Tag Archives: London (England)

Have Tech, Won’t Travel

Special Report: Tools that will let you stay grounded Alex Stanton would have swum across the Atlantic to woo that special prospective client in the United Kingdom. Ultimately, he only had to go downstairs. Stanton, CEO of Stanton Crenshaw Communications, in New York City, passionately wanted a contract to represent a certain European telecommunications company. He and his team planned to fly to London in mid-September to pitch their proposal in person. But then came September 11, when terrorist hijackings grounded all U.S. air travel for three days and delayed many overseas flights for several days longer. With the Twin Towers wreckage billowing smoke just a few miles away, Stanton asked his prospective clients to postpone the meeting. They politely declined. They wanted to pick their public-relations firm that week to get an overdue marketing campaign off the ground. In seeking options, Stanton didn’t have to look far. He dropped in on ICE Inc., a marketing-communications company located two floors below his office, on the hunch that the company might have videoconferencing equipment. In the spirit of post-attack camaraderie, Stanton’s neighbors offered to let him borrow their boardroom, their equipment, and a technician. Thrilled, Stanton called London. Fortunately, the prospective client had a compatible setup, and its executives were perfectly happy to meet virtually. So, at the appointed time, Stanton’s team went downstairs, faced the cameras, and put on a one-hour show for a five-person audience across the pond. “We did a couple of rehearsals,” Stanton says. “We found you have to stage it a little more than you might in person. You have to decide who’s going to talk when, and you can’t interrupt as much.” While the transatlantic sound was fine, the video occasionally jerked or froze. And the presentation didn’t feel quite natural. The executives in London faced a fixed camera, which never moved even when they did, and occasionally someone would shift out of view, forcing the presenters to address a disembodied voice. “You’re sort of at the end of a tunnel,” Stanton says. “It’s hard to see how people are reacting to your ideas.” Despite the drawbacks, Stanton’s team members felt they’d made their case, even after the telecom company awarded the contract to a competitor (which, coincidentally, was another New York City PR agency forced by circumstances to pitch by videoconference). “We didn’t win, but at least we were on equal footing,” Stanton says. Like Stanton’s company, many small and midsize businesses have built their reputation on traveling to meet far-flung colleagues, customers, partners, and prospects. And like Stanton, who’s now considering a blend of videoconferencing and personal visits, many CEOs are now reexamining the assumption that being in business means being on the road. The most urgent soul-searching, of course, stems directly from the September 11 attacks. And the November 12 crash of an American Airlines plane in Queens, N.Y., did little to allay the fears of an already leery traveling public. But even before those events, the slumping economy prompted many companies to curb their travel expenses. In April 2001 the National Business Travel Association, a trade group based in Alexandria, Va., polled 200 companies of all sizes and found that 33% were using or considering collaboration technologies, primarily videoconferencing, to eliminate costly trips. Five months later, following the suicide jet crashes, nearly 90% of those polled said they’d now consider high-tech options to travel. It’s too early to say if increased scrutiny of business travel represents a true change in thinking, a permanent shift away from our economy’s air dependency. Right now many CEOs seem to be in wait-and-see mode: Wait and see what happens in the U.S.-led “war on terrorism.” Wait and see whether there are more hijackings, air disasters, or other threats at home. Wait and see whether the economy starts to rebound. But it’s safe to draw a few conclusions. First, for both financial and security-related reasons, many CEOs are developing restrictive new travel policies. In addition, many companies are experimenting with high-tech options that let them do their jobs closer to home. Some are already finding those alternatives surprisingly attractive compared with long-distance business trips with all their expense, time investment, and hassles. ON SOLID GROUND: Alex Stanton, CEO of Stanton Crenshaw Communications, needed to make his pitch without getting on a plane. Ultimately, though, nobody expects to eliminate the need for business travel. As Daniel P. Brogan, president and CEO of the San Diego architecture firm Earl Walls Associates, puts it: “I see this as an opportunity to rethink the way we do business. But we’re never going to get away from traveling. Our business is still very much hands-on.” When it comes to substituting technology for travel, options range from the almost-free to those requiring another line on next year’s budget. On the low end: making better use of existing equipment, an approach as simple as spending more time on conference calls. On the high end: renting a television studio for a satellite broadcast or even investing in an in-house, state-of-the-art videoconferencing studio. In between: options like Web-based conferencing and broadcasting, setting up virtual private networks, using peer-to-peer technology, and — especially in an era of germ-tainted mail — increasing use of E-mail, fax, and instant messaging. (See “The Next Best Thing to Being There,” below.) Obviously, picking the right option depends on what the company needs to accomplish and what barriers it must overcome to get there. The following are several common postattack headaches and the technology prescription for relieving them: Your former “road warriors” are skittish about taking to the skies. Earl Walls Associates specializes in designing scientific laboratories. Thanks to that narrow niche market, the company serves clients all over the world. But in recent months “I’ve definitely told people not