an interesting statistic, and I guess that economic growth and job creation are important to churches for the secondary benefits that the church can enjoy.  But do startups have any direct impact on churches and the work of the church?  I would argue that the answer is “yes” and I can see strong evidence in the realities of our local churches, in the work of missionaries around the world, and in the church’s own “startup” activities.

According to a recent article in Christian Media Magazine, the number of bi-vocational ministers is approaching one-third of all ministers.  In some denominations, the numbers are much higher, with 75% of Baptist churches having fewer than 100 members, and 40% of ministers in the Nazarene Church being bi-vocational.  This fact has led the Nazarene Theological Seminary in Kansas City to add entrepreneurism to it’s curriculum.  The school has recently been certified to offer the Kauffman Foundation’s FastTrac NewVenture program.

“Many of our graduates are likely to find that they need to have a second source of income as they begin their ministry career,” shares Chet Decker, Dean of Administration and Student Services for Nazarene Theological Seminary.  “Their strong desire is to be able to have their second career as aligned as possible with their ministry focus.  Starting a business provides the freedom to do just that.”

There are two basic models for funding Gospel missionaries around the world.  The one that is most common and most visible to Americans is where the missionary is financially supported by others who feel called to participate in the ministry by praying for, encouraging, and providing funding for the work.  We see this model in the Bible (e.g. Philippians 4:14-15) and it still works today.

“Another model for fulfilling the Great Commission is the tentmaking model that the Apostle Paul exemplified,” asserts Jason Fisher.  Jason should know; he is a co-founder and CEO of Cornerstone Technologies International in Romania and a co-founder and investor in Highland Harvesters in Ethiopia.  He also recently completed his Masters of Divinity at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in Memphis.  “Tentmakers can have a tremendous impact on the country where they serve.  As successful businessmen, they have credibility with the locals and often have access to the true leaders in the country.  God can use their business success to open many doors that are closed to other missionaries.”  For tentmakers like Jason, tentmaking is a term reserved for those using their business as a platform for taking the Gospel to the nations.  Often, but not always, this is a new business.

Finally, I think it’s important to recognize how many activities in the church today are actually startup activities.  A church plant is often referred to as a “startup” church for good reason.  It is a “new venture working to solve a problem (the need for a strong gospel presence in a specific location) where the solution is not obvious (how to reach that local community) and success is not guaranteed.”  Launching any new ministry will face many of the same challenges as launching a new business and the process lessons that have been learned around successfully launching startup businesses should not be ignored by the church.

“When we moved to Manhattan, Kansas, I had some ideas from others who had started new campus ministries, but there were a lot more unknowns than knowns,” shares Rev. Jon Dunning who has spent the past couple of years establishing a new Reformed University Fellowship ministry on the Kansas State University campus and helping plant a new PCA church in Manhattan. “We’re learning to see that we don’t know what we don’t know.  We’re taking the time to get to know the campus, it’s traditions, and patterns in order to serve effectively here.  What ‘works’ on one campus, in one part of the country doesn’t necessarily work everywhere.  The confidence we have is that this is God’s campus in His world, and He is at work.”

With that as encouragement, I hope that this series will prove beneficial to you and that you will see yourself as an entrepreneur pursuing new ventures for the glory of God!

Titus 3:14 tells us “And let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful.”  It is my hope and prayer that these articles will help you be fruitful to the glory of God.

Why Startups Matter Read More »

What is a Startup?

Last year I began a  new series for Christian Computing (now called MinistryTech) magazine on Startups.  Here I’ll share those articles for your benefit.  The series is continuing, so as new articles are published, I’ll post them here as well.

Over the past several months I’ve introduced the Intelligence Revolution.  This month, I’m moving on to a new series titled “Startup.”  My plan is to spend this month defining what I mean by “a startup;” next month I’ll discuss why Christian Computing readers should really care about startups; then I’ll take a couple of months to discuss the latest thinking on how to successfully launch a startup; and then we’ll consider specific Christian startups (within the church and outside the church), hopefully with meaningful application to your work.

