A Quick Critique of Clubhouse

As you may know, I have been experimenting with Clubhouse over roughly the past six months in several capacities:  as a regular user, an occasional audience participant/questioner, and as the host of a regular room I’ve been running with Thomas Otter, the SaaS Product Power Breakfast.

I love to get involved with new social media platforms early because I’m interested in new forms of media (and the often subtle differences they bring), I enjoy watching early evolution of the products and their usage (e.g., the invention of hashtags or URL shortening on Twitter, the applause convention [1], speaking protocols [2], or the use of Instagram DMs on Clubhouse [3]), I like watching the minimum viable product (MVP) questions play out in real time, and I love to see strategy at work.

So, in that light, here is my quick critique of Clubhouse intended as both critical and constructive.

As a startup- and media-watcher, I’m of the opinion that, after raising money at a $4B valuation in April (and with maybe 50 total employees at the time), Clubhouse appears to have lost significant momentum in the past several months.  Why?

  • The pandemic is winding down.  I think Clubhouse got a significant pandemic tailwind when people were locked in, Zoomed out, and looking for new ways to connect with other humans.
  • Certain communities returned to IRL mode, notably comedians, one of several core Clubhouse communities.  Some of my favorite rooms were in Leah Lamarr’s Hot on the Mike club and it appears that many of those outstanding comedians are back working at physical clubs.  That’s great for them, but not for me — as a Clubhouse user I can’t just login when I’m free and easily find a great comedy room as I once could.
  • It’s hard to reliably find live content.  The key difference between podcasts and Clubhouse rooms is the serendipity of live content (e.g., when I stumbled into a room with John Mayer) and the potential for interactivity [4].  Without those two things, I can just listen to a recorded podcast.  If you can’t find content, what good is the app?  It becomes like cable TV — 500 channels, but nothing to watch.  Every day I am less enthusiastic about firing up the app because I think I’ll either spend half my time looking for something [5] or fail entirely.
  • The app doesn’t get the most basic thing right:  language.  While I do listen to content in two languages, the app is constantly showing rooms in my hallway with titles (and dialog) in languages that I don’t speak.
  • The app has no room-search functionality.  The single most basic, MVP-level feature is (still) missing:  search in-progress rooms by keyword (or topic) in the title or description.  Not there.  Stunning.
  • The follow paradigm is wrong.  Content discovery is based primarily on people, not topics.  Using myself as an example, I like:  enterprise software, the Grateful Dead, French language, comedy, startups, mathematics, and philosophy.  Just because you like enterprise software doesn’t mean you like the Grateful Dead or topology.  While the app notionally supports topics, they appear ignored in composing your hallway [6].
  • The app does not appear to learn.  While the app does not appear to learn what I like in formulating suggestions in the hallway, it does appear to learn some bad lessons:  e.g., if you actually stumble into a single Russian room it seems to suggest them endlessly.
  • The app breaks trust in machine learning.  In an era of sophisticated users, I’m OK to hide-room numerous times in order to teach the app my preferences.  While hide-room didn’t appear to actually do anything (yet), I was confident that at some point they’d leverage that data to improve my experience.  Then one day hide-room seems to have simply disappeared from the app, so all that teaching appears to have been wasted.  That breaks my trust.  Don’t ask me questions if you’re going to throw away the answers.
  • The app is gameable in odd ways.  It appears that long-running rooms get some advantage in hallway prioritization so there are people who run rooms for days on end (e.g., Scenes From an Airport Terminal) that pollute my hallway, and that now I can’t even hide.  If the app were focused on topics and not people and duration, they could eliminate this.
  • The community has too many hucksters and charlatans.  Everyone seems to be a millionaire, successfully running five companies, a great venture investor, and yet still somehow need $99 from you to take their masterclass.  Just reading the bios of the moderators in many rooms makes me feel vaguely ill.  Hearing the advice these people give to would-be entrepreneurs makes me feel worse.  Don’t get me wrong, some rooms are amazing and offer an experience you can find nowhere else.  But a lot of Clubhouse feels like the vapid self-help section of a bookstore.  Oh, and don’t forget your laser eyes before going into the crypto rooms.

What to do about it?