to travel if they don’t have to,” says CEO Brogan. Instead, the company increasingly runs client meetings from two rented videoconferencing facilities located close to its office. Even at $1,000 a day, videoconferencing is cheaper than sending a team in person, especially when you figure in the loss of productivity on travel days. Of course, architects must sometimes meet face-to-face with clients to review plans, but Brogan is now trying to do as much virtual up-front and follow-up work as possible. He’s even earmarked $25,000 this year for an in-house videoconferencing studio. But just as you can’t call somebody who doesn’t have a telephone, you can’t videoconference with somebody who doesn’t have a compatible setup. So before he actually spends a dime, Brogan is polling the company’s clients to find out whether they’ve got equipment — or at least access to it — on their end. On September 11, employees at Whale Communications Ltd., a network-security company with offices in Fort Lee, N.J., just across the Hudson River from Manhattan, watched the World Trade Center towers burn and collapse after being hit by hijacked jets. Not surprisingly, many Whale employees didn’t want to fly after that. CEO Elad Baron, who grew up amid the threat of terrorism in his native Israel, couldn’t blame them; he immediately declared all air travel optional. Fortunately, Whale had started scrutinizing its travel costs earlier in 2001, when many of the company’s 60 employees were spending up to 75% of their time traveling to visit clients across the United States or in the company’s research-and-development facility in Israel. “Even before September 11, we figured out that was not very efficient, so we really began cutting back,” Baron says. So he invested $38,000 in Web-conferencing and videoconferencing hardware, software, and services. By September, he’d cut travel time for most employees to just 20% to 25% of their total hours. Because of the savings on travel expenditures, he expects to recoup his investment early this year. However, some employees’ jobs still require travel. If they’re afraid to board a plane, Baron expects them to make other arrangements. In the most extreme case, a sales rep who’d previously flown nationwide started driving everywhere instead. His longest trek: from New Jersey to Charlotte, N.C. — about 1,300 miles round-trip. Because the rep traveled on weekends, he lost no work time — and got no objections from the boss. “I don’t mind, as long as the customer gets served,” Baron says. Your chief ambassador wants to stay home. In many companies, there’s one person — sometimes the CEO, sometimes another executive — who has long served as the public face of the business. But now the ambassador wants to spend less time, or no time, in the air. That’s the case at Phenix & Phenix Literary Publicists Inc., an 11-person agency based in Austin, far from the nation’s major news and publishing centers. A year ago, CEO Leann Phenix created the position of national media director, a job requiring frequent coast-to-coast travel to attend book-launch events, meet with the media, and speak at writers’ conferences. Staff publicist Marika Flatt was promoted into the new job and at first rather enjoyed all those cross-country flights. But Flatt, the mother of a 14-month-old daughter, hasn’t been on a plane since the terrorist attacks. A NEW ATTITUDE: “I see this as an opportunity to rethink the way we do business,” says Daniel P. Brogan. “But we’re never going to get away from traveling. Our business is still very much hands-on.” Like other companies, Phenix & Phenix has considered videoconferencing and other high-tech options. But because Flatt is the only employee who needs to travel extensively, the business’s executives have decided that such an investment wouldn’t make sense for the company — at least so far. Instead, Flatt is building and maintaining some other long-term relationships: with the telephone and the computer. “If there’s a writer I haven’t been introduced to yet, I’ll send an E-mail and say, ‘Can I call you at such-and-such a time?” she says. “It’s obviously not as good as meeting face-to-face.” But that’s how things will have to be, she says, “until things simmer down a little bit and we build our confidence back up in the airlines.” Meanwhile, will staying close to home hurt business? “Definitely,” Flatt says, sighing. “Definitely.” You need to do hands-on work with faraway partners, but you don’t necessarily need to see them. Network Orange Inc., in Boca Raton, Fla., which manufactures and sells network-testing and -control equipment, serves customers all over the United States. These days president Mike Vislocky has been concerned about sending employees across the country to touch base with customers. “It’s not just a fear of flying,” he says. “It’s the prospect of being stranded away from home.” So Network Orange invested in a Web-conferencing software called WebDemo, which lets the Florida team have virtual visits with customers. The product allows a meeting’s participants to view a PowerPoint presentation or edit a document together, screen by screen, in real time over the Internet. Meanwhile, they’re on a conference call, discussing what they’re seeing. Overall, “it’s not bad,” says Vislocky. “You can take breaks; you can put your phone on mute and just listen until it’s time for you to say something. I have a portable phone, so I can even walk around until I need to come back to the screen.” Vislocky hasn’t used videoconferencing and says he probably won’t. “None of the stuff we do benefits from being able to see other people.” You don’t travel much, but your clients do. Royce Carlton Inc., a New York City-based speakers’ agency, represents about 50 famous clients. Among them: Anna Quindlen, the former New York Times columnist turned best-selling novelist. Agency CEO Carlton Sedgeley had booked Quindlen to speak at a Houston fund-raiser in late September. But after the attacks, Quindlen, who lives in Manhattan, refused to get on a plane. So Sedgeley arranged for her to speak by videoconference, a solution he calls less than ideal. “It’s