Tag Archives: France

Larry’s Kids

Al Mcgorry is a small-business man who thinks big. So in 2002, when this CEO of a 12-person software consultancy in Sacramento heard of a new, inexpensive service called Oracle Small Business Suite, he thought that Oracle’s CEO, Larry Ellison, was finally offering a scaled-down version of the software that its big, multinational customers use — at a cost of a quarter of a million dollars and up — to run their businesses. But unlike traditional Oracle products, this one was simple to use, integrated, delivered over the Web, and at only $49 per month, surprisingly affordable. McGorry was hooked. The fact is, it wasn’t an Oracle product at all. This innovative new business software solution was the work of a small San Mateo company called NetLedger (later NetSuite) that was launched in 1998 by Ellison and a young protege, Evan Goldberg. NetLedger got to use the Oracle name at a time when upstart Internet companies needed all the branding advantages they could get. In return, Ellison got a foothold in the small to midsize business space. It was an inspired partnership. So much so that NetSuite reached No. 12 on the Inc. 500 this year, with four-year growth of 5,763%. Its 2003 revenue was $16.5 million, and 2004′s number will approach $50 million. And if you ask Goldberg and his team, they’re just getting warmed up. “This is a massive, massive market,” he says, citing the nearly seven million small to midsize businesses in the U.S. alone. It’s a fact not lost on Ellison. At the same time he was funding NetLedger, he was also helping bankroll another Web-based software company targeting small and midsize businesses: SalesForce.com. And now, years later, Oracle has launched its own product — which bears more than passing resemblance to NetSuite’s — aimed at the small and midsize market. That gives Ellison a stake in three companies that are, or soon may be, fighting a turf battle for the small to midsize business dollar (he owns more than 50% of NetSuite; Goldberg, other employees, and venture capitalists own the rest). If you’re Larry Ellison, those are pretty good odds. And if you’re Al McGorry, the competition is pretty good for you, too. For McGorry, the NetSuite product, which started as a simple competitor to QuickBooks, delivering accounting software over the Internet via subscription, has made a huge difference in his business. Instead of buying software on disks that you (or well-paid engineers) load onto your computers, the software is accessed over a Web browser, allowing you to log on from anywhere. All of your employees can access real-time data, which is backed up every night on class A servers. There are no upgrades to buy, and there’s far less maintenance. And the software is constantly growing, adding the ability to manage contacts, keep appointments, track sales, manage employees and payroll, manage customer orders and inventory, and build and maintain a website. As the service evolved, the name of the company was switched from NetLedger to NetSuite to reflect its lineup more accurately. “Everything just fits together,” says McGorry, who had been using at least four different software programs — none of which were integrated like the Oracle Small Business Suite — to do the same thing. But then in 2003, McGorry’s annual cost for the suite doubled to $1,200 a year ($99 per month). And in 2004, he had to write a check to NetSuite for $7,200 ($399 per month for one user; $99 per month for each additional user). That figure allowed him to increase the number of users from one to three, but it’s still an eightfold increase in his annual payment, which is always required up front. An avid reader of Internet technology bulletin boards, McGorry says that many in the small-business community were apoplectic each time the price jumped. “People were ripping them apart in these user-community forums,” he says. “My God, there were a lot of defections.” Still, McGorry says NetSuite makes sense for his growing business, Capital Datacorp, which has annual revenue just shy of $5 million — especially since it has engineers who work almost exclusively in the field and other employees (including himself) who occasionally work from home or at a customer site. On a recent trip to the Alps, McGorry, thanks to NetSuite, was able to duck into a tiny Internet cafe and get up-to-the-minute sales figures. To goldberg and zach nelson, NetSuite’s CEO since 2002, customers like McGorry are proof that they’re on to something. Trying to keep up, they hired nearly 100 new employees in 2004 — most of them sales staff — bringing the total to about 300. They’re already expanding into Europe, Asia, and Australia, having established sales offices in Canada and the U.K. in the past year, and they’re working on translated versions for countries from France to China. In advance of an IPO planned for late 2005 or early 2006, they’re on a tear to grab market share, and their confidence is riding high. “This is a CEO’s fantasy product,” says Nelson, a nearly evangelical promoter of NetSuite. As he demos the software, his enthusiasm is infectious. When it comes to competitors, he patently dismisses them, regardless of their size (like Microsoft and its Great Plains product) or market share (Intuit’s QuickBooks, the 800-pound gorilla of small-business software). Nelson is, rather boldly, even dismissive of Oracle’s ability to move into the smaller market space. And yes, that’s his boss’s other company he’s talking about. NetSuite is like the Chihuahua that thinks it’s a German shepherd. But it’s a fast-growing Chihuahua, and NetSuite has one big advantage. While its competitors targeted specific slices of the market (QuickBooks focusing on accounting, SalesForce.com on sales-force automation), NetSuite was first out of the gate with all-in-one business software delivered over the Web. Is there even anyone else in the race? “No, believe it or not,” says Yankee Group analyst Sheryl Kingstone. “Not the way they do it.” Ultimately, the company’s greatest challenge may be its ability to retain its small-business focus. Can a company that’s owned by one of the wealthiest men on the planet, a company that’s growing spectacularly, expanding globally, and competing against the likes of Microsoft and Intuit, stay close enough to the small-business mentality of its customers to truly understand them? Goldberg says that one of the company’s advantages is that it’s run entirely on NetSuite software, which forces it to evaluate its own product daily in a real-life setting. But will NetSuite be a candidate for its own software if it keeps up this pace? “It’s an interesting question that we think about,” says Goldberg. “Will we still be using NetSuite when we have 10,000 employees?” Early in his career, Goldberg’s own focus was on big business. He went to work for Oracle as a database architect in 1987, right after earning his degree in applied mathematics at Harvard. Then, after eight years, Goldberg — with the blessing and backing of Ellison — set off with three other Oracle employees to create his own multimedia software start-up in San Francisco. An early, ill-fated competitor to Macromedia Flash, the company was called mBed. It never connected, but as Goldberg struggled with managing his fledgling operation, he began to sense a greater opportunity. He had gone straight from software genius to CEO and was now dealing with employees, sales, and all sorts of start-up issues. And he needed help. “The main thing I learned,” says Goldberg, “is that, if you were a small or growing business, the tools that were available to you were extremely limited.” Goldberg called Ellison in 1998 to suggest that they create small-business applications. Ellison encouraged Goldberg to focus on accounting but to do it, unlike QuickBooks, over the Web. “Larry really was, even at that point — and this is in 1998 — sure that this was how all software was going to be delivered,” says Goldberg. “And he was trying to transition Oracle to do that for big companies.” Goldberg wanted to pursue sales-force automation, but Ellison pushed for accounting first, arguing that that’s the core of all small businesses. Accounting it was. “The entire vision of the company,” says Goldberg, “came together in about five minutes.” Thus, NetLedger was born in late 1998 in a small office south of San Francisco above a hair salon and an Indian restaurant. Goldberg says that while the first four employees were all ex-Oracle, the next 50 were deliberately not. “We really knew,” he says, “that because we were delivering software for small and midsize businesses, we needed a different culture at the company. We needed different blood.” The company was launched on QuickBooks and stuck with the Intuit product — for the first two months. “I remember that day when we imported the QuickBooks file [to NetLedger's nascent online software program], and our business was sitting there, right on the Web,” he says. “We could see everything that was happening. That was a great moment.” The first product, also called NetLedger, debuted in 1999 at a cost of $4.95 per month. At that price, Goldberg got NetLedger in a lot of hands, which was the goal. One of those early customers was Rene Vandockum, a small-business man running a San Diego company called Racebolts.com, which imports and sells titanium nuts and bolts for motorcycles and racecars. Vandockum dropped QuickBooks because of NetLedger’s integration, tying together the front and back offices. But the software was hardly perfect. “Back then,” he says, “it was down a lot, awfully slow, and every time a new version came out, the whole thing crashed.” But it was cheap, offered good (and free) customer service, and was constantly improving and adding features. It was during this early phase that Goldberg was stunned to learn that his friend and former colleague at Oracle, Marc Ben-ioff, had decided to target the same market. “He came in three months after we started NetLedger and sheepishly said, ‘Yeah, I’m doing a company. I’m going to do sales-force automation for small businesses delivered over the Web.’ ” It was precisely the plan Ellison had talked Goldberg out of pursuing. Benioff’s business — launched in 1999 with a $2 million investment from Ellison — became SalesForce.com, which is now the market leader in the category and has a post-IPO market cap of $1.7 billion. “He went a different route,” says Goldberg of Benioff, “with a different approach that allowed him to get to market quicker — but focused on a more narrow area.” I’ve always allied myself with somebody who lives and breathes sales and marketing so I can live and breathe technology.” -Evan Goldberg The news brought a heightened sense of urgency. By 2000, NetLedger had launched its Web-store application. By 2001, it had delivered its own sales-force-automation application. With that came the realization that it no longer made sense for Goldberg to serve as both CEO and chief technology officer. “My whole career,” he says, “I’ve allied myself with somebody who lives and breathes sales and marketing so I can live and breathe the technology and product design.” He knew he needed a professional CEO. His first choice lasted just a year and is now a VP at Intuit. After Goldberg dispatched a headhunter to try again, the executive recruiter sent an e-mail to virtually every executive at Intuit with a subject head reading: “Larry Ellison.” The message said Ellison was starting a great company that was going to be huge. “I actually know some people over there,” says Goldberg, “and Steve Bennett [the CEO] wrote me and said, ‘Interesting way to recruit.” Despite the aggressive approach, no successful candidates turned up. In early 2002, Goldberg called Nelson. They had known each other at Oracle, and once they started talking, says Goldberg, “it was immediately apparent that this was exactly who I wanted — he was the yin to my yang. And he gets into the company in a way that makes it really, really fun to work here.” Five years older than Goldberg, Nelson, 43, had already been on the scene in Silicon Valley when Goldberg arrived from the East. A graduate of Stanford, Nelson had bounced from Motorola to Sun Microsystems and eventually to Oracle, where he became VP of worldwid. It started with obtaining the naming rights for Oakland Coliseum, where the A’s and Raiders play. Network Associates Coliseum proved to be an unpopular stadium name, but it was a marketing coup. In fact, the A’s are now a NetSuite customer, and Nelson has already negotiated for ad space behind home plate. But he doesn’t want to stop there. “Someday we’ll have our own arena,” he says. “That’s my goal.” At MyCIO, Nelson pulled off another stunt, draping the company’s entire 11-story building — a la Christo — in a billboard. “It was at the peak of the dot-com craziness,” he says. “We broke every ordinance known to man. You could see it from five exits away. It was beautiful.” Just before the company was set to go public, though, the bottom fell out of the market. So, here was Nelson, a former Oracle marketing whiz with CEO experience, looking for a new gig. And he had one other important advantage. Goldberg knew that any CEO he brought in would have to pass a crucial test: the Larry test. “And that’s a relatively high bar,” says Goldberg. “But Zach obviously had had a lot of exposure to Larry [at Oracle].” While Ellison rarely sets foot in the offices at NetSuite, he is a constant presence. The background image on Nelson’s PC is a photograph of Ellison at the helm of his America’s Cup boat. “When Larry calls,” says Nelson, “everything stops.” And he calls regularly, usually toward the end of the month as sales results are coming in. He often advises Nelson on topics such as sales structure and how to get to market. He calls Goldberg about products, especially the “dashboard” — the system’s front page, which brings critical bits of data such as new sales, year-over-year figures, appointments, etc., onto one easy-to-read and customizable page (see photo on page 69). “When we launched the dashboard [in 2002],” says Goldberg, “Larry called me and said, ‘Okay, now you finally have something in your product that I want to use.’ And ever since then, he logs on basically every single day to see how we’re doing. He’s effectively the product manager.” When Nelson joined NetSuite, he asked Ellison how anyone could run a business without such a product. “Larry said that CEOs historically have been able to make decisions based on 1% of the data that they actually need to make the decision,” says Nelson. “Here, we give you almost 100%.” Larry has a wealth of knowledge, and he’s not shy about sharing it. I call him belligerently consistent.” -Zach Nelson Sitting in Nelson’s spacious San Mateo office with a yin-yang glass coffee table in the middle of it, Goldberg says to Nelson: “I remember that the first thing you said to me when you got done talking to [Ellison about joining the company] was, ‘He takes this thing very seriously.” That would surprise no one who knows Ellison — or has watched Oracle’s pursuit of PeopleSoft. “Larry has a wealth of knowledge about what works and what doesn’t, and he’s not shy about sharing it,” says Nelson. “He’s very focused. I call him belligerently consistent.” All of which makes NetSuite’s evolution toward higher prices and bigger clients and Oracle’s turf even more interesting. As NetSuite works hard to broaden its customer base, seeking larger and larger clients, is there a danger of leaving smaller customers behind? Racebolt.com’s Vandockum certainly thinks so. With only one employee and annual sales of around $100,000, he’s stayed with NetSuite through years of missteps and growing pains but says its pricing structure is shutting him out just as the product is hitting its stride. Over five years, he’s seen his annual payments go from about $80 a year to $1,800 a year and claims NetSuite wants nearly $8,000 next year ($4,800 for the main user, plus $1,800 for a second user, and $1,000 for an annual live tech support package that used to be free). Vandockum is considering letting his contract with NetSuite expire in May and returning to QuickBooks Pro. One reason: He says computer-based, as opposed to Web-based, software means faster response times to questions when customers are on hold. QuickBooks Pro will be a one-time $250 purchase, and Caldera Volution, a Linux-based website builder he’ll use for his online store, will charge $70 a month. But he’s dreading the change. “The switchover is a big drag,” he says. “It’s a lot of work.” While Nelson is adamant that NetSuite is not abandoning small businesses, he emphasizes that the company is targeting “growing” businesses. Seventy percent of its customers have fewer than 100 employees, but NetSuite is also signing up 400- to 500-user customers that are divisions of companies such as Weyerhauser and DuPont. And it just landed its first 1,000-user account. Still, Nelson acknowledges that the price bumps have been tough on smaller customers. Of the $399-a-month fee, he says, “Most small businesses, we know, can’t afford that.” That’s why NetSuite introduced NetSuite Small Business in August — priced at $99 per month for the first user and $49 per month for each user after that. The product has been positioned for businesses that have outgrown QuickBooks, and the price does make it far more attractive to smaller users — but some longtime users will undoubtedly be disappointed. NetSuite has helped even the smallest of companies grow more sophisticated, and these clients have been conditioned to expect more. The Small Business version, for example, doesn’t satisfy Vandockum’s desire to customize his website. Capital Datacorp’s McGorry can’t see himself giving up the features he loves for the cheaper, scaled-down version either. Nelson is quick to say that he hopes to retain Vandockum as a customer and may consider offering some limited higher-level functionality, such as website customization, at a reduced price. “The last thing you want to do is see a customer leave,” he says. “I bet we’ll work it out.” But there are skeptics — especially at the competition. Although NetSuite recently built an ad campaign on poaching QuickBooks customers, Bill Lucchini, director of QuickBooks Enterprise at Intuit, says he doesn’t consider NetSuite to be a small-business company anymore. “I think of NetSuite as a midmarket company,” he says. “If you want to put 10 users on its system, you’re talking over $6,000 a year, and that’s just not a small-business solution.” Like NetSuite, QuickBooks is segmented into multiple products, depending on the size and needs of the businesses. They range from the new $99 SimpleStart program to the $3,500-a-year QuickBooks Enterprise software, which targets companies with 20 to 250 employees (with live tech support built into the price). And Intuit now offers its own Web-based small-business solution, called QuickBooks Online, for $19.95 per month. Nelson dismisses Intuit’s new offering as a “neutered version of QuickBooks Enterprise.” He is equally dismissive of SalesForce.com’s move into the midsize market. “There’s only one thing you can’t do with SalesForce.com: sell anything,” he says. “SalesForce.com is about managing leads and prospects. The minute they become customers, all that data leaves SalesForce.com.” For his part, Marc Benioff professes scant respect for the suite model. Which is all the more surprising because it’s a model that Oracle has embraced, and Ellison, of course, helped fund SalesForce.com and still retains a small stake — although he did step down from SalesForce’s board in 2001 because of product conflicts. At NetSuite, Ellison relinquished the title of chairman in March 2003 but remains on the board. But the sibling and oedipal rivalries may just be getting started. Last summer, NetSuite shed the last vestiges of the name Oracle Small Business Suite, which had been slowly reduced to about 5% of the company’s sales. Nelson says this was done to allow NetSuite to establish its own identity. But it also likely had something to do with the fact that in September, after years of testing it overseas, Oracle released its Oracle E-Business Suite Special Edition. Oracle is explicitly targeting small to midsize businesses with a full suite of integrated business software delivered, of course, over the Internet. The difference is that instead of renting the software in perpetuity, as with NetSuite, customers purchase a one-time license (the minimum order is for 10 users at approximately $2,000 each) and then pay local resellers to maintain the software. Nelson denies that there’s any real competition between the two Ellison-controlled companies, saying they only cross paths a couple of times a month. But with its first 1,000-user deal in the bag and another in the pipeline, there are sure to be more and more awkward moments in front-office waiting rooms when Oracle’s salespeople walk in and NetSuite’s walk out. “We’re going to continue to march upstream,” says Nelson, “still servicing small businesses but also reaching much larger companies over time.” But, according to the Yankee Group’s Kingstone, both NetSuite and Oracle have their work cut out for them. NetSuite’s challenge is that new customers have to dump years’ worth of expensive software to use them. And the bigger the company, the more entrenched they are. As for Oracle grabbing a slice of the small-biz pie? “They have never been able to pull that off,” says Kingstone. “In the back-office, yes, in the front-office, no.” Of course, Oracle’s new E-Business Suite is only just getting started here in the States. When big businesses want to innovate, what do they do? They take a bunch of guys, throw them out, and let them create a small business.” -Zach Nelson Ellison declined to be interviewed for this article, citing the desire to avoid any perception of conflict of interest, as his three kids duke it out in corporate boardrooms across America and beyond. It’s hard to know if he’s conflicted or overjoyed. But it’s even harder to imagine that any of his progeny would have set off down this path without at least his tacit approval. The executive overseeing marketing for Oracle’s small to midsize business market, Frank Prestipino, downplays any rivalry, but his words about NetSuite’s product aren’t entirely brotherly. “If financials are all you’ll ever do,” he says, criticizing NetSuite for not being as customizable as Oracle, “and you don’t care what your general ledger is going to look like, and you’ll take whatever comes, then great, that’s the thing for you.” He also suggests that NetSuite’s rental model is ultimately more expensive than buying the software outright, and points out the lack of manufacturing-systems software in the suite. But does he expect to see NetSuite pop up more frequently as a competitor, as NetSuite moves upmarket and Oracle moves down? “Yeah,” he says, “I would say so.” But for all NetSuite’s drive to go after bigger fish, Nelson zealously espouses the small-business model and its contributions to society. “When big businesses want to innovate, what do they do?” he asks. “They take a bunch of guys, throw them out of the building, and let them create a small business.” That, of course, is pretty much what Larry Ellison did with NetSuite and SalesForce.com. But how much longer will each one be happy serving its own niche? “That’s always been true with software,” says Nelson. “Everybody wants to be where they’re not.” Rob Turner, who wrote about celebrity entrepreneurs in Inc.’s December issue, can be reached at dashboard@inc.com.