What is a Startup?

There are many definitions of what a startup is.  Merriam-Webster.com has two definitions for the word “start-up” – “the act or an instance of setting in operation or motion” and “a fledgling business enterprise.”  Investopedia.com’s entry for Startup begins with a very pragmatic definition: “A company that is in the first stage of its operations.”  Personally, I like the definition that Warby Parker cofounder, Neil Blumenthal, provided to Forbes magazineA startup is a company working to solve a problem where the solution is not obvious and success is not guaranteed.”  That definition is also similar to the one provided by Steve Blank, one of the architects of the Lean Startup methodology we’ll discuss in this series, when he said that a startup is a temporary organization in search of a repeatable and scalable business model.

All of these definitions imply two things:

  1. A startup is a for-profit business.
  2. At some point in time, a startup stops being a startup.

For purposes of this series, I’d like to broaden the definition a bit.  

First, I’d like to think beyond for-profit businesses.  Going back to Neil Blumenthal’s definition, I think there are many times when we find ourselves “working to solve a problem where the solution is not obvious and success is not guaranteed.”  Often this isn’t in a business context.  In fact, I would guess that many of us could use those words as a “job description” of sorts for the work we do with technology in ministry.

That being said, I don’t think we can completely ignore the economics that drive business decisions.  For most of us (if not all), we are always operating with limited budgets.  When we solve problems for our ministry, it is expected that the solution creates value.  That may or may not mean that more money comes into the ministry, but hopefully it means that the outcome of the solution is worth the resources we are investing in it.  If those resources would have been better spent doing something else, then our startup has not achieved success.

Second, I’d like to broaden the definition of startup to include new ventures by existing, well-established entities.  Admittedly, “well-established” often implies tradition-bound, slow-moving, and risk-averse.  I don’t intend to include all new ventures by existing organizations in the startup definition, but only those that are pursuing unknown solutions in an environment where uncertainty of success is embraced.  

When a church tries something they’ve never tried before, such as a cross-generational evangelistic outreach, we can approach it like a startup.  We don’t know all the answers.  We haven’t done this before so we don’t know exactly how to make it work.  In fact, we may even be confused about what will define success.

The definition of success is especially important to consider.  Too often, I fear, even in our churches we define success the way that corporate America does – how many people, how much income, how many programs.  As God told Samuel in 1 Samuel 16:7 “the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”  Pray for wisdom, to understand how God is defining success in your startup.  Be strong to avoid the temptation to act like the world acts and to seek what the world seeks.  Trust in the Lord and rejoice in the work He is doing in and through you.

Why I Care About Startups

I mentioned above that next month we’ll discuss why you should really care about startups.  But before we get too far, I thought it made sense to explain why I’m even starting this new series.  

From what God has shown me in my own life, I believe that, whether the business succeeds or fails (in the world’s business terms), startup experiences can help shape young men and women to be leaders in their churches, their families, and their careers. Tina Seelig, executive director of the Stanford Technology Ventures Program identifies the need for universities to produce what she calls “T-shaped people.”  “This means people with a great depth of knowledge in at least one discipline, like chemical engineering or biology, and a breadth of knowledge across many skills. Across the top of the T are knowledge of leadership, innovation and entrepreneurship.  It’s no longer good enough to be an individual contributor where you have a clearly defined role. You need to be able to work across disciplines.”  

Launching a startup stretches us beyond our comfort zone.  It forces us to consider all aspects of the venture, not just the parts where we are the expert.  Often, it forces us to recognize our complete reliance on God for everything.  When we combine the “T-shaped” model with a primary focus on glorifying God, maybe what we’re talking about are “cross-shaped” people.  

Titus 3:14 tells us “And let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful.”  It is my hope and prayer that these articles will help you be fruitful to the glory of God.

 

What is a Startup? Read More »

What is Google Really Doing?

A month and a half ago, I wrote a series of posts around Google’s announcement that they would become an MVNO and offer wireless service. The final post in that series was titled “What Might Google Really Do?” and it included my predictions on Google’s potential plays, based on what Google had actually said, and what they had historically done. Now that Google has officially “launched” Project Fi, it seems like a good time to check in on those predictions.