second-best,” he says. “It’s just not as satisfying as someone being there. You don’t get to press the flesh. You don’t get the book signing.” On the other hand, for an investment of about $350, the show went on, and Sedgeley collected his fee, albeit a reduced one. BUSINESS AS USUAL: Rob DeRocker of Development Counsellors International has flown 16 times since September 11. Sedgeley has been using travel-obviating technology since well before September 11. In November 2000, he helped political analyst Jeff Greenfield give a virtual talk using technology far more sophisticated than videoconferencing. Greenfield was scheduled to address a group in Palm Springs, Calif., but when the U.S. presidential race stayed too close to call for weeks, Greenfield couldn’t leave Florida, where officials were recounting the ballots by hand. Instead, he addressed the California crowd via satellite from a TV studio in Palm Beach, Fla. The satellite link provided a much higher quality transmission than even the best videoconferencing and, not surprisingly, bore a price tag to match: about $4,000 for that particular venture, Sedgeley says. In the weeks following the attacks, he arranged appearances broadcast by satellite or videoconference for several other speakers. You must travel, period. For some companies, no technology alternative can replace being there. As Andrew Zacharakis, professor of entrepreneurship at Babson College, in Wellesley, Mass., puts it: “If you have some hot sales prospects and you need that face-to-face contact, I would say you have to get on the plane.” Rob DeRocker did just that shortly after the attacks. DeRocker is executive vice-president and part owner of Development Counsellors International, a 30-person company that develops marketing campaigns promoting tourism. He flew to Kansas City the Monday following September 11. Over the next several weeks, he boarded 16 airplanes. (On one flight, owing to increased security, he had to remove his shoes and run them through a metal detector.) And so far, he’s requiring his account executives to fly because the company’s survival depends on it. “We can’t forgo traveling if we stay in this business,” he says. “It’s hard to lead a press trip to Tacoma unless you’re there, and driving isn’t an option.” There’s just one thing that might change his insistence on flying: another terrorist incident involving aircraft. Meanwhile, many companies continue to seek the perfect balance of technology and travel. For Alex Stanton, who used videoconferencing to make his pitch to the European telecom company, it’s a matter of compromise. “Often, when we’d go and do these things, we’d send two or three or four people to show them our whole team,” he says. Now he considers sending one person — perhaps the team leader — to present in person and having other employees attend by videoconference. “It’s not perfect,” he says, “but we don’t live in a perfect world.” Anne Stuart is a senior writer at Inc. The Next Best Thing to Being There Nothing digital can duplicate a hearty handshake. But if you want to keep your company aloft without putting yourself — or anybody else — on an airplane, you can consider a wide range of electronic alternatives. If you’re strapped for cash, build on your existing technologies, starting with the telephone. Make those once-deadly conference calls far more palatable with high-quality speakerphones (such as the Polycom SoundStation models, which start at $499) or the dial-in teleconference services offered by many telecom companies. Next stop: the Internet. Create an online environment in which employees, partners, and customers can swap documents, create group mailing lists, or post messages in forums. Host your company’s intranet, extranet, or password-protected Web site yourself, or, for a small monthly fee, pay a service provider (such as Intranets.com) to host one for you. If you need to see people’s faces, consider videoconferencing, two-way video, and audio communication over high-speed lines. Pictures may freeze or look grainy, and shy participants may clam up on camera. And videoconferencing works only if both parties have compatible equipment. But it’s probably the closest thing to sitting in the same room. Costs range from $100 or so for a home-use camera and microphone to $5,000 for a portable videoconferencing system to $75,000 for a customized in-house studio with good acoustics, professional lighting, high-quality monitors, and cameras. Rentals range from $250 an hour to a flat $1,000 a day at local videoconferencing studios and some Kinko’s outlets. Another option when visuals matter: a satellite hookup. Satellite communications offer superior transmission quality — but at a superior price because of the cost of renting satellite time. Figure on spending at least $1,000 an hour. If you want to put on a show for a widely scattered audience, consider Web conferencing with tools such as WebEx or WebDemo, both of which let meeting participants share documents and applications online in real time. Web conferencing lets far-flung participants view documents simultaneously from their own desktops. It’s a handy option for PowerPoint presentations, sales demonstrations, whiteboard-style diagramming, and collaborative document editing. Some products include audio, while others require a simultaneous telephone conference call if participants need to talk while they’re working. The costs range from $100 for install-it-yourself conferencing software to $1,000 or more for a professionally hosted conference. If you want to share documents safely, look into creating a virtual private network (VPN). This highly secure technology creates a private “tunnel” into a company’s systems. It’s an outstanding way to provide remote users — including distant partners, traveling employees, and people who work at home — with full access to important documents and applications. The costs range from a few hundred to several thousand dollars, depending primarily on the number of users. Please e-mail your comments to editors@inc.com. For more electronic alternatives, see 5 Travel-Reducing Technologies.