Lucky or Smart

My career from ages 18 to 28: In 1991, as a college freshman, I had an idea for an online service offering “real life” education to college students: practical advice about jobs, personal finance, and health. I made the simple observations that no one was teaching us these subjects in the classroom, and that computers — rather than books or TVs — had become the primary medium of communication and entertainment. During my sophomore year, Dick Sabot, a very smart Oxford-trained Ph.D. in economics and the professor of a class in which I received a B-minus, agreed to collaborate with me on my concept. He did so not because I was his best student, but because he had had a near-death experience during which a higher power advised him to do “something different.” By 1994, when I graduated from college, our project had indeed become something different: an Internet start-up company we named Tripod. Using what little cash I could raise from friends and family, I hired a team of computer programmers. I did this because I did not know how to install a web browser on my own computer, which is a significant barrier if you plan to run an Internet company. Unbeknownst to me, and surely with some sort of anarchic motive, these lawless, long-haired, multi-pierced, tattooed, incredibly charming and smart hacker hooligans built a piece of software on Tripod that had nothing to do with offering practical advice to anyone. Instead, this software gave individuals the power to publish their own “personal homepages.” By 1995, the popularity of the Tripod Homepage Builder was growing rapidly and had far surpassed my original idea to offer college students “practical advice.” It occurred to me that I might have a business on my hands. Having never written a business plan, I went to the local library and checked out a book called — you guessed it — How to Write a Business Plan. In August 1995, Netscape went public and proved that Internet companies had value. Or at least proved that Wall Street investment bankers had convinced the stock-buying public that Internet companies had value. One month later, I was able to convince New Enterprise Associates (NEA), one of the world’s most respected venture capital firms, to review the Tripod business plan. They agreed to do so only because Dick’s wife’s brother’s college roommate knew someone who knew someone at NEA. NEA liked the plan because it mentioned the Internet several hundred times. It provided $3 million in financing. By the beginning of 1996, one year after it was launched, the Tripod Homepage Builder had fundamentally changed the nature of consumer media. For the first time, anyone with access to a computer and a connection to the Internet could publish pretty much whatever they wanted; and anyone else with access to a computer and a connection to the Internet could view it. By the middle of 1997, Tripod had attracted nearly one million registered members. Tripod never posted a profit. Tripod generated barely any revenue. On December 30, 1997, in the middle of the stock-market bubble, I was offered $58 million for Tripod. On December 31, 1997, I agreed to sell Tripod in exchange for $58 million in stock of a publicly traded company named Lycos, which at the time was an Internet company only slightly more stable than Tripod. I agreed to a “lockup” that forbade me to sell all of my Lycos stock for two years. Over those two years, I watched the value of my Lycos stock increase tenfold. By December 31, 1999, at the height of the bubble and just a few months before the market crashed, I had sold nearly every share of my Lycos stock. I invested the majority of those proceeds in bonds and real estate because they were the only two investment vehicles I could thoroughly understand. And because I needed a house. By now, I hope my theme has become obvious. Luck is a part of life, and everyone, at one point or another, gets lucky. Luck is also a big part of business life and perhaps the biggest part of entrepreneurial life. At the very least, entrepreneurs must believe in luck. Ideally, they can recognize it when they see it. And over time, the best entrepreneurs can actually learn to create luck. Luck in business is different from regular old luck, like when you find $20 on the sidewalk. First of all, being lucky in business has an intoxicating underbelly called believing you’re smart. No one actually believes that he should take credit for finding $20 on the sidewalk. But when people get lucky in business, they are often convinced that it is not luck at all that brought them good fortune. They believe instead that their business venture succeeded thanks to their own blinding brilliance. The big challenge is that everyone — the press, your shareholders, your colleagues, your significant other, and your parents — will work hard to convince you otherwise. They will tell you, over and over again, that you are in fact a genius and should take complete credit for all the great things happening to your company. Why? Because to them, you are one of the following: A source of professional gain A source of financial gain A boss A lover Their pride and joy None of these relationships provide incentive for any of these people to tell you the cold hard truth about your entrepreneurial success: You may have gotten just plain lucky. The second difference between business luck and everyday luck is that luck in business can be created, whereas everyday luck cannot. You can’t will yourself to find $20 on the sidewalk. But you can create a company that gets lucky more often than the average company. Indeed, there is a pseudo-scientific formula for creating business luck. The key element is this: Lucky things happen to entrepreneurs who start fundamentally innovative, morally compelling, and philosophically positive companies. Why? Because lots of smart people will gather around companies with these qualities. As it turns out, precious few such companies exist. And the vast majority of human beings, and certainly most of the smart ones, are constitutionally caring creatures who would, if given the chance, prefer to spend their valuable time in a positive setting contributing to the betterment of society rather than in a negative setting contributing to its detriment. Shocking, I know, but true. And when smart, inspired people gather around a fundamentally innovative, morally compelling, and philosophically positive company, they work very hard. And when smart, inspired people work very hard, serendipity ensues. Serendipity — the faculty of making fortuitous discoveries by chance — causes lots of unexpected things to happen to a company. Some of these unexpected things are good. Some are bad. But because no one planned for the good things to happen, they appear as luck. In other words, the best way to ensure that lucky things happen is to make sure that a lot of things happen. It’s really that simple. Much of what makes a company fundamentally innovative, morally compelling, and philosophically positive is contained not in the company’s business model, but in how the entrepreneur communicates the mission of the company. A company’s mission, communicated by the entrepreneur with charisma and passion, is what creates the environment that attracts smart people and gets them inspired in the first place. Which is exactly what gets the luck rolling. Tripod made what money it did by selling advertising to clients such as Ford and Visa. That was our business model. But Tripod’s mission, as I described it to my colleagues, was to revolutionize consumer media, allowing anyone to publish his or her views to the entire world using the Tripod Homepage Builder. Suddenly, almost overnight, the stories, viewpoints, and opinions of every individual, interest group, or culture could be made available for others to grapple with. “Tripod isn’t here just to make money,” I told my colleagues. “We are here to fight the most important battles on the frontier of the First Amendment!” Mezze, the restaurant group I later co-founded in the Berkshire Hills of Massachusetts, serves food and drink to locals and to tourists from New York City and Boston. That’s our business model. But the mission of Mezze is larger: to set an example of quality and service for all the Berkshires’ retail establishments. I tell our staff that by working hard to refine Mezze, we raise the bar for everyone. And that by doing so, we will together attract more visitors to our small part of the world. Village Ventures, the venture capital firm I co-founded in 2000, makes money by taking advantage of the supply and demand imbalance that results from the concentration of venture capital in only a few large cities. That’s our business model. But the mission of Village Ventures is different: to enable entrepreneurs to start companies in the towns where they want to live. Rather than having to flee to Boston or San Francisco to find venture capital, entrepreneurs in Boise, Idaho, and Providence, R.I., can get capital from Village Ventures right in their own hometowns and build their companies in the same place they’d like to raise their families. Missions such as those of Tripod, Mezze, and Village Ventures create an aura of authenticity, which is the elixir that attracts smart people and inspires them. There is little authenticity in the modern business world. But it’s just the thing that people crave most in their work. When people find themselves aboard one of these vessels, they don’t want to get off. They form a fierce protective boundary around it and will do anything to keep the vessel afloat and its inhabitants alive. These people are liberated by finding not only a way to make money but also a way to feel good about it. This is what takes inspiration and turns it into hard work. And the results of smart people working hard are serendipity and luck. Marty Liebowitz, the vice chairman and chief investment officer of TIAA-CREF, one of the world’s largest pension funds, once said to me, “Thank God they created the word ‘muffin’ or I’d be eating a cupcake for breakfast.” Words are incredibly powerful, sometimes causing us to do things that we would never normally do. It is for just this reason that I harbor a tremendous amount of guilt about my place in entrepreneurial culture. I fear that perhaps thousands of well-intentioned people wasted hundreds of thousands of hours pursuing entrepreneurial projects in part because of what they read in the press about me. I created a sort of playboy persona for myself as the CEO of Tripod. Pictures of me skiing, mountain biking, drinking beer, skateboarding in the office, and attending meetings in shorts, Birkenstocks, and a baseball cap graced several major media outlets. From Forbes to ABC’s Nightline, from BusinessWeek to People, from MTV to Spin, the media broadcast images of me doing just about everything but working. I absolutely, completely, 100% sold myself to the media to promote Tripod. Together, we created this image of the Slacker CEO: an athletic, shaggy-haired, perpetually mellow 24-year-old making millions while barely lifting a finger. This image was broadcast not just in the United States but also to most of Europe. In five days during the summer of 1999, I jetted from Madrid to Milan, to Hamburg, to Paris, and finally to London, attending launch parties for Tripod Europe, staying in first-class hotels, and internationalizing the Slacker CEO myth of which I had become the archetypal example. Hell, who wouldn’t want to be an entrepreneur? I was a rock star. And I was the only person who knew it wasn’t true. Friends would ask me, “What’s it like to be a famous international Internet CEO?” “I’m not a famous international Internet CEO,” I would answer. “But I play one on TV.” Working with the media was the most important job I had at Tripod. Period. Twenty-four-year-old Bo Peabody, with his hip Internet company in the mountains, was a perfectly packaged pied piper for the story of the decade. I was not only Tripod’s poster child, I was shilling the whole goddamn Internet. And when it came to promoting these two things, the only self-respecting thing I ever did was turn down an interview on Montel. How noble. I’ve often kidded that 90 percent of Tripod’s value was in the amount of press we received in such a concentrated period of time. Sitting at a board meeting, lamenting our anemic revenue, I once joked to the board of directors that rather than actually running ads on the Tripod site, I’d sell potential advertising customers the opportunity that I might mention them in an article or wear their logo on my baseball cap. The board didn’t laugh. They asked me to look into whether or not this plan was possible. A lot was left out of all those articles. The hundred-hour workweeks. The anxiety attacks. The crashed cars and missed planes. The times I had to tell colleagues that we couldn’t make payroll. The years of a $12,000 salary. Night after night after night of pasta dinners and stress-relieving Advil “cocktails.” The countless meetings with absolute assholes who had no interest in learning about the Internet, the single most significant business innovation of their lifetimes. Pleading to venture capitalists for financing. Firing perfectly pleasant people when they didn’t perform. In the late nineties, this reality did not sell newspapers and magazines. Baseball caps and Birkenstocks did. Had I actually begun to believe what was being said about me in the press, I would never have sold Tripod when I did. I would have reasoned, instead, that I was in fact a genius, and that I should take complete credit for the great things happening to my company. Never mind that Tripod had little revenue, no profits, and an unproven business model; we should take this horse public! “Yeah,” I could have said, “I am smart, not lucky, and I can defy economic gravity. I am in control!” Wrong. Tripod was all hat and no cattle. Had we taken it public, we would most likely have failed, and everyone, including many unsuspecting individual in-vestors, would have lost a lot of money. I was not, however, completely immune to the media frenzy. Following the sale of Tripod to Lycos, what personal money I did not invest in bonds or real estate I invested in more than 20 Internet start-ups. Only five of these companies are still in business. The others are gone, along with a few million of my dollars. The quickest way to tank your company is to believe what you read in the press, especially if it happens to be about you. The vast majority of journalists are not interested in covering what is actually happening. They are interested in covering what they think people want to think is actually happening. Everything is sensationalized. In 1999 it was sensationalized on the positive side, and in 2002 it was sensationalized on the negative side. It’s never exactly accurate. As it turns out, accuracy can be quite boring. And quite boring does not sell newspapers and magazines. Learn to keep your ego in check. That’s how you’ll be able to distinguish the crucial difference between being lucky and being smart. Your ego is both the most dangerous and the most useful weapon in your entrepreneurial arsenal. When used wisely, ego helps entrepreneurs craft their mission, work hard, and keep faith in their companies, even in the face of heavy scrutiny. Ego also gives entrepreneurs the confidence to sell their start-ups to partners, customers, and investors, and the courage to act like famous international CEOs even when they know they really are just playing a role. And ego is the force that allows entrepreneurs to get comfortable with their powerlessness and learn to love the word “no” instead of panicking in the face of it. On the other hand, when allowed to run amok, ego keeps entrepreneurs from knowing what they don’t know and tempts them to believe their own press. Ego is also the culprit when entrepreneurs cling to their role as founder rather than turning their companies over to more capable managers. And ego is to blame when entrepreneurs can’t work with odd people who are clearly smarter than they are, or when they fail to remain calm and gracious in all business situations. Use your ego when it is called for, and check it at the door when you sense that it will get in the way. Unchecked egos are the most destructive force in business. I have often dreamed of a study that somehow measures the impact of ego on workplace productivity. The results, I imagine, would be staggering, with as much as a 50 percent increase in productivity resulting from the eradication of egos. In an ego-free company, all good ideas from all sources would be implemented. Managers would hire only people smarter than themselves, and would never spend valuable time worrying about who gets credit for what. Meetings would be shorter, as no one would feel the need to drone on in an effort to impress his colleagues and managers. In a business world devoid of egos, profits would rise, salaries would increase, and unemployment would plummet. In all seriousness: A number of the planet’s problems would be solved. But it will never happen. As it turns out, businesses consist of human beings, and most human beings have either tragically fragile egos or uncontrollably big ones. All we can do is make an effort to control our own egos. As hard as it may be, there are real incentives to do so. If I had let my ego go unchecked, I would never have let those crazy programmers put the Homepage Builder on Tripod. The Homepage Builder, after all, was not my idea. Moreover, it was the idea of people who were clearly smarter than I was. Someone who was insecure would have declared the Homepage Builder a distraction, a waste of time, inappropriate for the Tripod audience, too expensive, too risky, or any of the other excuses that those with fragile egos use to fortify their own power bases. But the fact is, the Homepage Builder was the foundation of Tripod’s success. The day we launched that little piece of software, we enrolled more members than in the entire previous month. It was like watching the Gold Rush all over again: The automated-membership counter ticked away as hundreds of strangers from all over the world signed up on Tripod and staked a claim to their little piece of Internet real estate. In the end, my original idea for Tripod — practical advice for college students — was completely consumed by the popularity of the Tripod Homepage Builder. At one point, Tripod was the eighth most trafficked site on the Internet. Our membership base spanned every age and more than 40 countries. Now, as part of the Terra Lycos network, Tripod has 40 million members, from virtually every country on the planet. Had I stuck religiously to my original idea, the best thing that could have happened to Tripod would have been my being fired as its CEO. More likely, it would have ended up on the pile of failed dot-com start-ups that now symbolize an age of ego and excess. Without the Homepage Builder, Tripod most likely would have failed, and my life would have taken a different direction. Without the success of Tripod under my belt, Village Ventures would probably not have received the funding and support it has. And without Village Ventures, the four other start-ups I helped found — Mezze, VoodooVox, Waterfront Media, and FilmFree Entertainment — would most likely not be flourishing to the degree they are. Was I lucky? You bet your ass I was lucky. But I was also smart: smart enough to realize that I was getting lucky. This article was adapted from Bo Peabody’s book, Lucky or Smart? Secrets to an Entrepreneurial Life (Random House, December). Peabody (bpeabody@villageventures.com) is the managing general partner of Village Ventures.

