Brand leadership has to change

A few years ago, shortly after the 2008 crash, American Express in the United States paid many of its less profitable customers to close their accounts and go away. The move garnered much attention and analysis then. It was seen as a de-leveraging move. Whatever hubbub surrounded the brand then has since died down and in an unscientific survey of my business-savvy friends, few remember that this happened at all.

It was a story of a brand choosing its customers, rather than the dominant narrative that conventionally goes the other way round. The latter powers the nascent GrabYourWallet movement.  Another campaign, Sleeping Giants, is similarly holding brands and companies to account if they continue to advertise on extremist websites.

These are interesting times, as the Chinese curse goes.

As consumers, we profess to love brands that are “authentic“, never mind that in many cases, contrived authenticity, not rooted in values embedded into the business’s value chain, is all we are getting excited about.

What happens when “authentic brands” meet programmatic advertising? Unfortunate, inadvertent outcomes, that is what. Brands are left scrambling to do damage control.

What happens when “authentic brands” take a stand that is vastly unpopular? What happens when the brand’s CEO tells a customer she is free to leave if she does not like their philosophy? Isn’t that just the brand being authentic?

What when all signs point to the emergent challenges being bigger than the more popular political bugbear of the time?

Is authenticity malleable? Should it be?

What if a brand never had cause to reveal some of its stances before and is now choosing to do it in a way that consumers find abhorrent?

And when that comes to pass, should consumers force the brand to comply with their idea of authenticity, or choose to walk away with their wallets?* After all, wisdom says, when facts change, changing our minds is no bad thing.

These growing disagreements and schisms are why, more than ever before, brands need values at their foundation, in their DNA, embedded in their value chain.

Real, defensible, explicit values that the brand is willing to stand up for.

Not convenient values that change with the times or fads du jour.

It is then that brand managers will truly be able to use programmatic advertising as a tool to help them rather be helplessly enslaved by it, while they operate in a haze, whether it be about their brand values or technology.

It is then that “customer choice” will come to mean both that the customer chooses, or rejects, the brand and that the brand chooses, or rejects, the customer.

[* Switching costs for small businesses on a shopping cart platform are not negligible but then that is an economic argument, not one about values.]

 

Pay for a good startup lawyer

This article is the eighth in the Startup Series on FirstPost’s Tech2 section and first appeared on Dec the 23rd, 2016.

I am aware this is controversial advice.

Especially since the last column said: “You pay for some things, you do not pay for some things; you should take your time to understand which is which.”

Especially since we all know free legal templates are available online, or a friend can send you their stuff, and you can take them and tweak them, and you are done. This is where I mention that I have seen startups in India working with documents that state their jurisdiction as England and Wales. They certainly found a template for free! But is it serving them and their purposes?

The ability to make sense of legal documents is not for everybody. The inability to make sense of legal documents could however be quite expensive. The advice of a competent, experienced startup lawyer is something founders would do well to pay for.

Here is why.

A good lawyer will not just write you legalese and lots of documentation but she will build you the scaffold for a future of success and high growth. It is something to plan for now, because let’s face it, when you are blazingly successful, you won’t have time to come back and re-do the paperwork assembled from a random assortment of templates.

One of the first decisions in a startup is about location and structure. A competent lawyer, equipped with adequate tax advice if necessary, will help set up the most optimal structure for future growth and in a location that works for you. “But I am incorporating in India,” you may say. Fair point, but a good lawyer, who understands the competing jurisdictions you could incorporate in, such as Singapore, will explain the options to you, thus helping you think more broadly and globally about your business right from the start. Tax is not the only consideration, of course. A location can often beat your default location on the entrepreneurial ecosystem, the ease of finding and hiring talent including from other countries, and most crucially, the ease of doing business.

With cofounders on board, you will need a watertight shareholding rights agreement everyone agrees to sign. A shareholding rights agreement outlines founder shares of equity, but more importantly, outlines important issues that may come up including cofounders wanting to leave, resolving matters in a going concern, potential conflicts arising and so on. I have lost count of how many founder conflicts could have just been avoided or resolved more easily, had someone thought of writing a sensible shareholding rights agreement up front.

As you build the business, you will need to think about several other contracts e.g. with service providers and partners. Service providers may send you their own contracts on which it would be wise to get legal eyes so you know what you are signing up to and what recourse is available to you if things don’t pan out as expected. Next come employees and their employment contracts, which for startups may be different from those offered by BigCo employers. A major difference, for instance, may be the inclusion of stock options in the employment contract, as well as termination clauses and what happens to unvested or unexercised options in different scenarios. Especially if your startup is a success, this is an important matter to not deal with in an amateurish manner.

Whether your website is transactional or not, it is an essential for business and brings responsibility. A good startup lawyer will help write the right policies governing the use of your website for the visitors, and policies disclosing how you will treat data you may collect on their visit, their interaction and their transactions with your business.

These considerations are common across startups. Some specific startups may need specialist advice.