Ideas For Sale

The Big Idea A handful of entrepreneurs are building marketplaces designed to hook up creative thinkers with businesses that need them. Is the world ready for an eBay of ideas? Anyone who has spent time hunting for his glasses only to discover them on the bridge of his nose can relate to Sanjay Goel’s feelings when he finally came up with the business idea for which he had been searching for half a year. The idea was this: to build a Web site for ideas. Ideas are now widely regarded as the lifeblood of the economy. By some measures the market for the transfer of intellectual property has hit $100 billion. Increasingly, organizations are looking outside the ranks of employees to find these ideas. Last year, for example, mining company Goldcorp Inc. offered a total of $500,000 for the best ideas for getting 6 million ounces of gold out from under a lake in Ontario. The incentive paid off so well that the Canadian company upped the ante in March, offering a total of $2 million for other stellar gold-mining ideas. You can’t even say it’s not rocket science: NASA recently called on the world at large to come up with a scheme for launching a probe to Pluto for less than $500 million, having scrapped its own, more expensive plans. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of people routinely generate ideas that could conceivably make someone a lot of money or otherwise improve the lot of some subset of humankind, but they’re clueless about what to do with them. Send them uninvited to a company? Call a patent lawyer? Hire an intellectual-property agent? Start a company? Take out an ad? All are avenues conventionally taken by those imaginative thinkers who don’t simply let their ideas die on the vine. But maybe a better notion is to bring the Internet’s aggre- gating capabilities to bear on idea matchmaking, in much the same way that eBay has brought together buyers and sellers of collectible goods. And so it was that the company Goel and Sharat Singh founded, called Ideas.com, along with a small pack of competing Web sites, intended to pull in orphaned ideas and funnel them to businesses willing to pay cold, hard cash for the best of them. “We’re creating a marketplace of ideas,” says Goel. “The ideas that are now being wasted are extremely valuable to companies.” Trafficking in ideas, of course, entails complexities that Beanie Baby traders never had to worry about, including the daunting difficulties in determining and valuing ownership of ideas. But, as with so many dot-coms, the biggest barrier faced by Ideas.com and its competitors has been having to struggle with unproved revenue models in an investment market that has turned its back on Internet companies unlikely to turn a quick profit. Indeed, time may have run out on Ideas.com. On July 31, Goel and Singh were seriously considering shutting down the company. But in bringing his company as far as he did, Goel managed to raise a question that may continue to beguile companies and individuals for years to come: can the Internet help transport ideas across organizational boundaries and in doing so render obsolete the entire notion of corporate boundaries? HIDDEN JEWELS: “The ideas that are now being wasted are extremely valuable to companies,” says Sanjay Goel, founder of Ideas.com. Sanjay Goel was born in Delhi, India, to parents who expected him to become an engineer or a doctor. But Goel was fascinated with business and by age 12 had cofounded a thriving neighborhood magazine-rental stand. He dutifully trudged off to the Indian Institute of Technology in 1984, where he studied electrical engineering and secretly planned to start a business when he graduated. But, like many of his classmates, he felt obligated to first grab a master’s degree in the United States, and he ventured to UCLA. After a stint as a robotics researcher in Japan, Goel returned to California in 1990 and reinvented himself as a programmer specializing in finance. “I had zero background,” he says. “My whole thing is I’d rather fail doing something very ambitious than succeed doing something that’s not ambitious.” After a year of programming, Goel decided it was Wall Street or bust, so he loaded up his aging Honda Civic and headed cross-country. In New York City he had several interviews, to no avail. His credit cards were maxed out, so Goel decided he’d drive a taxi to make ends meet — only to learn that a taxi driver’s license would cost $300 — $290 more than he had. Still, he wouldn’t budge from his goal. “I’m either going to do what I want or nothing,” he says. “There’s nothing in the middle.” He was counting his change to see if he had enough money for a meal when Citibank called and offered him a position in its investment-banking division. By 1998 Goel had already been named the division’s managing director — a career rise of unheard-of velocity in the staid world of big-time investment banking. Despite the success and his indulgence in on-the-edge hobbies — he carried his parachute with him on business trips, began flying airplanes and helicopters, climbed Mount McKinley, and started motorcycling and windsurfing — Goel became increasingly restless. In 1999 he realized that, for all his daring exploits, he had been keeping his back turned on the biggest adventure of all: building a company from scratch. Goel came up with a sensible course of action: develop a business plan, get funding, and then resign from his position. He then promptly rejected his own advice and quit on the spot. “It had to be a clean break,” he says. “I have enough confidence in myself to know that for the second time in my life I was going to restart my career.” Goel had already come up with what he thought was a golden business idea: an innovation marketplace. Now he had to figure out how to make such a thing work. He took to spending his days at the New York University Law Library, reading about innovation. “The books were telling me that companies understand the value of innovation, but that they haven’t found an optimal way to deal with it,” he says. But what sort of business could close that gap? For months Goel researched the problem and couldn’t nail down an answer. Then, as if in tribute to the adventitious nature of idea generation, the solution came to him in his sleep. “I woke up and said, ‘Now I’m ready for this,” he recalls. The idea behind Ideas.com was simple enough. Anyone could post to the site a brief description of an idea. Corporate executives in need of an R&D boost paid a fee to become affiliated with the site, along with monthly fees to maintain their affiliations. The executives perused the postings, and if they liked what they saw, they could negotiate directly with the poster. Postings described such things as a Web-based system for taking