Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Lesson #110: When to Drive Growth vs. Profits

Last week, Lisa Leiter at Crains Chicago wrote a great article "When Should a Startup Worry About Making Money?"  It raised good questions on when a startup should focus on driving growth vs. driving profits.  It is an important topic for startup executives to understand the underlying issues, and I am going to drill down deeper with more thoughts on this topic.

This really is not a simple question to answer.  There are so many nuances that go into assessing the right answer.  What is going on with the economy?  How liquid is the fundraising climate?  Are you B2B or B2C?  Are you the first mover?  How defensible is your business, with patents, product complexity or otherwise?  What are your competitors doing?  How big is the market opportunity?  How quickly is it emerging?  Are you trying to dominate the world, or build a nice lifestyle business?  Are you venture backed, or privately owned?  So, in light of all these moving pieces, I will do my best to layout some high level guidance.

Based on the above questions: (i) the softer the economy, the more you should protect your cash reserves to weather the storm; (ii) the better the financing climate, the more comfortable you should feel in accelerating growth with access to investors; (iii) I think B2C businesses need to think "faster" than B2B businesses, given the nuances of consumer behavior vs. corporate behavior; (iv) it is always best to be the first mover, and accelerate your lead when you can (or catch up if you are not first); (v) the more complex or defensible your business, the less speed becomes an issue; (vi) the larger the market, the more room there is for multiple companies to thrive, and hence speed becomes less an issue; (vii) brand new markets or business concepts are typically dominated by the first mover, so move quickly at the expense of profits; and (viii) venture backed businesses trying to dominate the world, need to move quickly to ensure growth and liquidity value for your investors.

Let's use Groupon as a case study.  They are the fastest growing company in the history of business.  They went from zero revenues in 2008 to a forecasted $3BN of revenues forecasted for 2013.  And, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars in capital and startup losses, to acheive a dominant market position in the revolutionary B2C "daily deals" space.  Why was that the right answer and strategy for Groupon?  First of all, their product was not all that hard to build, and their early success spawned hundreds of competitors.  Secondly, they were the first mover with a highly-lucrative new business model, and they wanted to dominate the global markets before anyone else did.  And thirdly, their biggest competitor Living Social was also investing hundreds of millions of dollars in trying to catch up and take the lead in the daily deals space.  What was the outcome: a publicly traded Groupon valued at $10BN and forecasted to drive $400MM in net profit in 2013 (its fifth year of business).

Facebook was an equally successful, but different story.  There wasn't a clear e-commerce model to drive revenues with.  And, their executives and investors decided the idea was so revolutionary, as a communication platform, that it was critical to get all consumers locked up, even without a clear revenue model.  And, that they did, amassing hundreds of millions of users worldwide, on the shoulders of hundreds of millions of dollars of startup capital.  And, similar to the premise of the Field of Dreams movie, if you build it, the revenues will come, soon thereafter.  Sure enough, Facebook does about $4BN in advertising-based revenues today, and is estimated to go public in 2012 at a valuation of around $100BN.  Not a shabby return on their investment!!

Now let's look at a third example, this time for a slow mover.  Streampix is the new online streaming movie service by Comcast, launched to go head-to-head with Netflix.  This was already a very crowded space with YouTube, Hulu, Redbox, Blockbuster, Amazon, iTunes and others trying to dominate online movie streaming.  But, why was that a good launch for Comcast?  They already had all the studio and network relationships?  They already had the cable box hardware in everyone's homes, so an easy upsell?  It was a simple message to consumers to simply stream online movies from Comcast, instead of Netflix, for a lower price already bundled into your cable service.  And, Comcast is much better funded, to afford the high content licensing costs with the film studios.  Time will tell if Streampix succeeds or not.  But, this slow mover has as good a chance as anybody, given the nature of this industry and its current market dynamics.

As I said before, each business has its own considerations.  Study your options, and plan accordingly.  And, where you can, I am always a fan of moving faster before your competitors do.  If you have specific questions about what is the right path for your business, simply ask them in the comments field.

For future posts, please follow me at: www.twitter.com/georgedeeb.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

While I agree it was a great move in theory, I’m not sure there execution of it went as well. Mainly because Streampix is coming off as a facsimile of Netflix, rather than forging its own path. I’m much more impressed with what my employer, DISH, did with their Blockbuster @Home service. It offers the obligatory streaming, but it also gives me a bunch of movie channels and video game and movie rentals by mail. Not to mention that because it’s Blockbuster, a lot of the new releases are available way before the Netflix, or Redbox, or any of the others have them. I just think Comcast should have tried to do something more like that for their customers.