Tag Archives: Minneapolis

Microsoft Targets Vertical Markets

July 11, 2005–Microsoft has announced that it will increase its focus on industry specialization, creating software products targeted for small businesses in vertical industries such as manufacturing, financial services, and healthcare. Under the guidance of more than 200 “industry experts,” including doctors, bankers, and former state CIOs, Microsoft is currently developing a number of industry-specific software packages. Currently, the new software targets 15 different industries and 66 vertical markets within those industries. Upon this announcement at Microsoft’s annual worldwide partner conference in Minneapolis this weekend, a number of partners raised concerns about Microsoft’s decision to begin selling vertically. However, Microsoft representatives said in a statement that they hope increasing industry focus “will help partners in the small and mid-market develop vertical specializations and expand their business opportunities.” By investing toward developing industry-specific solutions for small business, Microsoft’s vice president of Microsoft Business Solutions Sales Strategy, Craig McCollum, hopes to tap into a rapidly growing, under-served market. “Especially in the small and midmarket segments, channel specialization has not been happening to an extent that fully takes advantage of the tremendous growth,” he said in a statement.

The “Always On” Economy

I don’t envy science-fiction writers. After all, it’s getting pretty hard to stay ahead of the curve these days. Take The Golden Age, the acclaimed novel by John C. Wright. Published in 2002, the novel describes a future 10,000 years away in which people are shadowed at all times by a computer assistant ever ready to deliver dazzling tableaux of information and entertainment, as well as crystal-clear, three-dimensional visual connections to others. As it turns out, we may not have to wait 10 millennia to see Wright’s vision come to life. Three years should do it. When it comes to telecommunications, it’s hard not to feel as if we’re catching up with our own imaginations. Broadband Internet access hurls multimegabyte files at us in seconds, hand-held devices give us our e-mail on the run, Wi-Fi hot spots put us into the office network while enjoying lattes at Starbucks — mobile phones can even determine our exact location and relay it to the police in an emergency. But the networked present is about to look as out of date as a 200-pound Pong console would to a PlayStation Portable-packing teenager. A host of new technologies is on the verge of creating a new, even faster-moving “always on” business culture, in which anyone anywhere can reach out and touch almost anyone or anything else — and not just in text, snapshots, or murky video. At first ding, this might sound like your worst nightmare, especially if you already grumble about our BlackBerry culture. In reality, though, the next wave of electronic connectivity may feel less invasive, and a lot more human, than the current one — especially to the employees, suppliers, and customers of companies that master it. What will that brave new world of telecommunications look like? My guess is it will look a lot like this: 10 a.m. You’re at the airport waiting to board when you get a video call on your mobile phone from a major customer in Europe. You can tell from a twitch of his lips and his finger-tapping that he’s losing patience with the project delays. Your relaxed smile reassures him some, but not as much as the video clips you zap him of the completed mockup that came in from the subcontractors in Bangalore two hours ago. Such a scene is closer than you think. “The quality of PC videoconferencing is becoming amazing,” says Malachy Moynihan, a vice president at Linksys, in Irvine, Calif. New technology already developed by Apple and others relays about 250 times more data than you get with conventional video connections. And such transmissions will look great on the next generation of high-resolution mobile smart phones, thanks to new mobile networks already coming online that send data up to 500 times faster than conventional mobile connections, making even cable modems seem logy. 11:30 a.m. During the flight, you connect your notebook, via the aircraft’s local area network, to the screens of engineers in Minneapolis and Copenhagen, and the three of you collaboratively tweak three-dimensional blueprints of a complex new design. As you move your mouse to suggest a change, a supercomputer 2,500 miles away adjusts the design on everyone’s screen. Later, you review some freshly updated reports and video clips sent by employees and subcontractors scattered around the planet, all of which were blasted wirelessly onto your laptop just before you stepped on the plane. In fact, high-end computing vendor Silicon Graphics in Mountain View, Calif., already sells software that