For instance, if you are creating a startup in a regulated industry, such as FinTech, in which none of the founders has adequate deep experience, the importance of a lawyer with industry specialisation cannot be overstated. A competent lawyer can advise you on compliance and regulatory challenges arising from, say, your business model.

In case, you are creating a social enterprise or a non-profit, correct legal advice would save you much heartache. Can you set up a trading arm? Who can and cannot donate to your organisation? What tax benefits are and are not allowable? How do you ensure adequate transparency, disclosure and compliance?

And of course, if you are creating a startup with a patented product, you will have already dealt with a lawyer specialising in intellectual property, and the advice here would dovetail with your experience.

Ignorance of the law, in no jurisdiction, is an admissible excuse for violations or non-compliance. Ignorance is definitely an expensive indulgence should anyone, from your cofounders to your customers, bring about a lawsuit against your startup.

Be smart.

Luxury’s talent conundrum

A version of this essay appeared on Hudson Walker International’s Opinion section published on November the 4th, 2016.

The Luxury sector is facing headwinds. Single digit growth seems here to stay. The behaviour and the expectations of the elusive but coveted millennial consumer remain somewhat a mystery with conflicting trends emerging. For instance, millennials seem disinterested in owning houses and cars, but are nonetheless happy dropping $25 Bn on diamond jewellery. The luxury consumer is globally mobile and digitally savvy, thus requiring brands to think of narratives that remain relevant and accessible in the many contexts in which the consumer might encounter the brand. The traditional luxury maison with its aura of exclusivity is also under challenge from the small, nimble luxury brand that not only knows where to find the new consumer but also to serve her well with messages and products that appeal to her, and do so in an agile manner. The emergence of these new brands is not unrelated to the technological developments challenging and reshaping the entire luxury value chain.

Like many other industries being redefined by technology and the warp speed of the web, the luxury sector too is facing a talent shaped challenge. The sector however remains quite conservative in where it sources talent, privileging industry embeddedness over attracting outsiders. These outsiders may come in and ask uncomfortable questions but they also have the ability and aptitude to shape the future of the industry. The need for luxury sector leadership to shake up their thinking on talent is apparent.

But how can they do it? Well, here are some ways to examine the existing thinking critically.

Consider whom you are attracting. While seeking to fill a position, if the hiring manager in the luxury maison sees applications from only those already working within industry, there is a problem. Pretty much every other industry has had to learn, some grudgingly, others more willingly, ways to reach out to active and passive talent where the talent hangs out and to make their brands more relevant to those professionals who would not otherwise consider them as possible employers.

Ask whether you are hiring for what they can do for the maison, or for what they have already done in their careers. This is trickier than it looks at first pass. Research suggests men are often hired for potential while women have to have proven it before. The luxury sector overwhelmingly sells to women, who have increasing economic power as well as alertness to governance issues in companies they buy from. The hiring-for-potential-or-proof challenge is exacerbated when companies are hiring for a future that is not fully spelt out and is unfurling as we watch. If you are seeking to acquire skills that are themselves nascent, consider that those skills may well have been acquired and demonstrated outside formal employment. As the boundaries between work and non-work areas of life dissolve, it is worth remembering that we bring our whole selves to wherever we go. Hiring conversations need to evolve from the curriculum vitae to exploring the passions of the individuals in their life. This will have to become normal as people pursue and build many careers within their professional lives, which brings me to the next point.

Before even seeking new talent, think deeply about how you will retain them, once they are hired. The adage that “employees do not leave companies, they leave their managers” needs modification. Employees leave in pursuit of fresh challenges knowing well that having multiple careers is now not a novelty but the default, and that only they themselves are responsible for shaping their work life. This challenge is multiplied manifold when the talent freshly hired is a a star and aware of her star power. Monetary and non-monetary incentives are the hygiene factors. Retention is about giving them something to believe in, something that lifts the game daily from mundane transactions to an opportunity to make a meaningful difference.

Lest this monograph should make these challenges sound insurmountable, I should add that this is where a seasoned and well-networked headhunter comes in. A good headhunter serves as the consigliere or consigliera to the maison. He or she understands the essence of the luxury brand, and can communicate it faithfully to a prospective candidate in a manner that bridges elegantly the gap between the narrative of the brand and its salience to a candidate’s aspirations. This is a crucial skill as a luxury mason’s success in attracting, hiring and retaining talent now depends on how well the leadership articulates their vision of the future and demonstrates that it is in line with the future emerging before our eyes.

The industry whose mainstay is heritage and craftsmanship is up against rapid technological and socio-political change. Something’s got to give for the industry to remain relevant and thrive. Talent is where the solution to that conundrum lies.

Autonomous cars and luxury marques

Aston Martin, James Bond’s car of choice (except when he went through a BMW phase), showcased a powerboat at Monaco Yacht Show this year. Writing in the Financial Times, Philip Delves Broughton laments that Bond’s legacy is being junked by this luxury marque and outlines the dangers of brands diversifying into unrelated categories, especially those far away from the brand’s core, while also acknowledging the financial pressures that may have brought about the powerboat.