  • Strategically, Clubhouse seems to have missed the systematic expansion memo (e.g., Amazon from books to DVDs to cameras and onward, or Facebook from Harvard students to Ivy League students to college students to broader groups).  I think their decision to port the app to Android before coming even close to completing it (e.g., content discovery, search) was a big mistake.  They need to focus on completing the app first.  Get to MVP before porting the app.
  • Systematic expansion includes not only product but community.  Just as they need to prioritize their product features to complete the product in a logical order, they need to decide which communities they want to serve (and, no, “creators” is not a sufficiently focused community definition).  I think comedians may be gone for good because the time that people want to hear them is precisely the time they are out at work.  But there are lots and lots of communities on Clubhouse they can try to develop (e.g., Silicon Valley VC/startups which had an early focus but seems to have faded away, crypto, activism, real estate, investing).  Just pick some and complete the app for them.
  • Appoint community mangers.  In addition to product managers to drive functionality, appoint and empower community managers and not just to makes rules about content [7] but to help build the community in a given topic area.  Just as retailers have category managers (someone responsible for, e.g., swimwear at a business level) so should Clubhouse have community managers.
  • Play to your users, not your VCs.  Existing users definitionally were not pushing for Android.  I’m guessing the VCs were — so they could continue to show great adoption.  But what good is great adoption if, after using the app a few times, everyone drops off because they can’t find anything they want to listen to?  Without great content on the app, there is no need for the app.
  • Stay in touch and on the ground.  One of my favorite rooms was cofounder Paul Davison’s weekly introduction [8] for new members (on Thursday evenings) that I assume he’s still running.  I know he runs a weekly Town Hall as well.  Paul is a great spokesperson, communicator, and listener and I love that he stays in such direct touch with his user base.  They just need to add some more systematic strategic focus atop that and some Geoffrey Moore 101 to go with it — complete the app, use-case by use-case and don’t get stretched too far, too fast in the process.

# # #

Notes

[1] Muting and unmuting your microphone in rapid succession

[2] Examples:  Pull-to-refresh (PTR) order.  Or the “this is Dave and I am done speaking” protocol, which is seemingly for several reasons including:  to identify speakers in rooms with large numbers of moderators where you may not be able to find the speaker (e.g., if they are buried three screens down), as a basic courtesy protocol, and for accessibility reasons for people who are unable see the grey ring indicating speaker identity.

[3] A great example of not needlessly building DMs a feature, but instead supporting profiles that link to Instagram and the community quickly embracing Instagram as the default DM method on Clubhouse.

[4] If you want to raise your hand and ask a question and are so selected — itself another issue as I’d been in numerous rooms where people said they waited literally for hours

[5] And because Clubhouse can be and is often best done while multi-tasking, it needs to be fast and easy to find something, e.g., when you’re hopping on the treadmill.

[6] The app suggests if you’re not finding content you want to “follow more people” — not to like more topics.

[7] The narrow definition of community manager is about making and enforcing rules for rooms, dealing with reported speakers, etc.  While such activity is important, it’s table stakes — a community manager should be far more than a security guard, but instead a leader trying to build the community, drive membership, foster and promote rooms, etc.

[8] Even though it was notionally an “introduction” I attended for several weeks just to hear Paul talk about the app and his vision.

SaaS Product Power Breakfast with Evan Kaplan of Influx Data

Please join us for tomorrow’s SaaS Product Power Breakfast, Thursday 6/24 at 8am Pacific.  Our guest is veteran technology executive Evan Kaplan, CEO of Influx Data, makers of the open-source, time-series database InfluxDB.

Our theme for tomorrow’s episode is how to manage the transition from traditional open source to true cloud native, something relatively few companies have done, and a transition that Evan has overseen at Influx Data.

We’ll cover questions including:

  • A primer on the traditional open source model
  • What it means to be true cloud native
  • How to approach the transition to true cloud native
  • Perils and pitfalls in the transition
  • Organizational (and people) change in the transition
  • Licensing implications, including protecting the open source from cloud hyperscalers and while trying not to alienate the traditional open source community

Influx Data is a category leader that has raised about $120M from top-tier investors.  Evan has a spectacular background, having been founder/CEO of Aventail for about a decade, CEO of iPass for half a decade, the member of numerous boards, and having serving 5+ years at Influx Data.  I’m super excited to have him on the show.  See you there!

Pulse 2021 Slides: Net Dollar Retention (NDR) Benchmarks and Thoughts

This is a quick post to share the slides I presented today at the GainSight Pulse Everywhere 2021 conference in a session entitled Net Dollar Retention, Key Benchmarks at $50M, $200M, and $1B in annual recurring revenue (ARR).