allows a PC user to manipulate ultracomplex images via remote supercomputer. Meanwhile, “infostations” at airports, gas stations, and other hot spots will soon use super-high-speed short-range signals to blast huge files onto passing notebook PCs and mobile devices. As for broadband networks on planes, Lufthansa has offered them for more than a year, and other airlines, including Japan Air and Scandinavian Airlines, are following suit. 2:15 p.m. You land and head over to a branch office, where you take a meeting with other top managers. Because your mobile phone now runs on a supersmart network, the device recognizes your location and knows from prior experience that you rarely take calls when you’re in this particular conference room. It knows not to interrupt you now, instead taking video messages or routing calls to others in the company. But suddenly your phone does chime — it’s a major customer in South America, someone worth interrupting a meeting for. The smart, always-on infrastructure will provide people with unprecedented control over who will be able to reach them and in what circumstances, according to Alain Briancon, chief technology officer at InterDigital, a wireless technology and applications developer in King of Prussia, Pa. Within the next five years, telecommunications networks will be able to recognize patterns in your phone use, understanding which calls you always accept and which are screened — taking into account time of day, location, and even, by noting the location of their phones, who you’re with. 5:20 p.m. In a taxi on the way back to the airport, you replenish your phone’s fuel cell with a razor-blade-size cartridge and reach your son on the school bus to ask him how the game went. Not so well, he says, beaming you a video clip taken by a teammate’s mom that clearly shows the referee wrongly calling him out of bounds on a key play. After commiserating, you call your daughter. She points her mobile phone at the math homework she’s stuck on, and you help her spot the mistake in her work. You reach your wife driving back from work; she suggests you tap into the local news back home, which is just now showing a news clip of the damage from a fire across town. Video-quality mobile phone access will become so inexpensive that you’ll probably want to give it to all your family and employees. Not only that, you won’t need separate wire phone or broadband services — you’ll do it all through a mobile network, for maybe $80 a month combined. “You’ll be able to stop thinking about what it costs to make a call or send a message,” says Michael Gold, senior research engineer at SRI Consulting Business Intelligence in Menlo Park, Calif. As for fuel-cell-powered phones, disposable fuel cells are about to hit the market as a replacement for phone batteries; refillables are a year or so off, and thumbnail-size micro-jet-engine power generators now under development at MIT and elsewhere are about five years off. 7:00 p.m. Back at the airport, your flight delayed, too tired to work, you download a movie that isn’t in theaters yet — it’s been released on the network first. The picture quality, however, is better than that in your local movie theater, which, unlike your phone, has not yet been upgraded to high definition and surround sound. Your network holds all but urgent or family calls and messages while you enjoy the show. Entertainment already dominates data usage on phones, and phone fun is only going to get bigger with rich broadband access as users fill their downtime with multimedia sports clips, 3-D games, and, of course, music. Some new music already is going straight to mobile phones. Robbie Williams’s greatest hits collection, for example, was released on memory card in December in the United Kingdom. Music videos are starting to do the same. The new, more intense, more discriminating level of interaction coming to a pocket near you may well prove so compelling that some businesses will want to restructure themselves around it. There will be a lot of ways to do it: Create closer collaborations between more geographically scattered employees and partners; develop deeper and more frequent connections with customers via always-on video selling, training, and service; even sell services delivered by mobile broadband networks. “The number of applications is going to explode,” says Sanjay Mehta, marketing director for Portal Software in Cupertino, Calif. Sci-fi author Wright needn’t fret about all this stunning progress robbing The Golden Age of its futuristic punch — he was smart enough to work in some interstellar travel. Now, there’s a technology that will safely lag our imaginations for decades, if not millennia. But here’s a bet: By the time we do make it to the stars, our phones will work there. David H. Freedman, a Boston-based writer and Inc. contributing editor, is the author of several books about business and technology.