It’s important to note that, at this point, Google is launching Fi with an “Early Access Program” that is by invitation only. Some aspects of how the service will be delivered in the future will likely be quite different from how it is delivered today (undoubtedly based on lessons learned during the EAP) and some details aren’t yet announced.

But here’s what we do know. Google announced Fi via their official blog on April 22. They said “today we’re introducing Project Fi, a program to explore this opportunity by introducing new ideas through a fast and easy wireless experience. Similar to our Nexus hardware program, Project Fi enables us to work in close partnership with leading carriers, hardware makers, and all of you to push the boundaries of what’s possible. By designing across hardware, software and connectivity, we can more fully explore new ways for people to connect and communicate. Two of the top mobile networks in the U.S.—Sprint and T-Mobile—are partnering with us to launch Project Fi and now you can be part of the project too.” They then outlined three specific areas of focus and innovation.

High-quality network connections: “We developed new technology that gives you better coverage by intelligently connecting you to the fastest available network at your location whether it’s Wi-Fi or one of our two partner LTE networks.”

Communications across networks and devices: In addition to working across WiFi and LTE, Google says “With Project Fi, your phone number lives in the cloud, so you can talk and text with your number on just about any phone, tablet or laptop.”

A simple service experience: “We offer one simple plan at one price with 24/7 support. Here’s how it works: for $20 a month you get all the basics (talk, text, Wi-Fi tethering, and international coverage in 120+ countries), and then it’s a flat $10 per GB for cellular data while in the U.S. and abroad. … Since it’s hard to predict your data usage, you’ll get credit for the full value of your unused data.”

Here are the predictions I made, and a comparison with what we now know about Fi:

  1. “Google would effectively be proving out new/unconventional approaches to connectivity offers (e.g. unlimited) in a way that proves out to the operators that there’s market demand (enough to be a threat) and that the economics can work (so that it’s attractive)” – This clearly seems to be the case. Instead of unlimited, the real innovation around the plan is refunding customers for unused data. T-Mobile’s CEO has welcomed Google’s “fresh thinking” implying openness to learn from Google’s experiment.
  2. “I also would expect the scale to be limited, meaning it would have relatively limited retail impact on the operators” – this clearly is the case with the EAP and Google seems to continue to signal limited scale and the operators don’t seem threatened.
  3. “I also wouldn’t be surprised to see Google want to move it around, so maybe each new Nexus device launched is a new MVNO on a different operator or set of operators” – Time will tell.
  4. “I doubt they’ll try Google’s original Nexus web-based distribution” – For the Early Access Program (EAP) Google is using web-based distribution.
  5. “They might try using their physical “stores” in Google Fiber cities” – Not yet anyway.
  6. “They might also strike a distribution deal with big box retailers, like Best Buy or WalMart” – Again, not yet.
  7. “I wonder if Google isn’t actually negotiating with the mobile operators to sell the service in their own stores or through their distribution channels” – Again, not yet.
  8. “I doubt that Google has a desire to employ tens of thousands of customer service reps in both owned and outsourced call centers around the world” – Google has said that customers can call 24×7 and speak to a live US-based agent, but hasn’t indicated how they are providing this support.
  9. “They may be able to leverage the care resources they’ve put in place to support Fiber” – We don’t yet know.
  10. “Perhaps, they are going to leverage the mobile operator’s existing customer care infrastructure” – We don’t yet know.
  11. “They will likely pair the service with a new Nexus device” – The service is only available with the Nexus 6 which has specific hardware and software to support the network switching unique to the service.
  12. “Google’s issue will be ensuring that only the right customers for their experiment are the ones that choose their brand for wireless” – The invitation-only EAP will help Google target the right customers.
  13. “Providing openness and choice, managing the network in an open, non-discriminatory, transparent way and giving users a choice of multiple service providers, may be an objective” – This hasn’t been emphasized in Google’s announcements.
  14. “I can’t imagine that Google would see enough potential upside from [a full competitive entry going head-to-head against Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile] to offset the serious downside it would have on their core business.” – There’s no indication that Google is pursuing an aggressive attack against the existing operators.
  15. Maybe “it’s really all about IoT” – so far, it seems to be a smartphone plan, without any IoT elements.