opinion polls; a laboratory bench that prints documents; and a heated, rollable pad for covering a sidewalk before a snowstorm. Companies paid commissions to Ideas.com of as much as 30% on ideas that they bought. (Neither Goel nor his customers will divulge how high any of those fees ran, except to say that the prices depended on company size and other unnamed variables.) Idea contributors paid nothing. If Goel had had any doubts about the plan’s viability, they evaporated when he shared his idea in late 1999 with Venky Harinarayan, a former UCLA classmate who had sold his own dot-com, Junglee, to Amazon.com in 1998 for $250 million. “I had been talking about it for 30 seconds when he told me to stop. I thought he was going to kick me out of his office, but he immediately offered to invest,” Goel says. Harinarayan brought in his two Junglee cofounders, and the three chipped in $1.2 million to get Ideas.com off the ground. It launched last November with 15 employees. Among the executives who joined the start-up’s board of advisers was John Seely Brown, the near-legendary former director of Xerox’s ultrainnovative Palo Alto Research Center. Things can get prickly in the field of idea vending when, for starters, a potential buyer notifies an idea poster that he or she wants to hear more about the idea. To sell the idea, the author must spell it out to the prospective purchaser. But once the idea is explained, the business could take it and run with it without paying. “How do you simultaneously advertise what an idea is while maintaining it as a secret?” asks Stephen Margolis, head of the economics department at North Carolina State University. For that reason, he says, economists call an unshared idea a form of “impacted information,” meaning that it is hobbled by a breakdown in market forces. Goel was well aware of the dilemma. “It was the first and main issue we had to deal with,” he says. To get around it, the site encouraged idea sellers to ask prospective buyers to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs). Sellers were urged to enlist the “principle of incremental disclosure” — that is, to unveil the idea in layers of increasing specificity. After each layer was revealed, the buying company could demonstrate its good faith with a payment or by upping the price it was proposing to pay for the idea. If negotiations broke down, the buyer left the picture, in theory without having seen enough details to implement the idea. Thus one Ideas.com contributor listed an idea for a “Computer Mouse (special type)” in this oblique manner: “It is a normal mouse with some very useful additional features.” More details were available to “serious buyers,” he or she noted. In fact, incremental disclosure is the means by which the business world has long handled the sale of trade secrets. Trade secrets are designs and processes that aren’t patented, typically because their owners fear that competitors will glean the secret from the patent file and find a way to implement it without violating the strict confines of the patent. (Think Coca-Cola recipe, which has never been patented.) Incremental disclosure became particularly popular in the 1970s, after Asian companies proved maddeningly adept at turning U.S. businesses’ own innovations against them. “Certain offshore organizations with far more experience than us would send armies of guys over to look at information on the pretext of evaluating the company for a joint venture,” says Kathryn Rudie Harrigan, Henry R. Kravis Professor of Business Leadership, at Columbia Business School. “These people were actually intellectual-property vacuum cleaners, and they got away with it until U.S. companies became more savvy and found ways to break their information into pieces with a pricing schedule.” Goel concedes that NDAs and incremental disclosure don’t offer ironclad protection against unscrupulous companies bent on stealing ideas. But he insists that most idea sellers recognize that unethical companies are the exception. “Individuals generally have a sense that companies will treat them fairly,” he says. “It’s in a company’s interest to reward someone for contributing an idea. The value of an uncooked idea is generally a small fraction of the value which the company is going to derive from it. Buying an idea isn’t a one-shot transaction, it’s a magnet for attracting the best ideas going forward.” In other words, the best way to make sure smart thinkers send you their most valuable ideas — as they come up with them — is to buy their half-baked ideas now. Ronald S. Jonash, managing director of Arthur D. Little’s Global Technology and Innovation Management Practice and chief of innovation at ADL, agrees that companies need to be cautious about leaving idea generators feeling exploited. Jonash has worked with the automotive-supply industry and says that employees at many supply companies are not inclined to share new ideas with General Motors because of its reputation for taking ideas and developing them on its own. Chrysler, meanwhile, paid some suppliers to develop promising ideas in exchange for the exclusive rights to the resulting product for two years. That — along with other creative relationships with suppliers — is why Chrysler became the preferred customer of more than 75% of all suppliers, says Jonash. HIGH RISK, HIGH REWARD: “I’d rather fail doing something very ambitious than succeed doing something that’s not ambitious,” says Goel. Even if an Ideas.com posting attracted a company that wanted to do the right thing, the formidable task of placing a value on the idea remained. Typically, the buyer and the seller would take their own shots at coming up with a value and then the negotiations would begin. “When it comes to assessing an idea’s worth before the idea is implemented, wilderness is a good word for describing the position you’re in,” says North Carolina State’s Margolis. In cases where a reasonable sales estimate can be made for products based on the idea, he notes, a royalty of 2% to 10% of revenues is a rough rule of thumb. But if the product couldn’t exist without the idea, he adds, the figure is frequently 30% of revenues and can go even higher. The amount may dip to a tiny fraction of a percent if the idea represents a slight improvement in an established product, such as a better knob in a car. Things only get more complicated from there. In most cases, it’s not clear up front whether an idea will end up being worth implementing at all, let alone how well the resulting product will sell. “Generally speaking, an idea by itself is worth nothing,” says Mel Lazar, managing partner of Lazar Levine & Felix LLP, a New York City accounting firm that specializes in business valuation. “The question is, Can you take that idea and