Jeff Bezos

Jeff Bezos Amazon.com because “optimism is essential” Few entrepreneurs have taken as many lumps in the court of public opinion as Jeff Bezos has since his famous cross-country drive to Seattle in 1994 to found Amazon.com. Even as recently as June 2000, Lehman Brothers analyst Ravi Suria was memorably predicting that Amazon, based on Suria’s analysis of the company’s cash flow, would be unable to service its debt by the first quarter of 2001–and a lot of people believed him. As a result, Bezos had to spend quite a bit of time fending off speculation that bankruptcy was around the corner and explaining why he’d chosen, at least initially, to stress growth over profitability. (The fact that the company’s most famous Wall Street booster had been Henry Blodget only made matters worse, as Blodget sank into infamy even faster than the market declined.) But even fewer entrepreneurs have had the satisfaction of succeeding despite such skepticism. Not long after Amazon announced its first-ever full-year profit, we invited Bezos to talk about how he beat the odds and what the future holds–not just for him and for Amazon but for the entrepreneurial spirit. I’ve joked that in the case of Amazon.com, half of it was good timing, half of it was luck, and the rest of it was brains. And there’s a lot of truth in that. The fact of the matter is, the odds are stacked against any start-up. Heavily so. There’s a huge amount of luck and timing involved. Amazon.com’s most vulnerable moment was when we were trying to raise a million dollars of angel financing–there was a moment there, back in 1995, where the company very easily could have not continued to exist. We probably had meetings with over 60 people, the process took several months to close, and we ultimately raised the money from about 22 different angel investors. And by the way, that’s completely normal: There was a period in the late 1990s when people could, with a single phone call, raise $60 million, but that’s abnormal. If you go out to raise a million dollars for an untested idea–that’s supposed to be hard. And it was. But I am very optimistic. I’m generally a very happy person. My wife says, “If Jeff is unhappy, wait three minutes.” I believe that optimism is an essential quality for doing anything hard–entrepreneurial endeavors or anything else. That doesn’t mean that you’re blind or unrealistic, it means that you keep focused on eliminating your risks, modifying your strategy, until it is a strategy about which you can be genuinely optimistic. People think entrepreneurs are risk-loving. Really what you find is successful entrepreneurs hate risk, because the founding of the enterprise is already so risky that what they do is take their early resources, the small amounts of capital that they have, whatever assets they have, and they deploy those resources systematically, eliminating the largest risk first, the second-largest risk, and so on, and so on. “You don’t choose your passions, your passions choose you.” Entrepreneurship is really more about a state of mind than it is about working for yourself. It’s about being resourceful, it’s about problem solving. If you meet people who seem like really good problem solvers, step back, and you’ll see that they are self-reliant. I spent summers on my grandfather’s ranch, in a small town in Texas; from age four to 16 I probably missed only two summers. One of the things that you learn in a rural area like that is self-reliance. People do everything themselves. My grandfather bought a used D6 Caterpillar bulldozer, and it had a stripped transmission. He had to get a big gear out of this thing and that one gear probably weighed 500 pounds–so he had to build a small crane! That kind of self-reliance is something you can learn, and my grandfather was a huge role model for me: If something is broken, let’s fix it. To get something new done you have to be stubborn and focused, to the point where it might seem unreasonable. But at a certain point, you have to be flexible and change. The hard part, of course, is knowing when to be stubborn and when to be flexible. So we do a lot of experiments. Some of the experiments succeed and some fail, but all of them are designed to improve the customer experience. Look at something like free super saver shipping–our free shipping on orders over $25. That is something we very methodically experimented with for a full year. At first, orders over $99 would ship free, and then orders over $49 would ship free, and then orders over $25 would ship free. We knew that customers would like that, so it was a question of, would it drive enough sales to make it worthwhile? We compared it with a television advertising campaign: We picked two markets, Minneapolis and Portland, Oreg., and for a year we did television advertising just in those markets. We wanted to see if we would get a sufficient lift in sales to justify television advertising, and to compare that with giving the money directly to the customers in the form of free shipping instead of to the television networks. That’s a very customer-experience-focused experiment, and when we were done we decided we would make the $25 free shipping indefinite. It’s been in place now for almost two years. On the other hand, we invested in a number of dot-com companies–Pets.com, Living.com, Kozmo.com, and Homegrocer. Our strategy was to create placeholders for these categories that seemed interesting to us. But ultimately all the businesses I mentioned failed. Of course, if I knew everything I know now, I would have invested the money differently. But that’s hindsight. When you do experiments you have to expect a certain fraction of them not to succeed. Even once you have a strategy that makes sense and holds together from different angles, optimism is essential when trying to do anything difficult because difficult things often take a long time. That optimism can carry you through the various stages as the long term unfolds. And it’s the long term that matters. If you look at the online space over the next 20 years, you’re going to continue to see innovation. Certainly things are different from nine years ago, but there are still going to be thousands and thousands of successful companies. This is a big industry, and it’s going to have lots and lots of winners, of all sizes. Amazon itself has a kind of ecosystem of people involved in entrepreneurial activities. We have 600,000 active seller accounts now, and over 900,000 associates–the websites that link to us–and a lot of those are small businesses