Best Cellars

Best of the Net Internet wine sellers offer a great selection of labels and vintages. But laws governing interstate wine shipments can put a cork in your festivities Imagine uncorking your favorite wine one night — maybe a nicely aged 1990 California Cabernet Sauvignon or a terrific bargain Pinot Noir — only to realize that you’re down to your last bottle. No problem: glass in hand, you turn to the Internet and root through virtual cellars packed with thousands of bottles of wine. At first blush, wine and the Web look like a natural match. But ordering wine online isn’t quite as easy as ordering books or CDs. The number of suppliers is not the problem. Hundreds of Web sites peddle wine, including those of Internet retailers, wineries, and established brick-and-mortar wine merchants. But state laws governing the sale of wine across state lines make the process of finding a site that both suits your tastes and ships to your state a challenge indeed. We asked three company leaders with varying degrees of wine expertise to test six wine-selling sites: those of three online retailers, two big brick-and-mortar retailers (one located on the East Coast, the other on the West Coast), and an online cooperative made up of some 50 California wineries. The panel evaluated the sites for quality and variety of merchandise, interactive features such as wine searches, and ease of use and technical performance. The reviewers purchased wine from a variety of growing regions, including California’s Napa Valley, Washington State, Italy, and Chile. Two of our panelists had in fact bought wine online previously, and all three panelists enjoyed the experience of reviewing wine-selling Internet sites, but they said they wouldn’t be ditching their local wine store just yet. “A nice complement to wine stores — not a replacement,” says Shawn Kravetz, president of Esplanade Capital LLC in Boston and a wine enthusiast for more than a decade. In stores, “it’s nice to see the bottles, clipped articles, and prices in front of you.” The main benefit of these Internet sites: the vast selection of wines available, particularly rare or high-end bottles. One site offered a case of 1865 sweet wine from France’s famed ChÃ¢teau d’Yquem for $208,550. For the more budget-conscious, a case of Bordeaux from the legendary 1961 vintage was available for about $4,000. The enormous selection of wines online was both a blessing and a curse, according to our judges. Panelist Jim Roop, president of the James J. Roop Co. in Cleveland, complained that most sites did a poor job of allowing customers to narrow their search. Sometimes, he says, you wind up with a list of “400 different wines” instead of the “40 Merlots between $20 and $40 you’re really trying to get to.’ And those state liquor-shipment laws were a hassle, preventing two of the panelists from buying bottles from some merchants. A labyrinth of state laws restricting who could sell liquor, and how, cropped up at the end of Prohibition, in 1933, when the details were resolved on a state-by-state rather than a federal level. “Every state is different,’ says Richard Blau, a lawyer at Holland & Knight LLC in Tampa and an expert on the laws that govern the alcohol industry. Many states prohibit wineries and retailers outside their borders from shipping wine directly to their own residents. However, a dozen states, including California, Colorado, Illinois, and Missouri, are more liberal than others in permitting wineries and retailers outside their lines to make direct shipments to the states’ consumers. Those 12 states have struck so-called “reciprocal agreements,” which basically say, “If I can ship to you, you can ship to me.” Some Web sites have been known to fulfill orders in violation of state laws — a move that can trigger legal action against the supplier and seizure of the wine. (For more information about pertinent state laws, visit www.wineinstitute.org.) Our Massachusetts and Ohio panelists came up dry at both K&L Wine Merchants and Winetasting.com. Massachusetts and Ohio are among approximately 30 states that restrict or bar outright direct shipments from other states. To circumnavigate prohibitions, some online sellers make special arrangements with local wholesalers and retailers to supply wines that are already available in a particular state, or they get licensed as retailers in the state. But K&L and Winetasting.com didn’t have either of those selling mechanisms in place for Massachusetts and Ohio and so declined to fulfill Internet orders there. Delivery, too, can be an issue, since an adult must sign for the wine. And shipping costs of $13.95 a bottle, as was the case in several transactions, can make online shopping uneconomical. “For an expensive or rare wine, it might make sense. But why pay the shipping costs when I can pick up the same bottles at my local wine shop?’ asks panelist Chris Dominguez, president of Stockpoint Inc. in San Francisco. No clear-cut winner emerged from our survey, although retailer Wine .com got solid marks from two panelists for its “decent” to “great” selection and “reasonable” shipping charges. (Unfortunately, Wine.com was swallowed up by competitor eVineyard as we were going to press and was consequently cut from the rest of this article.) In general our panelists tended to prefer sites that catered to their personal regional preferences, be it Bordeaux or Napa. Dominguez’s number one choice was the Web site of K&L Wine Merchants, a brick-and-mortar retailer in Redwood City, Calif. The California-wine lover praised K&L’s site for its ease of use and “excellent” choices. Roop’s first pick was WineBins.com, an online seller. Roop, a Bordeaux enthusiast, liked the “absolutely huge range of product, particularly older French wines.” Kravetz liked best the Web site of New York retailer Sherry-Lehmann. “Seems like a wine store instead of an Internet business,” he says. And there was no obvious loser either, although our panelists did find fault with some offerings. Dominguez dinged Sherry-Lehmann. The second time he visited its site, the pages failed to load. His wine took more than four weeks to arrive, and he thought the shipping costs from New York to California were high at $13.95 a bottle — although the company agreed to waive those fees because of the shipping delay. Roop handed the booby prize to Winetasting.com, the online cooperative of California wineries. It didn’t help that the Ohioan couldn’t place an order with that site. “But most aggravating of all is that there is no pricing listed next to the wine,” he says. A browser must click on a particular wine to see its price. Kravetz said WineBins.com was his least favorite, criticizing the “average selection” and the site’s “impossible” loading time. “Maybe the wine ages while the page loads,” he jokes. Roger Fillion is a freelance writer living in Evergreen, Colo. The Savvy Entrepreneur’s Guide to Wine Online eVineyard What it’s good for Reasonable shipping fees. Good variety. Wine ratings. Don’t waste your time if You’re looking for a particular bottle. Although the site boasts more than 5,000 wines, one panelist complained of unsatisfactory selections among the California wine makers he was interested in. What our CEOs had to say “Enjoyed their variety, incorporation of Wine Spectator [magazine] ratings, and higher-end offerings, coupled with a very reasonable $4.95 blanket shipping charge for a bottle or a case,” said one CEO. But another panelist stated: “Simple, decent, a bit entry-level.” What you should know Offers Amazon.com-style recommendations by listing other wines purchased by shoppers who chose your wine. K&L Wine Merchants What it’s good for Rare U.S. and European wines. Ease of use. Tasting notes from own staff, Wine Spectator, and wine gurus like Robert Parker. Don’t waste your time if You live in a state with restrictive alcohol-shipping laws. Internet orders are accepted from just 13 states. What our CEOs had to say “Will not deliver to my state. Too bad. I like their top-10 list and their site overall. Not fancy, but good.” What you should know Web site for big California retailer in Redwood City. Site typically offers about 3,000 wines. Sherry-Lehmann What it’s good for Wines of all prices. Good descriptions. Free delivery for New York state residents who spend in excess of $95. Don’t waste your time if You live outside New York state and don’t want to pay steep shipping charges. What our CEOs had to say “A good selection of both high-end and low-end product. But you better buy only high end, because their shipping charges are through the roof, at $13.95 for one to three bottles and $55.80 for a case of 12.” What you should know Will not ship to nine U.S. states. Oenophiles can buy wine futures — lock in a price for a 1999 Bordeaux that won’t arrive until June 2002. WineBins.com What it’s good for Less expensive California bottles to older Bordeaux dating back to the 1800s. Shipping fee for one case is a reasonable $9.50. Don’t waste your time if You really dislike slow-loading pages — which one panelist complained about — and don’t want to pay the same $9.50 shipping fee for just one bottle. What our CEOs had to say “Offers by far the widest range of product of the group,” said one judge. But another criticized: “Searching by ‘flavor’ is good [only] for novices.” What you should know Virtual retailer owned by Geerlings & Wade Inc., a direct marketer and Internet retailer of wines. Offers 1,000 wines. Serves 29 states. Winetasting.com What it’s good for California wines, especially hard-to-find product such as bottles available only from the wineries themselves. Examples: Cabernets from the 1980s or Merryvale’s highly rated 1997 Profile, a red blend. Don’t waste your time if You don’t want California wines. What our CEOs had to say “Requires some effort to search. Limited selection. But very high quality. Kind of like shopping at a boutique instead of a wine emporium.” What you should know Virtual cooperative made up of some 50 California wineries. Site is a hub from which you’re transported to a winegrower’s own site. Serves 20 states. Our panelists Chris Dominguez is president and cofounder of Stockpoint Inc., a San Francisco-based provider of online and wireless investment-analysis tools and financial information. A resident of northern California for the past dozen years, he regularly visits Napa Valley. Shawn Kravetz is president of Esplanade Capital LLC, a hedge-fund-management company in Boston. A wine enthusiast for more than a decade, he especially enjoys red Bordeaux. Jim Roop is president of the James J. Roop Co., a corporate-communications consulting firm in Cleveland. Roop is past chairman of the Cleveland Wine Auction, a benefit event, and a member of Commanderie de Bordeaux, an international society of Bordeaux lovers. Please e-mail your comments to editors@inc.com.