So, out of 15 predictions (most of which were “mights”), I would say that five were aligned with what Google has announced (1,2,11,12,14), three predictions were wrong (4,13,15), and for the other seven, we just don’t know yet. We’ll have to keep watching.

What is Google Really Doing? Read More »

The Watch Analogy is Coming True

This story about the swiss watch industry getting on the smartwatch bandwagon caught my eye. Specifically, the story references forecasts from Strategy Analytics that “28.1 million smartwatches will be sold this year, almost matching the 28.6 million Swiss timepieces that were exported last year.”

For a very long time and even now, I’ve often used the watch as an example of the impact of the technology revolutions on products and industries. In fact, for the past couple of decades, I’ve been saying “in the future, most watches will have bandwidth built in.” It’s always fun when predictions you made in the past, which at the time seemed crazy, become reality that everyone takes for granted. (It’s even better when you documented it more than 5 years ago.)

The Watch Analogy is Coming True Read More »

Market-Value-Model Matrix

Last week I had a mentoring session with a startup that was wrestling with a couple of critical questions. First, they had identified six potential target markets. Second, they were wrestling with which of several different business models to pursue (sell the product, sell a subscription, sell customer data, or some hybrid/variant). After asking lots of questions, I thought it might be helpful to understand how these issues played against each other, and also how each one played against the new value proposition that they were bringing into the market (they have a handful of dimensions in which their product is an order of magnitude better than the traditional existing solution).

In many ways, I was reintroducing some of the tools that we regularly used in Strategy Labs at TeleChoice a dozen years ago, but with a new twist. I started by drawing on the (whiteboard) wall a matrix/spreadsheet with each row being one of the values where they’ve introduced an order of magnitude improvement (e.g. portability), and each column being one of the proposed target markets. We then went row by row and I asked which of the target markets would most highly value that improvement. In that cell, I wrote a “1” and then in the second most aligned market, I wrote a “2” etc. until we had completed the force ranking for that value. We then moved to the next row and repeated the process. At the end, we summed it up and the lowest scoring target market was the one that was best aligned with the revolutionary aspects of their product.

Although everyone agreed that it was imperfect because it was off the top of our heads, we agreed that it was the basis for now “getting out of the building” and validating what we thought the most aligned markets actually did value. (And everyone seemed confident that the well aligned markets really were rising to the top.) The beauty of this approach is that it not only gets us to the “right” answer quickly, but it helps us understand why it is “right” in a way that we can then make additional good decisions – such as where to focus development, what to emphasize in sales and marketing for each target market, etc.

The energy in the room was contagious as the founding team found themselves able to move off of indecision with a clear path to greater focus in an environment that requires efficient execution. My instructions to them were to now repeat the same process two more times – once matching values with business models and another time matching business models with target markets. (In reality, there are 6 combinations possible – switching the rows and columns since you always force rank across the rows, but you can usually pick which you focus on based on where your indecision lies.)

At the end, the team wanted to know what I called this tool. I was stumped because I honestly had never used it like this before. It’s an adaptation of what we used to call the TeleFilter, but it’s a totally different structure with a different goal. For lack of a better name, I’ll call it the Market-Value-Model Matrix (yes, I am trained as an engineer…).

Maybe this could help you with a hard decision you face, or maybe I can help you identify a different type of tool that will fit your unique situation. Drop me a note at russ.mcguire@gmail.com if you think I could help!

Market-Value-Model Matrix Read More »

What Might Google Really Do?

Google’s entry into any market is cause for existing players to pay attention and potentially be alarmed, so it’s no surprise that the news that Google will become an MVNO and provide wireless services has many forecasting doom and gloom for the existing mobile operators. Before we can jump to those conclusions, I think it’s wise to consider the different scenarios that, given what Google has said, and what they’ve historically done in mobile/telecom, have some level of credibility.