with multiple employees. We recently started making available software kits that let people use the basic building blocks of Amazon.com to build their own websites and e-commerce applications and so on, and we’ve had over 50,000 downloads. That’s beyond what we would have expected. If I were just setting out today to make that drive to the West Coast to start a new business, I would be looking at biotechnology and nanotechnology. I also think about data security–every time you read about the next computer virus, you wonder if there aren’t entrepreneurial solutions to that. These are fundamental technologies, things that are going to change the world. But the truth is, I probably wouldn’t do any of those things because I grew up programming computers. So maybe I’d think about data security, but I’m sure I’d do something with software and computer science and software engineering. Certainly, in the spring of 1994, the thing that motivated the formation of Amazon.com was noticing that Web usage was growing at 2,300% a year. One of the huge mistakes people make is that they try to force an interest on themselves. If you’re really interested in software and computer science, you should focus on that. But if you’re really interested in medicine, and you decide you’re going to become an Internet entrepreneur because it looks like everybody else is doing well, then that’s probably not going to work. You don’t choose your passions, your passions choose you. One of the reasons you saw so many companies that were formed in 1998 or 1999 fail is that they were chasing the wave. And that usually doesn’t work. Find that area that you are interested in and passionate about–and wait for the wave to find you.–Rob Walker Rob Walker is a contributing editor. Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com because “optimism is essential” Betsey Johnson, Betsey Johnson for her stylish life Russell Simmons, Rush Communications for his powerful example Scott Cook, Intuit because he learns, and teaches Sergey Brin & Larry Page, Google for their integrity. And, well, for Google David Neeleman, JetBlue for creating an airline fit for humans Tom Stemberg, Staples for doing it exactly right Jack Stack, SRC Holdings for going naked Judy Wicks, White Dog Enterprises because she’s put in place more progressive business practices per square foot than any other entrepreneur Davin Wedel, Global Protection because he’s a lifesaver Pat McGovern, International Data Group for knowing the power of respect Steve Jobs, Apple Computer, Pixar because we like to be seduced Lance Morgan, Ho-Chunk because a man must make his own arrows–Winnebago proverb James Goodnight, SAS for saying no to Wall Street (repeatedly) and yes to the people who really matter Stella Ogiale, Chesterfield Health Services for doing good while doing well Rhonda Kallman, New Century Brewing for seizing opportunity– again and again Laima Tazmin, LAVT because she’s a lot like other kids–and then again… Laura & Pete Wakeman, Great Harvest Bread for living a little –no, a lot Andra Rush, Rush Trucking for rolling up her sleeves Kathleen Wehner, Cirrus Aviation for refusing to quit Frank Venegas, Ideal Group because he parlayed a little bit of luck into a lot of good fortune for others Dan Wieden, Wieden + Kennedy because he’s a true independent John Sperling, Apollo Group because he stirs the pot, and apparently always will John Stollenwerk, Allen-Edmonds for his commitment to U.S. workers. We also love the shoes Mel Zuckerman, Canyon Ranch for showing the way

Man vs. Machine

Most people assume that certain things about contemporary office technology are a given — computers, telephones, voice mail. But Paul Estenson, CEO of E Group (#469), a Minneapolis-based marketing-services company, isn’t most people. When he started the business, in 1994, funds were so tight that he opted not to purchase a voice-mail service as part of his telecom plan. Instead, he set up a chain of command within E Group to route customers’ phone calls to a live person within the company who could help callers with their requests. As his business grew and funds became available for an automated-messaging service, Estenson decided to stick to his live-only system; he’d been frustrated too many times by getting a supplier’s voice mail during the business day, when he needed information at once. (After hours, E Group does resort to using voice mail, however.) “We’re in a last-minute, we-want-it-yesterday industry, where our customers have specific needs to be addressed immediately,” says Estenson. “If we miss a call or procrastinate on a voice message, our customers call our competition — and we can’t afford that. We answer every call and service the customer right then and there.” That strategy, he believes, has given E Group a competitive edge. And while his unusual tactics have been questioned by business advisers and associates, Estenson stands firmly behind his low-tech policy — as do his customers. Surveys show that 90% of E Group’s customers applaud his anti-voice-mail stance. –Mike Leonard What’s one of the key components to a restaurant’s success? Well, food, ambience, and location, of course. But if a restaurateur can’t figure out how to speed up the dining experience to turn over tables multiple times during peak lunch or dinner hours while still allowing diners to feel welcome and well tended to, profits will never become part of the mix. Stephen Kline, who along with his wife, Bo, co-owns Typhoon (#417), a small chain of Thai restaurants in the Pacific Northwest, is well aware of that imperative. That’s why he’s working with Vectron Systems, a German software company, to develop a handheld computer system that would supersede the centralized touch-screen computer that’s the industry norm. By switching to handhelds, which are still very cutting-edge for the restaurant world, Kline estimates that his waitstaff could save 15 minutes per table. “They’d be able to place orders more quickly and get notification from the kitchen as soon as dishes were ready,” he says. The system that Kline is hoping to install is a complicated one, since Typhoon has a complex menu that includes 60 to 70 regular dishes, 150 to 200 variations, and specials. Kline is planning to test the new handhelds in two of his four restaurants by mid-November. –Evelyn Roth Now Manage, Dammit Hiring and Retention Employment Guaranteed, for Life Keeping It Flexible High Tech / Low Tech Only Connect Man vs. Machine Morals A Strategic Misalliance Please e-mail your comments to editors@inc.com.