Those are great arguments; indeed they are in line with the “we have heritage” argument that keeps many a luxury brand in that strange place where they are simultaneously desirable and at the risk of going out of business very fast. Those are also arguments that arise from a steady state style of thinking applied to the stark challenges faced by luxury businesses.

The challenge is altogether different. Existential, in fact.

As autonomous vehicles get on roads outside the Bay Area, indeed here in the UK not far from the Aston Martin Headquarters, the existential crisis facing luxury marques in cars is too urgent to ignore. They overwhelmingly pitch their cars as being about the pleasure of owning and driving a car as beautiful such as the Vanquish (I have my preferences but please feel free to imagine the marque that makes you go weak at the knees here!). There is a primal connection between the man and the (stunning) machine that is at the heart of the purchases of such cars.

With autonomous cars around the corner, the makers of such luxury cars may go out of business altogether.

What will be their offering, their raison d’être?

What deepest desires in our hearts will they be appealing to, with their beautiful — but self driving — cars?

Yes, I hear you cycling through Kübler-Ross. I am doing it too so you are not alone.

Meanwhile, let’s not pretend that the Aston Martin AM37 powerboat is only about the financial bottomline. There are existential choppy waters ahead. Aston Martin has found one way to navigate them. Unlike Bond, makers and purveyors of such luxury vehicles may not live to die another day. They have to think fast to remain relevant and in business at all. More previously unthinkable business models may be forthcoming from luxury car makers.

Mr Broughton meanwhile can perhaps take solace in the possibility of the next boat chase on the Thames featuring an Aston Martin! Bond’s heritage may be alive and well. For the time being.

Cofounders and the dating analogy

This article is the third in the Startup Series on FirstPost’s Tech2 section and first appeared on Oct the 3rd, 2016.

The search for a cofounder is analogous to dating. There is an ideal checklist of attributes — skills, qualities and more as you will see — and then there is the ineffable chemistry check.

Since no two people are alike, we will naturally encounter both similarities and differences. Over the years of working with startups, I have developed a framework which can help you think through the dilemma.

Values of cofounders should ideally be the same or similar. A key value to consider is the importance of control. Extensive research by Noam Wasserman of Stanford finds that there are people, who want complete control and ownership, and there are people, who understand that some control may need to be given up to build and grow the venture’s reach and value. This understanding is pretty fundamental to building a venture, especially if you plan to raise external investment to do so. A fundamental disagreement here would not make for a a good cofounder relationship.

Goals, needless to say, have to be similar not different, although one can work with  the possibility of changing mind later. For instance, a cofounder may commit today to work on the venture till an exit event but a few years down, agree to give up an active role in running the venture. Such possibilities are hard to predict but if all else is working, they are negotiable.

Skills are best if different or complementary. It helps if the cofounders bring different domain expertise to building the startup. If you are a techie who does not have experience in speaking to early adopters and customers, and your cofounder is the customer facing person essential to driving adoption and bringing customer feedback on board, you have brought together two essential skill sets.

Work ethic is best if similar. Some people emphasise hard work, others outcomes. A startup needs both but it needs outcomes and growth milestones more than anything else. If a founder thinks hard work is substitute for results, it is not going to work. It is therefore best if cofounders are on the same page as to the purposiveness of the work ethic. It is worth noting that work hours are not the same thing as work ethic. Work hours are often negotiated with the needs of the start-up in mind. While a developer can work late into the night coding, a customer facing cofounder has to work the hours when she can meet customers and partners.

Networks serve a startup best if different, or complementary. This would help the start-up maximise reach into customers as well as investors. The eagle-eyed among you may note this may not work when your cofounder is your former classmate from University, as mentioned in an earlier column. In such a case, look for the contacts you need in another cofounder or an advisor. Ask yourself “what things are you definitely not good at?” and go from there.

If this framework is lulling you into a false sense of security, don’t let it. Being able to judge these essential qualities is not simple or quick. Don’t rush the decision. Spend time talking through things and listening carefully, how they see failure and success, how they talk about disappointment, how they treat people over whom they have any kind of power, how they talk about people they have relationships with.

Occasionally someone may tick all the boxes and yet make you uncomfortable. Judging someone’s character is hard, and a lot more personal than judging their skills and experience. In such moments, listen to yourself, I say. Do not dismiss your instincts and do not dismiss your gut.

However as any person in a long term commitment or relationship will tell you, the marriage begins once the wedding is over. Committing to the relationship requires the commitment to work with all that comes with it. It helps to lay down early ground rules for all to adhere. That is the scaffold of your organisation’s culture, more on which a little later in this column series.

It is worth remembering that the advertised product may be quite different from what is delivered. In other words, people may disappoint you. They may demonstrate different behaviours in an organised and predictable environment than they do in a start-up. A start-up is a high stress, demanding environment where decisions are not hedged by a large team and wrong decisions can actually waste valuable money and time.You cannot predict all this but you can deal with it. More on conflicts arising and how to deal with those will be discussed later in this series.

(Note: a version of this framework appears in “Dear Female Founder” edited by Lu Li, who has kindly permitted the publication of this piece.)