Let’s start by reviewing, briefly, the challenges that MVNO’s have traditionally had to solve. I think they fall into four buckets: distribution, customer service, devices, and brand. I think Google is in a very different place than the vast majority of MVNOs when it comes to these four topics, given their objectives and their starting point.

For distribution, Google’s original Nexus web-based distribution experiment failed, I doubt they’ll try that again. They might try using their physical “stores” in Google Fiber cities, although this isn’t likely to get them enough customers to provide meaningful scale and impact. They might also strike a distribution deal with big box retailers, like Best Buy or WalMart.

However, given Sundar Pichai’s comments, I wonder if Google isn’t actually negotiating with the mobile operators to sell the service in their own stores or through their distribution channels. This would be unusual, but not unprecedented.

When it comes to customer service, mobile operators employ tens of thousands of service reps in both owned and outsourced call centers around the world. I doubt that Google has a desire to establish that kind of customer care infrastructure. Again, it’s possible that they may limit this experiment to Google Fiber markets, in which case, they may be able to leverage the care resources they’ve put in place to support Fiber, or, perhaps, they are going to leverage the mobile operator’s existing customer care infrastructure, as with distribution. Again, this isn’t typical for MVNO’s, but I imagine the operators would seriously consider the potential incremental revenue this would generate.

MVNOs have often struggled to get deals with OEMs for devices because they can’t commit to enough volume to make it work. In recent years, Sprint, for one, has tried to help MVNOs overcome this challenge with their BYOD program and their custom-brand, white label program, but if Google wants to innovate in software, hardware, and connectivity, this won’t be an option. Of course, for Google this also isn’t the same problem as it is for other MVNOs, since they will likely pair the service with a new Nexus device, which gives them a unique position with OEMs. This likely is easily solvable for Google.

Most MVNOs in the market are new brands that must invest significantly to establish a position with a narrowly targeted segment. Google doesn’t have this problem. If anything, Google’s issue will be ensuring that only the right customers for their experiment are the ones that choose their brand for wireless.

Second, I think we need to clarify Google’s objectives with this experiment. Google wouldn’t be investing in this experiment if they didn’t think it would create direct or indirect value for their business. That being said, I doubt that Google believes they can make money competing with Verizon, AT&T, and the others with traditional cellular service.

As with Google Fiber, they may believe that Mobile Operators are constraining use of the Internet and applications and that they can introduce “innovations” that the existing players need to respond to, changing the overall trajectory for the industry.

Net neutrality, or to use the Google Fiber terminology, providing openness and choice, managing the network in an open, non-discriminatory, transparent way and giving users a choice of multiple service providers, may be an objective. Clearly Verizon and AT&T are going to resist the FCC’s new rules and Google may want to have market pressures to combine with regulatory pressures to ensure that the operators adopt “open” policies.

Another target may be the strong trend away from unlimited plans. The FCC’s new rules actually are likely to accelerate the move away from unlimited since it takes away the option for Mobile Operators to throttle unlimited plans. Any customer that doesn’t have unlimited has to stop and think about whether or not to watch that YouTube clip while on the go, or before they do just about anything bandwidth intensive when not on WiFi. This constrains use of the Internet and therefore impacts Google’s core business.

Finally, let’s not ignore what Pitchai presented as Google’s objectives during the interview. Although improving WiFi to cellular interworking and making problems like dropped calls less painful are noble goals, I don’t think that pressuring Operators to implement those types of improvements would truly justify Google’s attention. I think, more likely, as Pichai hinted, maybe this isn’t about traditional cellular service at all. Maybe this really is about the Internet of Things – clearly a space that Google is investing in at the device and software level. Maybe Google wants to make sure that the beyond-WiFi connectivity is being developed in a way that serves Google’s objectives.

So, with that as a framework, let me propose three different potential scenarios for what Google might really do.