put it into a business in a form that will generate income?” For that reason, Lazar thinks the chances that a company will pay much money for an idea it spots in a Web-site posting are small. And even if it is willing to pay, it will probably enlist a hardball negotiator to get it cheaply. “The average guy would get run over,” he says. Goel doesn’t argue with the suggestion that the majority of posters are unlikely to score big financially. But he points out that for many idea authors, money isn’t the main point. “A large number of people are very happy just seeing their idea taken to fruition, even if they never get paid for it,” he says. “If you come up with an idea for a new windshield wiper and it gets implemented by an automaker and before you know it millions of cars around the world are using it, that’s a very powerful experience.” Of course, the man who had that experience, an inventor named Robert W. Kearns, spent decades in court trying to get automakers to pay up, eventually receiving $30 million. Still, Goel has a point: the average person who comes up with a modestly good idea isn’t likely to hold out for big bucks at the almost certain cost of seeing the idea ignored. In any case, even if the site had been frequented by the most fair-minded of buyers, the vast majority of ideas posted there didn’t seem destined for the big time. Consider this posting, from “skankinARTboy,” for a “Wider Salsa Container”: Hey tostitos — i am a lazy college student. I buy nachos and chips all the time, and i personaly hate that i cannot dip my chips into your tiny containers. Half-way empty your container becomes impossible to dip into. I undestand you can pour it out but guess what? America is lazy, and convience is the key to marketing. So shorter but wider container, same glass cost, it hold the same amount and it is better for all lazy people who sit and eat your chips and salsa on the couch. To help idea buyers skip the junk and root out the gems, Goel worked on “reputation engines” that would have enabled at least some site visitors to rank idea sellers. But he warns that ranking ideas isn’t as reliable as ranking baseball cards on eBay. “It’s hard to say that an individual who in the past has not come up with good ideas will not come up with good ideas in the future,” he says. Conversely, he adds, someone who has had one good idea may not ever come up with a useful idea again. He would not allow sellers to rank buyers. “Everybody believes their idea is very powerful and that it deserves significant reward,” he says. Clearly, posting a random idea in the hope that a company will seek it out and buy it is a long shot. But Goel built some twists into Ideas.com that were intended to strengthen the odds. One was that a company could pay Ideas.com to allow posters to submit ideas for that company only. In fact, of the 50,000 ideas that the site received, 48,000 were such “dedicated” ideas. Unfortunately, many of them were addressed to companies such as Apple and GM that didn’t pay Ideas.com for the privilege of receiving ideas. But Goel didn’t mind. He used the homeless missives to entice those companies to join. Of course, corporations have always received unsolicited ideas from eager innovators, and in general it’s caused them giant headaches. Ideas from the public tend to be not only less than earth-shatteringly useful but also not unique. ADL’s Jonash explains that even in-house ideas typically aren’t original. For instance, after a recent productive brainstorming session that ADL had with a corporate client’s scientists and managers, research revealed that most of the resulting ideas were already known to the industry. But try telling that to the proud idea submitter who is promptly blown off by a corporate R&D manager, only to see his or her idea appear in a product the next year. Large companies are so routinely hit with lawsuits by such sincere but misguided idea producers that, notes Margolis, many have set up departments whose sole function is to ensure that over-the-transom ideas almost never make it to the desk of any employee who might be working on a similar project. From that perspective, a steady stream of unsolicited ideas doesn’t seem like the answer to the business world’s dreams. That’s one reason more-experienced inventors and idea producers often turn to intellectual-property agents who shepherd submissions to corporate buyers and negotiate deals. That’s all well and good, says Goel — if you don’t mind paying commissions of 15% or more and waiting a year to get an answer. Why not let the Internet do what it’s best at? Goel asks — which is avoiding the need for a middleman and eliminating the friction. In fact, Goel Offered an even more compelling use of the Internet than giving idea generators a chance to promote their ideas to corporate buyers. He helped companies put their problems in front of idea generators. When a fee-paying company wanted the public to try its hand at coming up with a winning idea, it posted an “Idea Quest.” Coca-Cola offered $5,000 each for two Idea Quests: “an energized packaging system” and “a new fun and healthy kids’ drink.” And Sears ponied up $5,000 for the best idea for “hand and bench tools for the 21st century.” Ideas.com also wrote its own Idea Quests. Those quests were by far the more interesting, including “new personal handheld devices” and “a better election process for the U.S.” The Idea Quests from outside companies, in contrast, had a public-relations feel to them. Which was exactly as it should have been, says Jonash. He argues that the real benefit of soliciting ideas from the public is not to get usable ideas but rather to make customers feel like part of the team and to provide market research. Steven Kirn, former vice-president of innovation and organization development for Sears, agrees that opening up a dialogue with customers is one of the big payoffs of soliciting ideas. “We wanted an effective and efficient way to make customers feel there’s a point of contact where they can tell us what they’re thinking,” he says. But Kirn also insists that Sears was pleased with the results of the Idea Quest. “Out of 130 to 150 ideas sent in, probably about 12 to 15 of them were pretty viable,” he says. “That’s not a bad ratio of ideas to ideas worth thinking about.” The winning idea — for an improved wet-dry vacuum attachment — might never have made it to the right person’s attention at Sears if it hadn’t been for the contest, he adds. “In the past Sears didn’t have a consistent way to deal with submitted ideas,” he says. “Some might have made it to the fast track, but some probably withered.” Not surprisingly, many entrepreneurs see potential in a marketplace of ideas. Some, like Rob Brazell, coauthor of a 1995 book called The Idea