Special Technology Report: Inside Story

Special Technology Report The Internet promised to drastically change your business. Now state-of-the-art small-company intranets are actually delivering on that promise. Instant word-association test: What comes to mind when you hear the terms intranet and extranet? Chances are, it’s something like this: Big-company stuff. Internal Web sites with multimillion-dollar price tags at places like Hewlett-Packard and GE and Charles Schwab. Hotshot technology that my small business wouldn’t use and doesn’t need. And even if we did need it, we couldn’t afford it. Right? Guess again. True, intranets come to the party with a big-company, big-bucks reputation — and deservedly so. The earliest private Web-based networks began at Fortune 500 giants like Ford Motor Co. and Sun Microsystems. The best, in some cases, save more money than many small businesses make in a year. And true, they’ve typically involved large-scale initiatives, such as linking thousands of workers worldwide or putting millions of documents online. But here’s some news that is just as true: private Web sites are changing small business, big time. Small and midsize companies are turning to intranets (and their external cousins, extranets) in much the same way they turned to the public Web a few years ago. And in some cases, they’re getting far more favorable results with the private sites. Many are using them to fundamentally change some aspect of their business. A pioneering few are using the sites to drive their company’s entire strategy. And they’re doing it using technology once viewed as strictly a big-company tool. We’re not talking about companies’ using internal networks as electronic filing cabinets for human-resources forms or bulletin boards where Joe in accounting can advertise a used Jeep for sale. We’re talking about entrepreneurs’ strategically using a broad range of intranet-extranet efforts to gain a competitive foothold in a tight economy, typically by nurturing existing relationships or creating conduits for new ones. On one end of that spectrum are the rare companies run primarily, or entirely, on private Web sites that let them easily connect with employees, partners, or customers. One of those companies is 1-800-GOT-JUNK, a Vancouver, B.C., trash-removal business whose intranet for its franchisees, called JunkNet, helped to fuel the company’s growth from $2 million in revenues in 1999 to $10 million last year. Another is Boston-based SeniorLink, a fledgling company that will launch an extranet later this year to help baby-boomer customers nationwide find care-management services for their aging parents. On the opposite end are traditional companies that are using intranets to transform one practice, with effects that ripple through the rest of their culture. A sterling example: Extreme Logic Inc., an Atlanta-based technology consulting firm. Like many growing companies, Extreme Logic handles job-performance reviews online. What’s unusual is that the company encourages its corporate clients to log on and evaluate the employees who serve them. As a result, company officials say, Extreme Logic has deepened relationships with customers by letting them know they’re trusted partners whose opinions count. In the middle of the spectrum are companies with the most intriguing stories: those whose private sites create unprecedented opportunities. At TemPositions Group, a New York City-based staffing company, an intranet instantly matches customers’ requests for temporary employees with contractors who best fit the bill, allowing the 125-employee business to successfully bid against giant national staffing companies for major contracts. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, a Pittsburgh-based law firm, now coordinates hundreds of product-liability claims filed nationwide against one of its major clients, thanks to sophisticated technology that makes it possible for the firm’s lawyers to share court documents with other lawyers in 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. And Eminent Research Systems, in Minneapolis, uses an intranet to dramatically speed up its ability to coordinate protocol documents for medical-device tests, thereby helping the company to increase its business capacity tenfold. It’s impossible to find hard numbers on how many companies are jumping onto the private Web. The few studies done to date confirm only that a growing number of small companies have either launched a private network or expect to do so soon. Most, it appears, still use the technology for pedestrian purposes: storing documents, sharing files, ordering supplies. But we’ve found a handful of cutting-edge entrepreneurs who are using intranets and extranets to transform their business strategies, in most cases by helping their companies forge new relationships. OPEN BOOK: Dennis L. Veraldi says that his law firm’s extranet improves services for clients. What’s propelling this small-business intranet revolution? Experts tick off a number of drivers: the migration of big-business practices to small-business scale, recession-driven pressure to find new ways to get new customers or better serve existing ones, and increased comfort with doing business online. “All the things that the major corporations were doing two or three years ago are trickling down to the small-business realm,” says Ryan Bernard, president of Wordmark Associates Inc., a Houston consulting