The Art of the Net

Best of the Web You can shop for art in cyberspace, but does it make sense? Eighteen CEOs scout sites offering everything from Picasso originals to basic frames As the manager of a new office in San Francisco last year, Richard Ogden drew the assignment of decorating the space. His employer, Quidnunc, an E-commerce consultancy based in London, provided $5,000 for artwork. Ogden, a musician by training, didn’t know much about buying art, so he went online. He zipped to NextMonet.com, perused its offerings of original paintings, and created his own virtual “gallery” of works that he thought might jibe with Quidnunc’s style. NextMonet.com, one of several Web sites that market art to businesses, concentrates on works by contemporary artists. If Ogden’s budget had been far larger, he might have checked out Fine Art Lease’s site, which features original Picassos and Pissarros that companies can buy or lease. Or if Ogden had been hunting simply for vintage van Gogh and Matisse prints or posters, he could have turned to Art.com. In addition to actual art, these Web companies typically market framing, matting, and installation services, as well as art consulting. These sites are, of course, businesses themselves, aiming for a slice of the burgeoning corporate-art market, though all of them seek individuals as customers as well. They vary as widely in their content and character as the products they sell. Artsourceonline.com, for example, is the Web arm of ArtSource, based in New Berlin, Wis. It was founded in 1990 as a mail-order catalog, the sales from which still account for part of its $3 million in revenues. At the other extreme is start-up NextMonet.com, based in San Francisco; leading Web investor CMGI owns 38% of the company. Unlike ArtSource, which displays art on its site but urges customers to contact the company by E-mail or telephone, NextMonet.com is set up to consummate its sales online. But Ogden, for one, didn’t buy over the Net. He chose to visit NextMonet’s headquarters, which happened to be down the block from Quidnunc’s. During the six weeks that followed, NextMonet dispatched representatives to the Quidnunc office to measure walls and observe the light. Eventually, Ogden bought six $600 abstract paintings by Derrick Buisch. By posting Quidnunc’s preliminary selections on NextMonet’s virtual gallery, Ogden made it easy for other Quidnunc employees and NextMonet representatives to weigh in with opinions and scope out alternatives. Shopping on the Web saved Ogden from having to browse galleries from New York to Paris. But if you go online in search of art for your company, which site would serve you best? To guide your search, Inc. asked 18 small-business chief executives to review five Web sites that sell art to companies. The panelists differed widely on which sites they liked and didn’t like, based on their tastes and needs. Which site is right for you? Read on. www.art.com What it’s good for: Prints and posters of well-known artists and genres. The CEOs generally lauded Art.com’s framing and matting services, as well as its pricing. “Simple, recognizable prints at a decent price,” said one CEO. Don’t waste your time if: You want paintings. Asked if he’d return to the site, one CEO replied, “Maybe for reasonably priced prints.” What our CEOs had to say: Another reviewer reflected the consensus of his fellow panelists when he said that judging Art.com in relation to Fine Art Lease, for example, was “like comparing a poster outlet store in a mall to a fine art gallery.” What you ought to know: The site’s parent company, $248-million Getty Images, based in Seattle, provides digital images to such customers as publishers and graphic designers. In light of how well Art.com scored with our CEOs, it’s noteworthy that Getty Images considers Art.com a sales channel primarily for reaching consumers rather than businesses. www.artsourceonline.com What it’s good for: Browsing for posters and “understanding different looks and treatments,” in the view of one CEO. Don’t waste your time if: You want a 100% online transaction. Many of our panelists were miffed that most items were unaccompanied by listed prices. “The service generally requires you to add a piece to a personalized gallery, which requires registration, then forces you to request a quote,” said one reviewer. “Too much trouble to go through for the generic Jimmy Dean poster I was looking at.” What our CEOs had to say: Several lauded the site’s setup, which lets the user point to paintings according to price bracket. But they said other aspects of the site’s search function needed work. “I could see all fine art between $751 and $1,500,” one said, “but if I limited the search further, I was likely to get a goose egg on the results.” What you ought to know: The absence of pricing on some sections of the site is intentional. ArtSource sells to many wholesalers, and it doesn’t want to intimidate them by posting the more expensive retail prices conspicuously on the Web. www.fineartlease.com What it’s good for: Leasing, leasing with an option to buy, or outright purchasing of renowned paintings, photographs, sculpture, and drawings. “I really like the idea of being able to lease a piece of nice and expensive art,” said one CEO. Don’t waste your time if: Leasing gives you the creeps. The reviewers liked the concept, but none said they’d actually do it. “I can’t imagine leasing a $200K painting,” noted one. “If I wanted it enough, I’d buy it.” What our CEOs had to say: Ironically, the only site of the five that offers original Picassos was considered “boring” to look at. “Fine Art Lease gave me sort of a foreboding feeling … dark colors … not much help,” one CEO explained. What you ought to know: According to Fine Art Lease chairman and CEO Ian Peck, the company’s average work costs $35,000. To lease a $35,000 work for three years would cost $690 a month, which might explain why our panel found leasing appealing only in theory. www.nextmonet.com What it’s good for: Affordable work by up-and-coming artists. Even one of the most critical CEOs said, “I felt as though there was art I liked at a price I would pay.” Don’t waste your time if: You need answers right away about frames, since the site refers inquiries to its network of framers all over the United States. “I didn’t find the framing options when you purchase a piece, which is important,” said one CEO. A few panelists wished the site had different search criteria, since they wanted to view artwork by movement (impressionism, for instance) rather than by medium (say, sculpture). What our CEOs had to say: The site was well organized and good-looking. What you ought to know: NextMonet.com’s specialty is original contemporary art. Don’t shop there if you’re looking for a print of your favorite Rembrandt. www.visualize.com What it’s good for: Specific information on how businesses should buy art. “Great for the corporate user,” one of the panelists said. “It’s like having your own corporate interior designer.” There is, in fact, a specific area of the site devoted to the corporate user. Don’t waste your time if: You want something by someone famous. Like NextMonet.com, Visualize showcases its own troupe of artists. What our CEOs had to say: The site is presented very effectively and offers great information. It’s not too flashy but is clearly navigable and easy to understand. What you ought to know: Visualize has a rental program; monthly rates range from $25 to $60 for a piece of artwork. The Bottom Line Receiving the most laurels were Art.com and Visualize, each of which scored well in every category. However, the three CEOs who reviewed both sites liked Visualize a little better, singling out portions of the site that catered specifically to business buyers. NextMonet.com and ArtSource Online rated about the same, but the former generally received more enthusiastic comments. Fine Art Lease brought up the rear, despite its seemingly business-friendly leasing options. The CEOs didn’t burn with desire for the site’s crÃme de la crÃme collection, and they found the art too expensive even as a rental. Ilan Mochari is a reporter at Inc. The savvy entrepreneur’s guide to the art Web Would our CEOs go back? What is the site good for? CEOs’ quick take www.art.com “Yes, for specific personal art.” “Prints from known artists and genres.” “Quick, easy, enjoyable.” www.artsourceonline.com “Maybe.” “To browse posters.” “Not possible to browse and buy in a single session.” www.fineartlease.com “No.” “To lease a piece of nice and expensive art.” “Not my style — can’t imagine leasing a $200K painting.” www.nextmonet.com “Just out of curiosity.” “Possible discovery of new artists.” “I didn’t find the framing options.” www.visualize.com “You bet.” “Corporate programs and options.” “Very good; I like it.” Grading the Sites Ease of navigation Inventory Content Reliability Framing/ ancillary services Pricing Something you’d pay for? Average grade art.com B+ B B B+ A- A- B+ B+ artsourceonline.com B B- B- B B- C+ C- B- fineartlease.com B- C C+ B C+ C- D+ C nextmonet.com B B- C+ B+ C B C- B- visualize.com B B A- A- B+ B B+ B+ Our Panelists Terry Benish, president and CEO, Purple Solutions Jeffrey S. Davis, CEO and chairman, Mage Bryan Desloge, CEO, TMC Medical Don Epperson, president, HookMedia Julio Gomez, CEO, Gomez Advisors Sam Goodner, founder, Catapult Systems Pamela Hawken, president and CEO, Gardenside Samuel B. Kellett Jr., founder, president, and CEO, eAttorney.com Brent M. Kleinheksel, CEO and founder, PlanetPortal Jack Littman-Quinn, CEO, OneCore Michelle Lubow, CEO, Design One Bret McElfish, CEO, McElfish + Co. Spencer Newman, CEO, AdventurousTraveler.com Bill Oxford, CEO, The Oxford Group Gary G. Pan, CEO and founder, Panacea Consulting Claude Pope, president and CEO, Office Supply Solutions Dennis Scheyer, president and creative director, Scheyer/SF Steve Warren, owner, Katzinger’s Deli Please e-mail your comments to editors@inc.com.