In the session we discuss:

  • The answer, which is 104%.  (Median NDR which is surprisingly invariant across size.  Exception:  public company NDR median is 111%.)
  • Problems with historical installed-base valuation metrics such as churn, customer lifetime (CLT), and lifetime value (LTV), building on my SaaStr 2020 presentation, Churn is Dead, Long Live NDR.
  • The rise of NDR as the SaaS metric of choice.
  • How NDR is currently the most powerful predictor (among common alternatives) of a company’s revenue multiple (EV/R).
  • The “dollar” in net dollar retention and why global companies should look at NDR using constant currencies, not dollars converted at a spot rate.
  • How NDR should vary as a function of stage, expansion model, business model, target market, sales motion, and pricing model.
  • How usage-based (aka, consumption-based) pricing models will be as transformation to subscription SaaS as subscription SaaS was to perpetual license software.

The deck has an rich appendix with interesting information clipped from a variety of my favorite sources, including RevOps^2, Meritech Enterprise Public Comps, OpenView Expansion SaaS Benchmarks, OpenView Usage-Based Playbook, Bessemer State of the Cloud, KeyBanc SaaS Survey (PDF), SEC filings, and others.

Here are the slides and I’ve embedded them below:

I’d like to thank Ray Rike at RevOps^2 for giving me early access to his upcoming FY20 B2B SaaS Benchmarks report.

If GainSight makes a video available online, I’ll add a link to it, here.  Meantime, thanks to GainSight for having me and hope you enjoy the presentation.

Three People To Call When You Need Help with Positioning

Lately, I’ve received some consulting inquiries where companies are asking for help with positioning and messaging.  While that’s definitely an area of interest and passion, my business model is advice-as-a-service (AaaS) — I work with a smaller set of companies, on a broader set of issues, over a longer period of time.  So I’m not really looking for such consulting projects myself.

Thus the purpose of this post is to offer a little quick advice on the subject and then refer readers to three people I’d recommend to help with positioning and messaging in enterprise software.

Quick advice:

The three people I’d call for help with positioning would be:

  • Crispin Read, the single best positioning and messaging person with whom I’ve ever worked.  With a scalpel of a marketing mind, he’s not going to tell you what you want to hear, but he will cut through the junk in your thinking and distill your message to its essence.  I’m not sure how much consulting he’s doing these days because he’s trying to drive scale with his product marketing community (PMMHive) and Product Marketing Edge.  But I’d ping him.
  • Jeffrey Pease, who runs a NY-based consulting business, Message Mechanics.  Like Crispin, he was on the marketing team at Business Objects back in the day, and he is very, very good at messaging.  He popped up back in my life via Bluecore who was droning on about this messaging wizard they loved working with — only for me to discover that I’d worked with him in the past.  Testimonials on Jeffrey’s website include Bluecore, Coupa, Veeva, and well, Crispin (when he was at Microsoft).  So it’s really all just one big, happy positioning family.
  • April Dunford.  This one’s slightly premature — as I’ve not yet finished her book and haven’t worked with her yet.  But based on the part of the book I’ve read, her Twitter feed, and her work with related portfolio companies and PE sponsors, I am simply certain that we are kindred positioning spirits and that I’m going to love working with her — as we’re slated to do in upcoming months with one of my portfolio companies.

Good luck, happy positioning, and keep it simple out there.

How To Be A Good Independent Board Member

I’m writing this from both the perspective of a former CEO (who would occasionally get sideways with his board) and that of a six-time independent board member.  I’ll look first from the CEO perspective, examining what I wanted in an independent board member (aka non-executive director), and second from the board director perspective [1].

The CEO Perspective:  What I Wanted in an Independent Director

As a CEO, I wanted:

  • An advisor.  Someone I could use as a sounding board for ideas and decisions.  As CEO, you have no peer group within the company [2], so it’s valuable to have someone who knows the company, is current on industry best practices [3], but who feels less boss-like than the VCs/investors on the board.
  • An expert.  Someone the board would look to for opinions.  This is important — when the board is leaning left and the CEO wants to go right, an expert who has been-there, done-that and whose opinion is respected by the board can be quite influential.
  • A supporter.  Someone who would have my back both in board meetings and, more importantly, if and when board members get together outside board meetings to discuss the company [4].  When things go sideways, this can be the difference between a reconciliatory conversation and a replacement CEO search [5].  Remember Sequoia founder Don Valentine’s famous quote:  “I am 100% behind my CEOs right up until the day I fire them.”
  • A diplomat.  Someone who, when times are tense, can work as an intermediary between the differing parties, often but certainly not always, the investors on one side and founders/management on the other. Former sales leaders often perform well in this situation [6].
  • A coach.  Someone who can help make the game plan for getting something done (e.g., decomposing and sequencing) while providing a pep talk or a kick in the butt, as indicated, along the way of doing it.

I think (and I’m obviously biased here) that current/former GMs and CEOs make better advisors than current/former functional heads [7] because they have wrestled with more of the issues that CEOs face.  The hardest part of the CEO job (for me at least), and the part for which climbing the corporate ladder leaves you most unprepared, is working for a board, not a boss [8].