firm, and author of The Corporate Intranet. “The larger corporations were the proving ground.” Web-usability consultant Jakob Nielsen, whose Nielsen Norman Group, in Fremont, Calif., annually honors 10 outstanding intranets, has recently noticed that more small companies are making the list. Says Nielsen, “That proves it’s possible to get good effect out of an intranet without being a huge corporation.” Other experts call the trend evolutionary, saying that it is picking up speed as companies conduct more and more business online. Nearly everyone can use a Web browser, which means that nearly everyone can adapt almost instantly to a Web-based network. And small companies can now choose from a broad range of intranet options, from cut-rate do-it-yourself models to cutting-edge, custom-designed systems. Admittedly, the trend’s leaders tend to spend freely to launch, staff, and maintain their private Web sites. Initial five- or six-figure investments aren’t unusual, and some ambitious companies may well spend more. But there are plenty of less pricey options, ranging from having a savvy staffer do the job in-house to renting the service. (See ” Spin Your Own,” below.) Perhaps the most remarkable cultural change is how many entrepreneurs are overcoming their natural reticence to share information, inside the company or out. Brian Chavis, CEO of ARGroup, a Web and intranet developer based in Leesburg, Va., says that he used to have to pitch the idea of private networks to his customers. “I don’t have to do that anymore,” he says. “Our clients are telling me that they want this.” What they want, as the leading examples show, are new and better ways to connect with customers, employees, and partners. Rather than blindly following the late-1990s mantra to endlessly hurl money at their public Web sites in hopes of expanding their reach, many companies now look inward for ways to better serve customers they’ve already got. “Companies are saying, ‘Let’s really strengthen those relationships as much as possible,” says Ray Boggs, vice-president of small-business and home-office research at IDC, in Framingham, Mass. Randy J. Hinrichs couldn’t agree more. Hinrichs, group research manager in learning sciences and technology for Microsoft Research and author of Intranets: What’s the Bottom Line?, says intranets and extranets provide the perfect environment for small companies to create and nurture the partnerships they need to thrive. He makes the goal sound almost romantic. “You make long-term, meaningful relationships by saying, ‘We can share each other’s data,’ and knowing that it’s going to be consistent and trustworthy,” he says. Executives at Atlanta IT-consulting firm Extreme Logic consider it critical to forge long-term commitments with both employees and customers. So the company sends both to its combo intranet-extranet for performance reviews. The system hasn’t directly affected Extreme Logic’s revenues, which topped $30 million last year. But it’s improved the company’s own showing in two top-priority areas: retaining star performers and nurturing all employees. When workers leave — whether they’re hired away by competitors or fired for poor performance — the company spends as much as three times an employee’s annual salary to find and train a replacement. Getting quick online feedback directly from customers lets Extreme Logic reward its stars and provide specific improvement goals for everyone else. The approach seems to work. Mike Williams, who oversees human resources, says the company’s turnover rate is 5% to 10% lower than the IT industry standard. And since the company added the performance-evaluation feature to its intranet, 18 months ago, about 80% of its employees and managers feel that they’re working toward the same goals, compared with 52% before, according to an internal study. For TemPositions, making connections quickly is what counts. The company, one of 350 temporary-staffing agencies in New York City, has begun bidding against the big boys — including $4.1-billion Kelly Services — for major contracts. To compete against the industry giants, TemPositions focuses on what CEO and president James Essey calls its core strength: delivering the perfect worker faster. And to do that, TemPositions relies on an intranet that, much like a dating service, instantly matches customer requests with the best available contract employees. If, for instance, a client company needs a registered nurse with pediatric experience, the TemPositions intranet automatically E-mails the job offer to the best-qualified candidates. The system excludes temps who are already on assignments or unavailable because of vacation or illness. When contractors accept gigs, the intranet automatically E-mails them a link to their own personal job bank sites, where they find assignment sheets with dates, prices, a map, and supervisor contact information. When temps reject offers or don’t respond, the intranet solicits the next person in line. Corporate customers can even make their own temp requests online. Essey says the do-it-yourself convenience “cements us to the customer in a big way because once they get into the system and see all the information there, they’re less likely to go to a competitor.” That’s a far cry from the traditional temp-placement process, which typically requires hours of telephone tag. (Customers call the agency with a personnel request, and then agency employees dig through