The Art of the Net

The Greenhouse Effect

THE REAL WORLD Gene Gage had in mind leading a quiet life in the country while indulging his hobby of growing herbs. That was before he hitched his wagon to an Internet star When Gene Gage left an executive job in New York City, in the late 1970s, he returned to his rural Nebraska roots. He planned to slow down and take more control of his life by being self-employed. After a couple of false starts, he began Papa Geno’s Herb Farm in 1993 to indulge his hobby. He thought he’d run an herb nursery and garden center, do some mail-order business, and sell plants to local nurseries. But a technological wrinkle called the Internet has since rejiggered — massively so — that idyll. Gage, a closet techie despite the dirt under his fingernails, decided three and a half years ago to move his agrarian, low-growth business onto the electronic grid of the World Wide Web. Today Gage, at age 55, finds himself working 80-hour weeks and forecasting that his sales will quadruple between 2000 and 2003, to more than $2 million. “There are a million decisions to make every day,” says the suddenly unretiring Gage with enthusiasm. “This is my Viagra.” Gage’s company offers a telling example of how the Web can take a simple business based in a place that no one’s ever heard of — Roca, Nebr. — and put it on the map. Gage predicts that what was to be his hobby in semiretirement will be, by 2004, the largest direct-to-the-customer supplier of fresh herb plants in the United States. Going for market share The shift in Gage’s customer base has been tectonic. The plantsman has moved totally out of retail and even away from his traditional wholesale customers. “In 1998 I turned down at least $100,000 in business from magazine and catalog coverage,” he says. The reason was simple: Gage was busy building capacity in sync with a new and potent horticultural player in E-commerce, Garden.com. Their relationship is really more of a strategic alliance — on a grand scale. Garden.com has invested $1 million in Gage’s business. The results can be seen behind Gage’s barn door, where state-of-the-art workstations link up to Garden.com’s extranet through a satellite dish. The multimillion-dollar E-tailer shares its proprietary forecasting model with Papa Geno’s so that Gage may hone his numbers in real time and ensure smooth deliveries. “We have to keep raising our estimates monthly,” Gage says. And Garden.com backs up its projections with long-term guarantees in the form of minimum purchase orders. “They are sharing the risk and helping us obtain half our working capital each year,” says Gage. For the fiscal year ending next month, Garden.com will account for 70% of Gage’s sales. Gage sees that figure approaching 90% by 2004. He acknowledges the risk in dancing with this gorilla, but he believes a muscle-bound alliance like this one is the wave of the future. “The Internet is a much more efficient channel for ordering and distribution,” he says. In the past year Gage has been able to cut in half the amount of time required to process and ship an order. The cost of processing that same order has declined by 80% in five years. “Once you learn how to do business online, the other stuff is more poky, and there is more room for mistakes,” he says. But to be a serious player on the Internet you have to jump in with both feet and seize market share. Gage adds that the results — his sales soared 185% last year, while the gardening industry saw low, single-digit growth — speak for themselves. “It’s a rechanneling of the industry,” he says. “With growth like this, we’re obviously taking market share.” Keeping up with growth Gage has insisted upon a similarly wired relationship with his suppliers. “If they can’t handle me electronically, forget it,” he says. Gage replaced his supplier of cardboard boxes. “He couldn’t cut the mustard in terms of keeping up with our online demand,” he says. That’s because not only has Gage’s need for cardboard boxes increased by 400% in two years but the pace of meeting that demand has also increased. He used to grow all his own “plugs” (herb seedlings or cuttings in a clump of dirt) but now farms out the greater part of that chore to 10 different suppliers in order to focus on cultivation and rapid delivery. That has created a new issue — a lack of control over supply. In one case, speaking of a supplier of rare specialty herbs who’s located in Canada, Gage says, “I could take 100 times as much stuff from him.” In the summer of 1998, Gage figured the Roca operation — five greenhouses on four acres — would suffice for five years. It is now at capacity. So he bought a second farm, in nearby Martell, Nebr., on which he’ll build at least six new greenhouses each year for five years. That timetable was too much for a regional contractor, so Gage has put the bid out nationally to about a dozen greenhouse builders. Rather than contracting for one greenhouse at a time, he’s stockpiling the building material on-site and will erect the greenhouses as needed. Finding the right people Once you get to Roca, finding Gage’s farm isn’t hard. It’s the one with the biggest FedEx truck in Nebraska parked near the barn. This spring Gage will ship 130,000 plants in a 15-week period. Making that happen has required big increases in productivity. As for his “picking process” — retrieving plants off greenhouse flats — Gage has streamlined that by reorganizing the back end of the operation. “We are able to do at least four times as many orders per person per hour as two years ago,” he says. And Gage’s operation can now ship one order per person every 46 seconds, compared with an earlier average of 8 to 10 minutes. He says he’s accomplished those efficiencies not only through technology but also by hiring “better people who are better trained.” Gage does not hire part-time migrant labor, a practice common in agriculture. And he pays generous benefits to his 17 full-time employees. That puts his labor costs at 25% above those of anyone else in the industry in the region. Still, finding the right people is a struggle. Gage says some people just “don’t get” the Internet, no matter what he pays them. So he ends up as a de facto “mentor and motivator.” That spills over into his teaching a night course on the E-economy at the University of Nebraska’s business school. That helps out — somewhat — with recruiting. Gage says it’s easy to find young people who know about horticulture and young people who understand the Internet but that finding people who know both is not so easy. When Gage encounters such rare birds he grabs them, but keeping them is problematic, given the company’s less-than-glamorous location. Of the six horticulturalists Gage has hired out of the university in the past two years, four have moved on to livelier locales such as Austin, San Francisco, and Seattle. Moving with the Net economy After blowing out his original business plan, Gage needed a lot more working capital. When his former banker grew nervous about his borrowing needs, Gage interviewed three local bankers. “The first two asked me what kind of collateral I had,” recalls Gage. “They wanted to see my real estate.” The third banker asked Gage about his revenue stream. That was the right question. The banker, John Daubert, understood that in the Net economy assets mattered little compared with cash flow. On top of that, Daubert was part owner of Security First Bank, a 14-branch statewide bank. He had the power to make a decision on the spot. “We could get decisions pretty quickly,” says Daubert. How quickly? “Fifteen minutes.” How much did he lend Gage? Three hundred thousand dollars and counting. By the end of the year, Daubert will hold at least $500,000 worth of loans to Gage. Gage says the need to move with such dispatch is central to his business and drives the types of relationships he seeks. “We make decisions in hours or minutes that used to take days,” he says. Gage has severed relationships with professionals who, relatively speaking, were moving at a snail’s pace. Twice a lawyer didn’t get back to Gage for four days on an important real estate deal. He found another lawyer. “My Web designer didn’t return my calls in two days. She’s out,” Gage says. “Ditto the accountant. He told me, ‘I can spend half an hour with you a week from Tuesday.’ That’s BS.” But for all its new-world ways, Papa Geno’s Herb Garden retains a little of the old. One of Gage’s suppliers is a woman who grows lavender in rural Provence. “I don’t think she’s ever seen a computer,” says Gage. Each year he sends two workers over to France “with cash stuffed in their underwear” to seal the deal over a bottle of wine at the kitchen table. “This woman really has no idea how the Internet has affected her,” says Gage. Except that this year Gage’s employees went over with twice as much money, and his supplier is planting an extra hectare of lavender. Edward O. Welles is a senior feature writer at Inc. Please e-mail your comments to editors@inc.com.