Economy, have focused on mass-market ideas — that is, ideas aimed at Joe Consumer. Brazell, who founded a site named Ideaexchange.com, says, “I wanted the everyday useful idea that would deliver immediate return on investment to consumers.” The ideas that appear at Ideaexchange range from the mundane (how to keep your shoelaces from untying) to the offbeat (how to improve your singing range) to the esoteric (how to double your cattle yield without cutting your wheat yield). Idea buyers rate ideas. I bought an idea for $5 about how to reduce the number of lost signals on cell phones. I’m prohibited from revealing the details. But I can report that the notion was simple and helped a bit. People can also post idea requests on the site. I found one from a businessperson looking for an idea for a Web company, another from someone seeking a shark repellent, and one pleading for antiwrinkle secrets. Brazell is convinced there is gold in such trivialities. He charges idea generators for listing an idea for sale; they name their own price for their ideas. The seller splits any revenues with Ideaexchange. Brazell won’t disclose revenues or profitability but says he has $22 million to work with, all raised from private investors. By this past summer Brazell had expanded his vision of the company and planned to eventually provide paid content of many kinds, including a deep well of how-to information. He recently purchased the assets of the bankrupt eHow, a site that offers thousands of tips on everything from how to feed an orphaned kitten to how to save money on taxes. But Goel’s more direct competition came from sites like IdeaDollar.com, BrightIdea.com, and NewIdeaTrade.com, all of which are gunning for business-oriented ideas. Those sites don’t seem as polished or as well stocked with ideas and idea solicitations as Ideas.com did, but each has its own twist on the concept. It’s too soon to say which of those sites will catch on. Niaz Ahmed, founder of NewIdeaTrade, says that his willingness to let businesses access all ideas on the site without paying any fees gives his advertising-supported site a competitive advantage — at least for the time being. Ahmed, who won’t disclose the company’s financial details, admits, “How long we’ll be able to continue to offer this service for free, I don’t know.” Ideas.com’s short life is, of course, just about over. Visitors had downloaded more than a million pages by the summer, Goel says. The company had raised a second round of financing but was unable to raise a third. At press time Goel and Singh had laid off all their employees, and Goel was jetting off to London to interview, once again, for banking jobs. But Goel, ever upbeat, still believes in his dream. “One day,” he says gamely, “someone’s going to make a lot of money from it. It’s just not going to be us.” Had his financial prospects allowed it, Goel planned to expand his services. He wanted to set up a branded version of the site accessible through Coca-Cola’s Web site; there, visitors would have submitted ideas only to Coca-Cola. Creating branded idea sites was supposed to become an important source of revenues for Goel’s company as more and more businesses recognized the value of soliciting ideas but didn’t want the cost and hassle of building their own idea-handling system from scratch. And he was working on offerings that would have enabled client companies to set up versions of Ideas.com accessible only to specific groups — employees, for example, or suppliers and customers or outside professionals likely to be useful contributors. “These companies already spend a lot of money to reach out to these groups for ideas, even though they might already be members of their commu- nity of interest,” he explains. In fact, Goel had recently changed the name of the company to Ideation Networks Inc., to emphasize that Ideas.com was just one manifestation of a grander plan to set up many different idea-collection engines. Steven Kirn, for one, thinks that’s the right way to go. “Where I think we’re headed is that there will be some problems that we’ll want everyone in the world’s ideas on, and others where we’ll establish relationships with communities of inventors,” he says. Jonash, too, believes that companies will want a portfolio of “idea banks.” Some of the most successful idea networks, he notes, involve large corporations’ paying for the expertise of small companies. Most of the large pharmaceutical companies now work closely with small biotech companies, he points out, and in the computer industry Cisco has created a successful model for providing generous funding to small enterprises and then acquiring them on friendly terms if their technology pays off. Coca-Cola, meanwhile, recently created a sort of in-house incubator called Fizzion to fund and support start-ups whose services could be of value to Coca-Cola. Other large companies are likely to follow those models, and online idea swapping could become a standard part of corporate R&D. Small companies especially may be big beneficiaries of idea networks, since they’re less likely to have experts in-house. And they typically don’t have an army of people that they can send to conferences and trade shows to scope out new ideas, although those are among the best places to find them. Consider Cirrus Design Corp., a small manufacturer of aircraft in Duluth, Minn. Dean Vogel, vice-president of research and technology at Cirrus, notes that some of the company’s ideas for aircraft features come from randomly encountered sources. As an example, he offers the fellow who was ogling one of the company’s planes at an aviation show. The man casually observed that a minivan-style sliding door would make it easier to get into and out of the plane. Vogel overheard him, and Cirrus execs have since been thinking about how a sliding-door mechanism could be made lightweight enough for the plane. “If you can reach out to the world, you’ll be harvesting a lot more brains than you could afford to hire,” says Vogel. Goel had been planning to push the envelope even beyond Ideation Networks. For example, he speaks of creating networks that would enable everyone in a company’s “value chain” — that is, suppliers through customers — to put their heads together not just to trade formal ideas but to interactively solve problems, meet needs, and create new opportunities. But he appears to have also discovered that his concept for commercializing ideas is one idea that the world may not yet be ready to pay for. Even if that’s the case, Goel is not likely to give up permanently on his ambitions. “I don’t like to dabble,” he says. “I like to take my adventures all the way.” David H. Freedman is a contributor to Inc. Hold That Thought When does a simple thought become transformed