First, this really could be like Google Fiber – disguised as an “experiment” but really a new business, competitive entry into the mobile service space. The biggest challenge with this scenario is that Google will be dependent on the mobile operators for at least network capacity, and that’s never the position you want to be in when you’re trying to disrupt the operator’s business (just ask the CLECs of the late 1990s who tried to resell RBOC service under the Telecom Act of 1996). Next, if Google were to pursue this approach, at least all operators not providing Google’s underlying service, would drop or deprioritize Android devices in their portfolios, seriously hurting Google’s momentum and leadership in the smartphone OS space. I can’t imagine that Google would see enough potential upside from this approach to offset the serious downside it would have on their core business.

As a second scenario, let’s take Pichai’s comments at face value and assume that this truly is a smartphone- and/or tablet-centric experiment, working closely with the operators. In that case, it would look a lot like Nexus. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Google rely heavily on their operator partner(s) for distribution and customer care. I also would expect the scale to be limited, meaning it would have relatively limited retail impact on the operators. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see Google want to move it around, so maybe each new Nexus device launched is a new MVNO on a different operator or set of operators. Google would effectively be proving out new/unconventional approaches to connectivity offers (e.g. unlimited) in a way that proves out to the operators that there’s market demand (enough to be a threat) and that the economics can work (so that it’s attractive).

The third scenario is that this really isn’t about smartphones and tablets at all, but it’s really all about IoT. Google obviously is making big investments in hardware and software for IoT, so it would be natural for them to invest to get the “beyond-WiFi” connectivity to work for them as well. AT&T has had meaningful success with IoT, and I think Verizon still has serious hopes for the space, so they might not be the first to open the door to Google’s entry into being a connectivity service provider here, but I think other operators may be more than happy to have Google’s wholesale business and to help define the de facto standards that others likely need to adopt.

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture. I have not been privy to any discussions between Google and mobile operators. There’s more that we don’t know than we know, at this point. However, I think these three scenarios outline a solid framework for anyone to consider the impact on the industry as a whole, or their particular business.

This should be fun to watch!

What Might Google Really Do? Read More »

What Did Google Really Do? – Historical Perspective

Just as Sundar Pichai did, I think it makes sense for us to look historically at Google’s forays into mobile and connectivity. I think there are three historical precedents to consider: Android, Nexus, and Google Fiber.

Android
Google followed Apple into the smartphone market. You can either say that, together, they created the smartphone market, or you can say that they significantly disrupted an existing market dominated by RIM (Blackberry), Microsoft, Palm, and Nokia (Symbian). Google had virtually no meaningful relationships with any of those four, but Android was a key element in the destruction of what had been a very strong relationship with Apple.

Including Apple, four of the five market leaders all had an integrated hardware/software approach to the market. Google chose an “open” or “ecosystem” model, similar to Microsoft’s successful approach to the PC market. In fact, the initial announcement of Android was made by the Open Handset Alliance, made up of 34 companies including OEMs, Operators, Developers, and Chipset companies.

Today, by far, Android is the dominant smartphone operating system. In his talk last week, Pichai claimed that 8 out of every 10 phones shipping around the world are running Android. Google has built a strong relationship with OEMs and, somewhat less directly, with Mobile Operators, to get Android to market. It is important to remember how critical Android was for Operators to have a competitive response to AT&T which had the exclusive on the iPhone. Verizon particularly rode the Droid horse hard until they gained access to the iPhone.

It is also important to note that Google’s Android play has always been focused on their core business model – increasing how much time each of us spends online, with Google providing web-based services and enabling monetization by 3rd party developers that ultimately drive advertising dollars for the company. (Advertising represented $59B of their $66B in 2014 revenues.)

Nexus
In January 2010, Google partnered with HTC to launch the Nexus One smartphone running the latest release of Android. The phone introduced some new features, but mostly it was an attempt by Google to demonstrate how strong a “pure Google” device could be. At least to some extent, it was an attempt to get the OEMs to stop modifying the Android platform. As you may recall, at the time, there was a fair amount of noise in the marketplace about fragmentation in Android (multiple operating system versions, different screen sizes, user interfaces, etc.) relative to the monolithic iPhone.