When Something Clicks

Editor’s introduction: Sometimes it seems as if the Web has turned the world upside down. In the hype-ridden landscape called “dot-com,” it’s easy to assume that only the young, the new, the original idea conceived by two kids in their basement will survive. Out with the old. How untrue that is. The two companies profiled here, Plural in ” The Metamorphosis” and Camera World in “When Something Clicks,” are hardly start-ups. Their leaders have been running steady, profitable companies for years. They’re taking those years of experience managing entrepreneurial brick-and-mortar companies and using every ounce of their knowledge to transform their businesses into winners in the online world. CEO Roy Wetterstrom, never a guy to fear change, is rebirthing his 11-year-old company to take great advantage of the new economy. And Camera World has built on its 22 years of experience fulfilling customers’ expectations to transform itself into an E-commerce business. BRAVE NEW COMPANIES Over 22 years Camera World Co. honed its expertise in fulfillment, customer service, and supplier relationships. Today, as Cameraworld.com, it can teach Internet start-ups a thing or two about what matters most It’s a sodden, gray pre-Christmas workday in Portland, Oreg., but the jeans-sporting photographers who handle incoming calls at Camera World Co. (a.k.a. Cameraworld.com) are oblivious to the weather. Sitting in their white cubicles, they dispel the clouds with their cheerful “Thanks for calling Cameraworld- dot-com!” They repeat order information and occasionally murmur soothing guidance to Ansel Adams wanna-bes on the other end of the line, who need to know things like the difference between the Hasselblad 203FE Medium Format Chrome single-lens reflex camera and the 202FA model. In the 20,000-square-foot warehouse behind the front office, 15 workers scurry down long concrete aisles, clutching sales orders fresh off the network printer. To the casual observer, these warehouse folk seem to have X-ray eyes. Quickly scanning the metal racks loaded with thousands of indistinguishable-looking boxes of equipment, they have an uncanny ability to tell a box holding a $10,000 lens from a virtually identical package bearing a $1,000 one. When they locate the box they’re after, they place it in a plastic tub; a bar-code check at the packing station ensures that the order is complete. There, a young man nodding to rock music on a boom box pours Styrofoam peanuts into labeled cardboard shipping boxes and then seals the goods with a deft pull and twist of tape. Camera World’s order-fulfillment and delivery systems have stood the company in good stead. During the 1999 holiday season many of the company’s stalwart 300,000 customers came back and spent an average of $600 a pop. And thanks largely to the explosion of interest in digital cameras, sales soared last year, growing from $80 million in 1998 to more than $115 million. Last December the company’s Web site handled an average of 25,000 unique users a day, and Web sales rose by 245% over the previous year’s figure for the month. (At the same time mail-order business shot up 67%, and sales at the company’s downtown Portland store were up 22%.) Some 90% of Web and mail-order shipments left the warehouse within 24 hours. Return rates for Web sales hovered around 4%, paralleling the rate of returns from the store and the mail-order business. “We maintained heavy inventories to ship on time, and it all worked pretty well,” says Camera World’s new CEO, Terry Strom. “But one thing’s for sure: the Internet is raising the standard of performance for any retailer.” No kidding. This past Christmas season, during which shoppers spent an estimated $6 billion online, saw many a Web site disappointing customers. According to a November 1999 report by the New York City Internet research firm Jupiter Communications, 46% of business-to-consumer Web sites took five or more days to respond to a query, never responded, or failed to post an E-mail address on the site for customers’ inquiries. “If we didn’t make our goals,” says Walt Mulvey, “we couldn’t make payroll.” “An awful lot of Web sites don’t realize that customer service should be a priority,” says Jupiter analyst Cormac Foster. “They focus on customer acquisition but don’t spend time on the unsexy stuff, like customer-support infrastructure. Infrastructure doesn’t get you headlines, but if you don’t have a staff of people to take care of business behind the firewall, you won’t get much.” Case in point: Toys “R” Us, whose online subsidiary ToysRUs.com (announced with great fanfare in June 1998) found itself suffocating under the rush of online holiday traffic and was unable to fulfill orders on time. The company’s back-end infrastructure was built to send truckloads of products to hundreds of stores — not to ship single orders to millions of consumers. Don’t call Camera World a “click-and-mortar” or an old-fashioned retailer with a Johnny-come-lately Web site. Call it, rather, a dot-com with lots of back-end “not-com” experience. Camera World has long known that the boring stuff — attention to the fine details of customer service, simple and solid fulfillment processes, and trusted supplier relationships — is what really matters. Unless you master those three areas well before you put up a Web site, no amount of bells and whistles or transactional and design prowess online will make the Web component of your business successful. To understand how Cameraworld.com operates, view the company through a wide-angle lens. Founded in 1977 by a Korean-born businessman, Jack Shin, Camera World began as a 4,000-square-foot mom-and-pop shop for shutterbugs in a musty downtown area of Oregon’s sprawling, river-straddling city. Shin had come to Portland by way of New Jersey, where for about two years he’d owned a camera store that catered to well-heeled amateur photographers with National Geographic daydreams. From the moment he began his business until the day he said good-bye to Camera World in 1997, Shin refused to sell the cheap “gray market” goods that many dealers were hawking at the time — a practice that stood him in excellent stead with his suppliers. ( Gray market refers to goods that are not meant to be sold in the United States and generally are not covered by warranties.) Building on the relationships he’d established in New Jersey, Shin developed close contacts with executives from Fuji, Canon, Nikon, and the other rulers of the photo world. Ultimately, he constructed an intimate universe comprising 15 primary suppliers. “The gray market is a big problem for the industry,” says Eliott Peck, director and general manager of the camera division of Canon USA. “Canon has had an excellent relationship with Camera World because the company adds value to our products. It’s always provided the best customer support, sold only fresh merchandise, stocked all our products, and had very loyal repeat customers.” On a scale of 1 to 10 among camera dealers, Peck adds, “I’ve always given them a 10.” In return, the manufacturers saw to it that Shin was first in line to receive new or on-order stock. The Internet is raising the standard for retailers. Shortly after opening the retail store, Shin added a mail-order component to the business. “Mail order was easy — we didn’t have to speak much English,” explains Young Ui Shin, who acted as her husband’s business partner and interpreter. The Shins and Young Ui’s brother ran the mail-order business in a space five floors above Camera World’s street-level retail store, which also doubled as a warehouse. Their goal was for customers to receive their merchandise within five days of placing their order, compared with the standard mail-order lag of three to six weeks. Within 10 years the company was earning close to 70% of its revenues from the distant customers it reached through back-of-the-book advertisements in magazines like Popular Photography. On the back end, Shin put together a supersimple order-fulfillment and shipping infrastructure that the company still uses today. Prior to computerization, sales staffers would write a phone order on paper, then send along a copy to the warehouse for picking, packing, and shipping. Working with those paper “pick tickets,” warehouse workers would pull the cameras and lenses (and occasionally camcorders and televisions, which Camera World also sold) from the shelves and place them in plastic tubs. Before the items were packed, other workers checked to make sure that the products matched the order, recorded the product serial numbers, and filled out a receipt. Then shippers packed the items and loaded the boxes onto a waiting UPS truck, which carted off the packages every afternoon. If an item was out of stock, the warehouse workers would pass the information along to the sales reps, who would find out from Shin when the shelves would be replenished, so they could tell the customer when to expect the order. Returns were handled similarly: When a customer called, a sales staffer issued a return number and ordered a UPS pickup at the customer site. When the product came in, the return number was recorded; if the package had been opened, the product was sold at discount, since it could not be returned to the manufacturer or sold as new. The paper-based system stayed in place until 1992, when Shin discovered that a networked computer system could increase efficiency. He purchased a set of Compaq 386 computers, one of which was installed in the warehouse area, and a Platinum database-management system for which he had a consultant design a unique order-fulfillment, inventory, and shipping program. Using the new system, salespeople keyed in orders on PCs at their desks. Hourly, a warehouse worker would download and print out a batch of orders for picking and packing. The computerized system allowed Camera World’s sales reps to maintain an easy-to-access record of customer purchases; it also allowed Shin to keep better track of inventory and to speed up deliveries. The Shins’ five-day shipping goal had become a consistent reality. Shortly thereafter, Shin added a bar-coding system. By passing a wand over the various products prior to packing them up, workers were able to match orders in the database to actual shipments, and the inventory manager was able to see which models had gone out the door. From the get-go, Shin went the extra mile for his customers, retail and mail-order alike. He staffed the phones with a sales force of professional photographers (or photographers with day jobs), who could guide callers through the technical complexities of camera selection. If customers weren’t happy with their purchases, they could return them for a full refund, no questions asked. In one instance, a company selling five-year extended warranties on Camera World’s equipment went belly-up. Though Shin was under no obligation to do so, he set up a fund to cover the cost of repairs for the customers who were left hanging. “We make customers very happy, and they remember we give service, service, service. Repeat customers big part of our business,” Shin recalls in emphatic, if stilted, English. “We never cheat. If customers happy with service, they trust us.” “We had to completely change the mentality of the organization,” says Mulvey. In the early 1990s, despite Camera World’s computerization, a confluence of external and internal problems began to slow the company’s growth. The market for the high-quality 35mm single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras in which the company specialized had flattened by the late 1980s and stayed that way, thanks to a saturated market and a recession. Until digital cameras appeared on the scene, in 1998, the market for SLRs never moved substantially beyond the 700,000-units-per-annum mark. By 1999, according the Boston-based market-research firm Lyra Research Inc., the number of 35mm SLRs sold in the United States had actually declined to 600,000. Shin’s management style also kept Camera World from rising off that plateau. His operations gave new meaning to the phrase lean and mean. He selected office supplies, shipping companies, telephone services, and other necessities on the basis of low price, and replaced equipment only when it fell apart. The company had long outgrown its warehouse, but Shin balked at moving from the low-rent building. “Mr. Shin ruled with an iron fist,” says the company’s longtime buyer, Shawn Weishaar. From a glassed-in loft perched above the retail store, Shin would keep a sharp, Big BrotherÂlike eye on his workers’ activities. Employees did stay — they were well paid by Portland standards — but because promotions were few and far between, their motivation waned as the years passed. “Mr. Shin had great insight, but he didn’t allow mistakes,” says Weishaar. “He wanted