into something you can buy and sell? Reporter Kate O’Sullivan spoke with some inventors, investors, and experts who’ve struggled with that question. Steve Jurvetson, managing director of venture-capital firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson, invests in early-stage companies. Kevin Rivette is coauthor of Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents. Scott Randall founded FairMarket, which builds online auctions for such businesses as the Miller Brewing Co. John Kowalski, CEO of Load Hog Industries, turned his unlikely invention into a product that attracted the attention of Ford Motor Co. (See ” The Pickup Artist,” June 2001.) And Paul Moller built a company around his own invention — a flying car. (See ” This Is Rocket Science,” July 2000.) Here’s what they said about idea marketplaces. Is an online idea marketplace a valid business concept? Steve Jurvetson: “At some level I do believe that there’s a worldwide marketplace for information. … But I’m not sure there’s a thriving market for patentable ideas.” Paul Moller: “In the early ’70s I could have benefited if I had had such a process available to me. It would have maybe been a great way to get exposure for some of the other products I’ve developed.” What would it take to make something like this work? John Kowalski: “They’d have to build some credibility. Any exchange of soft product is really hard to track. Who’s buying? Who’s selling? What’s been sold? I would think anyone with a substantive idea would be concerned about throwing something like that into the barrel. It might be knocked off, and then you don’t get paid.” What could cause such companies to fail? Kevin Rivette: “If I’m going to download my novel idea into somebody else’s database, that completely eliminates my ability to get patents in other places in the world. Once you’ve made a publication for sale, bingo, you can’t get patent rights. Once you’ve put it up on the site, you’ve published it for sale. That is the triggering event at which point you should have filed for your patent application in most of the world.” What do you think of the notion of corporations’ offering branded idea marketplaces? Scott Randall: “I love the democratization of the idea-collection process. This is the truest form of listening to your customers. The goodwill generated would be enormous. Consumers will shower tremendous loyalty on those companies that are perceived as listening best to their needs. The major caveats would be the legal ownership questions, the potential disputes around people submitting similar ideas but not getting credit, and the royalties associated with paying the inventors.” Is this concept ahead of its time? Paul Moller: “Oh, no. I don’t think it’s ahead of its time at all. I think, like a lot of things, there will probably be half a dozen [companies] that come and half a dozen that go, and I think there will be one who eventually separates himself from the pack.” 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 crÈme de la crÈme 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

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 crÈme de la crÈme 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.

Powering Up Overseas

A Web site maintained by a world traveler in Texas can help you quickly determine what phone line and electrical plug adapters you’ll need when traveling to a specific part of the world. The site, operated on a noncommercial basis by Steve Kropla, contains both descriptive information and useful charts to quickly show you what you need and how to use it. Kropla is employed by a petroleum industry trade association and routinely travels the globe to meet with both industry and government representatives. “As I started traveling with a laptop,” Kropla told Roadnews.com, “I encountered an increasing number of challenges when going overseas. It wasn’t always as simple as having the right adapter. As I accumulated experience and references for my own use, I decided it would probably be useful stuff for other road warriors as well. “The Usenet travel groups still get a lot of posts like ‘What kind of electrical plugs do they use in Australia?’ or ‘Can I use my U.S. modem in Italy?’ My site is designed to help people with those kinds of questions.” Web Site Profile Kropla’s site is divided into five main sections. First there’s the World Wide Phone Guide, which contains descriptive information about how to go online from around the world. It includes information about phone line adapters and line testers and describes what to do in special circumstances, such as when the phone is hard-wired to the wall. There’s also a chart giving you a list of adapters known to be in use in each country. There’s also a list of vendors that sell the necessary adapters and other equipment. The World Electric Guide takes a similar approach, explaining the variations in power supplies around the world and the differences between such things as transformers and converters. There’s a chart that shows the voltage and type of electrical plugs in use in each country. A section of the Web site on international dialing codes provides a fast way to look up country codes for making international phone calls. It’s a good thing to print out and take with you on your next trip. Another section, a World Television Guide, explains the differences among the three main television broadcast standards in the world and tells you which system is in use in each country. Last, Kropla’s site contains a corrupt country index that lists the 10 best and the 10 worst countries in the world when it comes to the need for bribes and the like. The Sources Kropla started collecting data for his various Web site charts in London. A phone plug guide compiled by TeleAdapt, a supplier of such equipment with offices in the U.K., the U.S., and Australia, provided the original data table for the phone plug chart. Then he acquired the National Technical Information Service’s world electric guide and the British Standards Institutes survey of electrical systems and plugs. Later he obtained the AT&T International Dialing Guide. “This information was the foundation, but unfortunately a lot of it is outdated, so there have been regular revisions based on my own observations and the dozens of reports I receive each month,” Kropla says. “Recently I’ve taken to acknowledging and reporting these in the ‘what’s new’ page on the site.” Contact: Steve Kropla’s site is found at http://kropla.com/. He appreciates receiving reports from fellow travelers that can be used to update his Web site. His e-mail address is webmaster@kropla.com. Copyright © 2000 Roadnews.com

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 précis 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.