With the Nexus One, Google also tried to introduce a new approach to the market, selling an unlocked phone at full price, only available for purchase via a website, and with customer service only available via online support forums. None of these experiments were successful and undoubtedly contributed to the lack of success for the phone itself.

The second Nexus handset, the Nexus S (based on Samsung’s Galaxy S platform) was more successful. It introduced the Gingerbread version of Android (2.3) and had hardware specs that were impressive, including NFC. In fact, the Sprint version of the Nexus S became the launch device for Google Wallet. For this second Nexus device, Google stepped back from selling only on the web, selling as a full price unlocked device, and providing support through forums. Instead, they adopted the traditional industry models – sales and support primarily through the Mobile Operator channels.

Google has continued to partner with OEMs to introduce new Nexus phones, often using each new model as an opportunity to introduce new capabilities that perhaps the OEMs and Operators weren’t yet ready to place a bet on otherwise. It’s important to note that Google had to work hard to make sure that this program didn’t alienate the OEMs and Operators on whom the company was dependent. With each Nexus, Google partnered with a different OEM, and made sure that versions were available for the major operators.

To some extent, Google has used the Nexus devices to continue to push openness and capabilities that can enable mobile devices to be used for more and more applications, ultimately driving their core business.

Google Fiber
On February 10, 2010, Google announced plans to build an experimental fiber network, delivering 1GBPS, which they characterized as “100 times faster than what most Americans have access to today”. In their press release, they said “We’ve urged the FCC to look at new and creative ways to get there in its National Broadband Plan – and today we’re announcing an experiment of our own.”

As with Nexus, they made a big deal about the scale being not too small and not too big, saying that they would deliver the service to as few as 50,000 and as many as 500,000 people. They said their goal “is to experiment with new ways to help make Internet access better and faster for everyone” and they specifically called out enabling developers to come up with next generation apps, test new deployment techniques that they would share with the world, and provide openness and choice, managing the network in an open, non-discriminatory, transparent way and giving users a choice of multiple service providers.

They seemed (at least initially) to not want to offend existing broadband providers, saying “Network providers are making real progress to expand and improve high-speed Internet access, but there’s still more to be done. We don’t think we have all the answers – but through our trial, we hope to make a meaningful contribution to the shared goal of delivering faster and better Internet for everyone.”

With that initial announcement, they invited communities to express interest and more than 1000 did, with many doing crazy things to try to win the network for their community. I live in the Kansas City area (the winning city), and although Google Fiber is not yet available in my neighborhood, it has been a big catalyst for innovation across the metro area.

As has been well documented, Google’s entry into broadband also forced the existing broadband providers to improve their offers (speed, capabilities, and/or price). As Google Fiber has pushed into new neighborhoods and suburbs, the competitors have had to respond. Google is coming to my neighborhood this year and that has caused AT&T to expedite construction on their GigaPower infrastructure and for Time Warner to build out outdoor WiFi using streetlight mounted antennas. Everyone is offering special deals with multi-year commitments. We’ve seen similar competitive responses as Google has announced Fiber projects in additional cities.

Of course, Google Fiber is no longer a friendly, sub-scale experiment intended to help the broadband providers. In December 2012, Eric Schmidt said “It’s actually not an experiment; we’re actually running it as a business,” and he announced expansion to additional cities.

As with Google’s other telecom initiatives, the primary focus continues to be the core business. Google Fiber, both directly and indirectly, is driving more overall Internet use, and that helps drive Google’s services and advertising revenues. It’s also important to note that Google has traditionally not had a strong relationship with broadband providers, so they likely felt free to take a more disruptive approach to the market than with Android and Nexus.

In my next post, we’ll take this historical perspective, combined with Pichai’s comments, and combined with an understanding of the challenges that MVNOs traditionally face, and try to speculate on what a Google MVNO might actually look like.

What Did Google Really Do? – Historical Perspective Read More »

Scroll to Top