full control over everything.” In 1996, frustrated by flat sales and worn out by the demands of the business (according to company veterans, Shin never took a day off in all his years at Camera World), Shin decided to sell. He hired a retail-management veteran, Walt Mulvey, to help ready the company for sale. A former banker who’d had experience in helping stagnant companies improve their operations, Mulvey saw a profitable company with a good reputation — but one with cramped quarters and lackluster employees. Mulvey reorganized, setting up an incentive program and a “no-blame” management system that allowed workers to air problems openly. Within a year, sales had climbed 31%, and Mulvey helped Shin put out the word that the company was for sale. Word of the sale reached Alessandro Mina. A gentle native of Sweden who’d lived in Italy, Switzerland, and France, the multilingual entrepreneur came to the United States in 1989, at the age of 27. While working on his M.B.A. at Stanford, he embarked on an investment project with two fellow European students. In 1993 the trio founded Sverica International, an investment fund designed to help transform old-fashioned companies into aggressive-growth companies and often into Web-based businesses, and rounded up contributors. Camera World “fit all our criteria,” Mina recalls. “It was profitable. Sales were stagnant, but there was growth opportunity. The owner was retiring, and there was a successful mail-order business in place. It had a huge database of happy customers who came to Camera World in the same way people go to Amazon.com for books or Dell Computer for computers — they go there pretty much knowing what they want. I held the view that Internet and mail-order sales are basically the same that way, so I thought it had all the ingredients for a great Web business.” Another plus: Camera World had a sound infrastructure; there was no need to develop one from scratch. The company had already figured out how to take in orders, process them, and ship them out. Moreover, Shin had long-established relationships with top-tier suppliers and innovative systems in place to provide customer service. The company even had a Web site, though visitors couldn’t use it to buy products. And unlike any pure-play dot-com, Camera World had the unheard-of pedigree of profitability. “We saw this terrific sleeper and thought we could turn it into a full-fledged Net business,” Mina recalls. Mina and his colleagues bought Camera World Co. and named the online arm Cameraworld.com. Temporarily taking over the reins as CEO, Mina — along with Mulvey, who stayed on as chief operating officer — set about morphing the company from a primarily mail-order business into a primarily online business, knowing that companies like Dell (which had gone from no revenues to $26 billion in 15 short years) had followed the same path. As Mina had predicted, the path was clear of the thorny issues that trip up novices. The niche was already nailed: unlike pure dot-commers, he didn’t have to spend time and money on brand development, market research, and focus groups. Mina and company preserved and expanded the long-standing relationships with suppliers and customers that Shin had built. “We made it a point to visit every supplier personally, take them out to dinner, and assure them that the business would continue,” Mina says. “Walt and Alessandro had a vision,” says Canon’s Peck. “At first we had some doubts about their ability to take over the business and move it to the Net, but they were able to build on the infrastructure to handle it.” The nitty-gritty back end has come to matter enormously to investors. In forging a new business plan for the company, Mina spelled out his goals. For starters, the company’s Web pages would have to be transformed from simple brochureware into a true transaction site. And its back-end systems would have to be married to whatever happened on the Web. The company itself would have to move into a larger, better-organized space, with a warehouse that would allow orders to be shipped within 24 hours, as opposed to the five days required by the mail-order business. “We wanted to one-up everyone else,” Mina says. “To speed everything up, we had to cut out obstacles. We needed to staff up, to fix the bugs in the computer systems, to upgrade the telephone systems for more lines. In the past Mr. Shin had to check everything. Things were duplicated. We decided to streamline processes and empower people.” The toughest challenge was time. Mina wanted Cameraworld.com to become the leading online vendor of cameras — before a competitor could. “We had to completely change the mentality of the organization, from collect-a-paycheck mode to survival mode,” says Mulvey. “We ran the company on two urgent premises: We assumed that there was a competitor out there who would beat us to market with the biggest Web site in the world. And we told ourselves that if we didn’t make our goals, we couldn’t make payroll.” Camera World moved to a less expensive location in Portland four times the size of its former quarters. Though the order-fulfillment process remained the same, Mina and Mulvey reorganized the warehouse to speed up shipping. Frequently ordered products, like film, were kept closest to the packing and shipping stations, while rarely ordered equipment was kept in the back. The company added inventory and packing stations; instead of one packing station, for example, it now had four. And it upped the number of PCs in the warehouse from one to five. The move, Mina estimates, saved the company $7,000 a month in rent and about $4,000 in reduced manpower requirements in the shipping, receiving, and returns departments. (The displaced employees were reassigned elsewhere in the company.) “Because the warehouse was larger and better organized, we made more shipments on time with fewer errors,” he says. To turn the existing, 300-visitor-a-day Web site into an E-commerce factory, Camera World hired the company that had designed its original Web site, Web Northwest. With just six months in which to transform the site, Web Northwest owner Pete Chiboucas teamed up with a Camera World veteran, Internet administrator Gil Rocha, and together the pair hand-coded the pages as Active Server Pages to create a visually appealing, highly interactive site. Visitors could click on an image of a camera, a lens, or another product and order it using a shopping cart. The Webmeisters also cranked up the fire under the site, spending $20,000 to install a network of six high-powered Windows NT-based servers that could handle thousands of concurrent users at a time. Today Camera World’s site, which costs roughly $10,000 a month to maintain, handles at least 15,000 unique visitors and 400 transactions a day. It’s now a full-fledged community for shutterbugs. It keeps visitors interested with increasingly snazzy features — 3-D images of featured products, an online auction area, forums, online chats with celebrated photographers, a selection “wizard” that helps customers choose the right camera by assessing their expertise and frequency of use, and so on. Customers can also get quick answers to their E-mailed questions. Professional photographers respond to them by E-mail or phone — and customers even receive a notice via E-mail showing them where their question is in the queue. (“We try to get back to them within 24 hours,” says Rocha.) And for those who eschew telephone handsets, an Internet-telephony feature lets customers whose computers are equipped with a sound card and a microphone connect over the Internet to talk with the sales and support staff. When a customer orders a camera through the Web site, the transaction is zapped from the servers to the order-fulfillment database via a dedicated high-speed T1 line. A software interface between the Web site and the database reads the order and translates it into the order-entry system. Sales reps, customer-support personnel, and shippers and other warehouse workers can review the order by tapping into Camera World’s database from PCs. Every few hours, warehouse personnel print out a batch of 50 or so orders. Rush orders are printed on red paper; white paper signifies a standard UPS ground order. After a worker locates the correct product and places it in a plastic tub along with the paper order, he carts it to the shipping station, where the bar-code checking occurs. If the bar code doesn’t match the order, a computer screen at the station notes the mismatch. If the match is correct, the inventory database records the product model number; when inventory reaches a low-enough level, Camera World reorders. Once the product is packaged for shipping, it’s loaded onto a waiting UPS van, which departs at the end of the day. Meanwhile, an E-mail message is sent to the customer, noting the time the package is scheduled to ship. Using a confirmation number supplied by the company, the customer can check the Web site to track the order. Picking and shipping, of course, are hardly sexy stuff. But in the crazed world of cyberspace, the nitty-gritty back end has come to matter enormously — especially to prospective investors. “Back in 1996, when I was looking at Camera World, the guiding principle for Internet start-ups — according to venture capitalists — was to start from scratch with the model based on the new paradigm, and everything traditional was bad,” Mina recalls. “Early on, VCs were not interested in us because we had a history. But now infrastructure, customer service, and the ability to ship on time with inventory on hand are all key elements when the VCs come knocking.” So far, Camera World is keeping customers happy. “The consensus is that there are a few retailers out there that have a great reputation and that Camera World is among the few,” says Richard Rabinowitz, vice-president and group publisher of Popular Photography and American Photo. One of the happiest customers is Aneel Bhusri, who — like Victor Kiam of the old Remington razor commercials — liked the company so much that he bought (into) it. Bhusri is a partner with Greylock, based in Palo Alto, Calif., one of the six venture-capital firms that have just poured $60 million into Cameraworld.com. (The other major investor is Technology Crossover Ventures, also of Palo Alto.) Bhusri also happens to be an amateur wildlife photographer and a repeat customer. “I bought my first camera from them four years ago, and their staff were very helpful in explaining the pros and cons of the different models,” he says. “I found it unique that their customer-service people were trained professionals.” Last summer, when Greylock was looking for a photography Web portal to back while casting an eye at a future initial public offering, Bhusri remembered Camera World. “I gave Alessandro a cold call,” he recalls. “I said, ‘I’ve been a customer for a while. Are you interested in outside capital to help the business?” The infusion from Greylock was welcome. The cash, the executives say, will allow the company to move to an even larger physical site this year, add more products to the 7,000 items it currently offers, hire 20 more sales and support people, and keep the computer system shipshape. The marketing mix will remain roughly the same as it has been for years — mailing out catalogs and advertising in photography publications, on the radio, on television, on the Web, and on outdoor billboards — “but it will scale up,” says vice-president of marketing Tom Steele. The venture funding also frees Mina, the serial entrepreneur, to hatch another company. “Alessandro did a fantastic job of running the company, but his goal was never to run Camera World for the rest of his life,” says Bhusri. “So he helped us look for a new CEO.” Bhusri and Mina chose a man who had lots of experience with fast-growth and Internet companies: Terry Strom, who had been the CEO of Egghead Software and the marketing vice-president for Digital River Inc., a Minnesota service provider for E-commerce sites. (Bhusri is now chairman of the board, and Mulvey has moved to the president’s office.) Mina, now living in Boston, is glad to let others grow the company. “Aneel, Terry, and Walt can take the company from an Internet start-up to an established E-commerce player,” he says. “I can go back to what I do best — finding good companies to invest in.” For his part, Bhusri is thrilled to be the rudder of a company that, as he says, “gets it.” “If you look at what makes a Web site successful, most of it is logistics,” he says. “Camera World had this figured out a long time ago. Why don’t others? I honestly don’t know the answer. These guys are rare. I think they can be the Dell of the camera business.” Bronwyn Fryer is a contributing writer for Inc. Technology. Read about another Brave New Company in ” The Metamorphosis“