I should add that ensuring proper corporate governance is an important duty for for the board, but while critical, I view it as table stakes and have thus excluded governance-related items from the list of differentiating attributes above.

The Board Member Perspective:  What I Think Makes a Good Independent Director

From my position on several boards, I think a good independent director is:

  • Someone who acts as an advisor, not a consultant.  People sometimes confuse the two.  Advisors respond and consultants create.  Advisors provide feedback on your ideas, plans, and deliverables.  Consultants play a role in making them.  Put differently, advisors can show up to a discussion without doing any homework; consultants do the homework to create the materials for the discussion.
  • Someone who builds a 1-1 relationship with the CEO and delivers the vast majority of their value-add through that relationship [9].  Board meetings are great, but they typically involve a large group of people and are part performance art and part working group.  Important decisions do get made in board meetings, but a lot of education, detail-driving, consensus-building, and other value-add happens outside.
  • Someone who brings ideas and best practices.  It’s easy to get myopic when you’re building a company; there is so much to do inside, it’s easy to forget to look outside.  Good independent directors stay current on best practices (e.g., systems, methodologies, tools) and bring them to the CEO and the company.  See my current Gong evangelization as an example.
  • Someone who’ll have hard conversations.  Nobody likes being told things that they don’t want to hear, but somebody needs to do it.  The good independent director tells the CEO when their go-to-market analysis is weak, their hiring plan is completely unrealistic, or they should pay more attention to a competitor who’s intent on eating their lunch.  These contrapuntal conversations aren’t always pleasant, but they can add a lot of value.
  • Someone who challenges the CEO on strategy and executive team hiring and composition.  These are absolutely key CEO duties.  Too often strategies lack focus, and executive recruiting processes lack discipline.   Executive team composition, at a high-growth company, is a constant struggle [9A].  Someone needs to say things like, “you’re trying to be everything to everybody,” “the three CFO finalists have completely different profiles,” or “why is every e-staff member in the biggest job they’ve ever hard?”  We need a focused strategy that we can execute.  We need finalists to fit an agreed-to profile [10].  We need a team that balances up-and-comers with veterans.
  • Someone who inspects the troops.  Call me old school, but I think an important part of every (post-quarter) board meeting is a brief operational review where each functional heads presents the status of their department.  While experience has taught me that this is a better way to discover bad apples than identify good ones [11], I nevertheless believe it’s an important part of a meeting.  As a former operating executive, the independent director should take the lead in this inspection.
  • Someone who pushes for standard metrics and templates.  This is not primarily because I like metrics, but because it is human nature to cherry-pick metrics and the only way I know to prevent such cherry-picking is to design standard, holistic templates and use them at every meeting.  That eliminates any possibility of only talking about the good metrics and omitting the bad ones.  If the board doesn’t know about a problem, they can’t help solve it.  Standard templates ensure they know.

# # #

Notes

[1] Knowing full well that the CEOs you’re supporting should be the final judge of that.

[2] Which why it’s a nice idea to get one outside the company via one of many CEO groups

[3] Some operating execs let themselves get pretty rusty in this regard.  Having worked with highly pedigreed but anachronistic advisors, I work hard to stay current in operating models and topics.

[4] This might be a closed-closed session after the usual board/CEO closed session, or it might be separate formal or ad hoc meetings where non-executive board members and investors have discussions.

[5] Founders typically worry about the latter less, but hired CEOs do and probably should worry about it more.

[6] Who later go into GM or CEO jobs to best pass all my tests.

[7] With the exception of CFOs for audit committees and such.

[8] This is particularly true on venture-backed startup boards where there is comparatively more “cat herding” than on PE boards which, while they have their own challenges, are usually more clear and singular in what they want.

[9] It should always include the CEO.  It might also include relationships with the CRO, CFO, CMO or other advisor-relevant functional head.

[9A] The fundamental tension between the cliché conflict between:  “dance with who brung ya” and “the people that got us to this level aren’t [necessarily] the ones to take us to the next.”  (See slides 11 to 16 of this presentation.)  [Necessarily] added because some people seem to think that getting the company to Level X is actually a liability in the climb to Level X+1.

[10] Deciding whether you want a CFO from an accounting/controller background or a finance/FP&A background should be decided long before you have a list of finalists.

[11] If someone is bad at presenting their department, they are typically bad at running it.  However, the converse is not true:  if someone is good presenting their department they may or may not be good at running it.  Some execs “give good meeting” such that they paint a rosy picture of a broken function.