Upstarts: Convenience Cuisine

What’s Cooking On-line? If you’re not sure where your next meal is coming from, you might try the Internet The Web’s next killer app? Think arugula. A host of entrepreneurs are convinced that, just as the on-line arena has changed the way we communicate, shop, and invest, it will change the way we seek sustenance as well. “People have to eat three times a day, but even on the brink of the new millennium, nobody has found a way to get more free time,” remarks David Hodess, the 37-year-old CEO and cofounder of Cooking.com, one of the new players catering to today’s time-starved — and just plain starved — consumers. Along with former Disney Store executive Hodess, refugees from Microsoft and PepsiCo, as well as such high-profile venture capitalists as John Doerr, are staking their money and their good names on new sites that promise to point and click consumers to their next meal. What to have for dinner tonight? The next five nights? That dinner party you’ve scheduled for Saturday? Both Hodess’s Cooking.com, in Santa Monica, Calif., and another on-line start-up, Tavolo, in San Rafael, Calif., offer thousands of gourmet products and wares that can help answer those questions. Each site is financed with $50 million in seed funds and is as much an information resource as a culinary E-tailer. Click on either site’s weekly menu planner for week-at-a-glance menu suggestions, with printer-friendly recipes. In addition, both sites offer various foodie bells and whistles. Tavolo’s site (www.tavolo.com) has features that convert recipes from standard to metric measurements, tailor recipes to the number of people being served, and create a shopping list based on your weekly menu. Cooking.com has an on-line glossary for boning up on the history of cognac or determining the precise definition of a zapotilla. But customizable recipes and on-line glossaries are just the marketing bait. What these sites really want to do is sell you stuff. “Providing a free recipe certainly has value for the consumer,” says Ken Cassar, an electronic-commerce analyst with Jupiter Communications, an Internet consulting company in New York City. “But it’s also a great opportunity to sell mortars and pestles.” As Tavolo founder and CEO Kevin Applebaum is fond of noting, with $55 billion in total sales (both on-line and on terra firma), the market for cooking products and gourmet foods represents a huge category. The leading national retailer of cooking supplies — Williams-Sonoma — has a market share of less than 1%. But Applebaum, who honed his marketing skills at PepsiCo and Procter & Gamble, also knows he’s not alone in spotting cooking sites’ potential. Numerous national retailers, from Macy’s to the aforementioned Williams-Sonoma, are also chasing the ever-expanding on-line opportunity. So is the ubiquitous Martha Stewart, whose Web site, launched in 1997, is in the process of receiving a $25-million tune-up, courtesy of new investor Kleiner Perkins and its general partner, John Doerr. The real challenge for all the gourmet sites, says another Jupiter Communications analyst, Michael May, will be to get the people who purchase gourmet food and wares on-line to go from buying gifts to buying for themselves. The majority of the $200 million in on-line sales of small appliances and gourmet-food items last year occurred during the fourth quarter, for holiday gifts, notes May. Arugula-artichoke-with-roasted-garlic pesto pasta sauce may make for a terrific gift, but it isn’t what people are buying for their own dinner tables — at least not tonight. Cyberconsumption Food and kitchen supplies may not be the biggest on-line shopping category at the moment (books currently hold that honor), but according to Jupiter Communications, they’re where the growth will be between now and 2003. Odds are, Peapod and its ilk will eventually outpace their Amazonian counterparts. Projected on-line consumer spending, by category 1999 2003 % change (in billions) Groceries $0.2 $7.5 3,650% Housewares $0.1 $1.5 1,400% Specialty gifts* $0.1 $1.0 900% Music $0.3 $2.6 766% Apparel $0.8 $6.7 738% Videos $0.2 $1.1 450% Toys $0.3 $1.6 433% Electronics $0.4 $2.1 425% Flowers $0.2 $0.8 300% Books $1.3 $4.9 278% *Gourmet food makes up a significant percentage of this category. Source: Online Consumer Spending Forecast, Jupiter Communications, September 1999. Party of 10? Click Here Sure, much of the on-line cooking sector caters to aspiring chefs. But what if you and the kitchen aren’t on speaking terms? And you happen to like it that way? Take heart. A crop of new sites seek to gratify the pantry-phobic as well. Feel like takeout tonight? San Francisco-based Food.com offers on-line ordering — and, more important, local delivery — from more than 13,000 restaurants nationwide. Feeding your face is merely a matter of entering your zip code and navigating menu offerings. Since restaurants are notoriously low-tech, the company’s server in Seattle translates on-line orders into a fax or a phone call, which is then sent to participating eateries, a service for which Food.com reaps a $400 setup fee, a $50-a-month retainer, and 5% of each order. For those who’d rather dine out, at least two new companies offer on-line reservations. Both foodline.com, in New York City, and OpenTable.com, in San Francisco, are attempting to replace the traditional phone-and-paper-based restaurant-reservation system with a Web-based one. They charge participating restaurants about $200 a month in service and transaction fees (and in OpenTable.com’s case, a $1,000 setup fee). Currently serving a handful of cities, both plan to be nationwide and to ultimately link their service directly into the restaurants’ individual point-of-sale systems. They also hope to personalize the diner’s experience. “Imagine being able to remember that Mr. Jones is allergic to shellfish or sending a promotional E-mail to your top 100 August diners,” rhapsodizes former lawyer Paul Lightfoot, Foodline.com’s 29-year-old CEO. CookExpress.com, launched in January 1999, offers an on-line option that’s between cooking from scratch and dining out: a gourmet, ready-to-cook meal sent to your home by FedEx. Founder Darby Williams, 46 — another Microsoft escapee — calls CookExpress.com a “smarter way to cook.” Three-part meals (for example, roasted salmon with herb-caper sauce, potato-olive salad, and baby arugula), each requiring less than 30 minutes to fix, are delivered to your door (currently just in the Bay Area, where CookExpress.com is based) or by overnight delivery nationwide. Prices range from $8 to $15 per serving, plus a single $4.95 local delivery charge or a shipping cost of $12.95 to $16.95 (based on the number of meals). Yeah, but is the stuff fresh? To mollify those squeamish about the idea of filet mignon that arrived through a delivery service (albeit packed in high-tech gelatin ice), the company has devised a system of labeling each package with color-coded dots that change color if the food hasn’t remained chilled. The packaging also indicates how long the food inside should stay fresh (usually two days). Williams boasts that the company has the potential to be a billion-dollar enterprise within five years. He plans to expand the CookExpress.com same-day service into at least 30 U.S. markets as well as another 6 to 8 markets outside the United States — each worth $25 million in his estimation. He also hopes to add a retail component to his distribution. The logistical complexity of such an undertaking actually appeals to Williams, although, he readily concedes, “had I been in the food business before, I probably never would have done this.” Child in the Wild Julia Child is cooking. So who better to ask about the marriage of virtual and victual reality? And, surprise! She’s all for it, having become Web-friendly and computer-adept herself during her many years of bringing haute cuisine to the masses. Contributing writer Alessandra Bianchi caught up with the culinary grande dame at her home in Cambridge, Mass. Inc.: Do computers and cooking mix? Child: They certainly do. It’s marvelous what computers can do for you when you’re cooking. In fact, A La Carte Communications, the producer of my new television series with Jacques Pepin, has a site, Alacartetv.com, and it has everything on there! You can get TV schedules, cookbooks, even prÃ©cis of our upcoming shows. Inc.: Do you use a computer in your work? Child: Yes, I have had a computer since they first came out. I use it for writing. I used to do my books in longhand, but word processing is so much easier, for a clear copy and for cleaning up. Recently, I started using the Web to find books — cookbooks from London, for example — and it was a snap. It’s tremendously useful for getting products, too. By clicking on www.fromages.com, you can get real French cheese directly from France, even though you’re a person and not a company! Inc.: But would a serious chef log on to the Web for advice, recipes, and menu planning? Child: Perhaps not now. But eventually, quite possibly. Now it’s fairly primitive, and a good chef would already have a recipe in his or her own library. The cooking information on the Web isn’t always complete or easy to find. For example, if you look up fava beans on a search engine, you don’t get much. But the Web sites are particularly good for beginners. One thing the sites haven’t entirely worked out is how you pay for the research you do. Eventually, it will be wonderful. Inc.: What do you think the development of cooking Web sites says about our culture? Child: I think it shows we’re a progressive culture embracing new ideas. It’s incredible, really. Of course, it helps to know what you’re looking for. But what’s happening on the Web is marvelous for cooking.

Tag Archives: France

Larry’s Kids

Lucky or Smart

Top Five Reasons to Post Terms of Use on Your Web Site

Best Cellars

The Art of the Net

The Art of the Net

The Greenhouse Effect

When Something Clicks

Upstarts: Convenience Cuisine

Twitter Updates

CHANNELS

Tag Archives: France

Popular Posts

CHANNELS