paper files, call candidates, and wait for return calls.) And the streamlined process, in turn, has allowed the 40-year-old company to go after huge long-term contracts it couldn’t even have considered before. At press time, TemPositions was competing for a contract to supply the New York City schools with more than 1,000 temps in a variety of areas, including curriculum and course development and counseling. “We couldn’t bid on it if we didn’t have these tools,” says Essey. “We’d need enough employees to fill a football-field-size call center.” TemPositions, which had about $30 million in revenues in 2001, spent $250,000 building its intranet in 1998 — primarily, Essey says, on Web design and for the salaries of a chief information officer, a programmer, and a technology troubleshooter — and it continues to spend liberally on salaries, equipment upgrades, and maintenance. “It’s not free,” he acknowledges. At the same time, he expects the intranet to reduce the company’s head count — eliminating, for instance, the need for data-entry staffers. Essey says those savings are well worth the investment. GRAND SCALE: James Parks credits his firm’s extranet for letting Eckert Seamans go national. Speed was the issue at Eminent Research Systems, in Minneapolis, where clogged procedural arteries were stunting the company’s growth. The $7-million, 22-employee company specializes in coordinating trials for heart and blood-vessel devices such as stents — products that typically have a market life span of only 18 months before they’re replaced by newer models. Previously, Eminent sent 150- to 500-page study-protocol documents to participating physicians and regulators, who marked them up and mailed them back. Sometimes the hefty hard copies made several round trips before everybody agreed on protocols — a process that typically took at least two months. The lengthy procedure caused some customers to forgo putting their devices on the market altogether, which meant less work for Eminent. “Turnaround time is key,” says Linda Laak, vice-president and chief operating officer. “Our competition is not necessarily another company but whether or not the client will do the study at all.” That changed in February 2001, when Eminent launched an extranet that allows doctors nationwide to collaborate on protocols electronically. The system sliced the approval process from two months to two weeks. Meanwhile, although Eminent spent $50,000 to launch its private Web site, Laak estimates that the company saves 10 times that amount by eliminating the “heavy lifting”: shipping, storage, and paying the salaries of two administrative people who handled all the documents. And the company can handle 10 times as many projects at once as it could before, resulting in a 40% increase in revenues. At Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, the Pittsburgh law firm, an extranet became the key to going national without opening any additional offices. The 44-year-old firm wanted to serve as the national coordinator for thousands of product-liability claims against a major client. But the firm couldn’t possibly set up shop in all the affected jurisdictions: 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Instead, the firm’s executive team decided it needed two things: a network of partners and a network connecting them. Those partners were, and are, “local counsel” — dozens of far-flung law firms that Eckert Seamans hired to handle claims in their own states. The network that connects them is Eckert Seamans’s extranet, which contains all related documents, including briefs, transcripts, interviews, research, medical and scientific information, and correspondence. Obviously, storing paperwork in one location helps everybody access documents faster. But Eckert Seamans argues that the extranet provides two more important benefits. First, it’s an unprecedented way to provide clients with a consistent nationwide defense by making sure that all the lawyers are literally on the same page. In addition, it saves time and money by providing those far-flung partners with research to strengthen the cases in their states. And the extranet lets the firm’s 215 lawyers coordinate cases in a way they couldn’t have before. “There is no way we could have managed and provided oversight to claims in Texas or California,” says the firm’s executive director, James Parks, citing the time and cost of constant travel, telephone calls, and shipping tons of hard copies cross-country. The system, part of a firmwide technology overhaul, didn’t come cheap: Parks estimates that Eckert Seamans has invested nearly $1.3 million so far, including construction costs to create a separate technology center. But chief operating officer Dennis L. Veraldi is philosophical about the cost. “Sophisticated, larger clients just expect that you’re going to be able to do those things, that you have the capability to service them,” he says. The firm doesn’t even worry much about tracking the system’s return on investment. “It’s part of the infrastructure, part of the overhead,” Parks says. “You have to manage it the same way you manage supplies or telephones or receptionists or libraries or anything else.” But he credits the technology with cutting legal-work costs by 6% to 7% annually and allowing the firm to take on more clients. But Eckert Seamans does worry about security breaches — and not just those involving hackers. The firm must also protect itself against possible security breaches involving the very partners for whom it established the intranet: those local-counsel firms. “Yes, we’re working with them, but they’re still competitors,” Veraldi says. So the firm relies on a combination of firewalls, multiple passwords, and encryption to make sure those faraway lawyers get access only to the appropriate cases — and only for the length of their contracts. For Eckert Seamans and other early adopters, the challenge now is staying ahead of the curve while not getting too far out in front. As Parks puts it: “We’re going to be very judicious about what we implement. We have to ask, ‘Are we letting the technology drag us? Or are we dragging the technology in a way that’s beneficial to us and our clients?’ “ But intranet evangelists believe the potential drawbacks — security concerns, cost, and the constant challenge of keeping current — pale when compared with the rewards gained from creating new partnerships and strengthening existing ones. Especially in a tough economy, the ability to forge new and stronger links offers small companies the best kind of competitive advantage. Anne Stuart is a senior writer at Inc. Jill Hecht Maxwell is a staff writer. Send your comments to editors@inc.com. Spin Your Own Why not? It’s getting cheaper. The companies mentioned here got transformational results from their intranets, but they spent a bundle. You don’t have to pay your way into intranet nirvana. There are less costly ways to get a little closer to the light. As more small businesses have started using private Web sites, software vendors and application service providers (ASPs) have found ways to reduce the pain of building them. Their offerings range from robust software packages to cheap, basic ones that a monkey can set up online in minutes. So how do you decide which path to follow? James Parks, who led the intranet project at Eckert Seamans, offers a few suggestions. BEEF UP SECURITY. Parks won’t touch a system that doesn’t force users to pass through three electronic checkpoints to enter. But if you don’t run a law firm, you may not need security worthy of the CIA. CREATE MULTIPLE LEVELS OF USER ACCESS. Some users need to read files; others need to edit them. Only a few should be allowed to delete them. So you should be able to determine whom you’ll allow into each part of your intranet and what they can do once they get there. DO AN INVENTORY OF YOUR EXISTING DATA. Can you easily move information from your company databases onto the intranet? When Parks started his firm’s project, Eckert Seamans already had 40-plus years’ worth of data living on its systems. CONSIDER STORAGE. If you’ve got 40 dedicated databases on seven mammoth servers, as Eckert Seamans does, don’t even consider the intranets that you can rent for a few dollars per user monthly. They won’t provide anywhere near the storage space you need. So if you need high security and have lots of users and mountains of information, you should start by looking at midpriced software packages — and perhaps talking with a consultant who’s built at least a few intranets before. For less than $6,000, you’ll find software from more than a dozen vendors, like Planet Intra, in Mountain View, Calif. Planet Intra’s software lets regular nontechie people create multiple levels of security access. All employees can use it to publish Web-ready content on a site, even if they don’t know HTML from TCBY. Of course, if you have a decent techie on staff, you can build your own simple intranet with a program like Microsoft FrontPage. You won’t need a firewall if you’re not letting anyone outside your office log on. Finally, if your needs are simple — say, you want a group to share a calendar, swap documents, and hold online discussions — you can set up an intranet for practically nothing. Intranets.com, the King Kong of off-the-shelf intranet ASPs, charges between $3 and $6 per user per month. Competitor InfoStreet charges $3 per user per month. Or try Microsoft’s SharePoint Team Services, which comes free with Office XP Professional Special Edition. Intranet gurus say that no matter which method you elect, there’s at least one thing you should do to ensure that your intranet doesn’t turn into the electronic equivalent of Euro Disney. Find out what would make your employees’ lives easier. People won’t use the intranet if it doesn’t help them. “Think about human needs as opposed to technology,” says Jakob Nielsen of the Nielsen Norman Group. –Jill Hecht Maxwell Still want more information on building your private Web site? Visit www.inc.com/keyword/intranet. Please E-mail your comments to editors@inc.com. Related Links: TemPositions Intranet Make Your Intranet Click Intranet Shortfalls

The Best Small-Business Sites in America

Web Awards: Best Practices We went looking for a few outstanding Web sites. That’s exactly what we found. Earlier this year Inc invited entrepreneurs to enter the magazine’s third annual Web Awards competition. Nearly 800 did so. The Inc editorial staff and a blue-ribbon panel of outside experts reviewed the entries, slowly narrowing the field to an elite constellation of 16 small-business Web stars. One of those sites — a California adventure-travel site — was named our all-around champion, earning Inc‘s prestigious General Excellence award. So what distinguished the honorees from the also-rans? What lifted those few finishers out of the crowd and into the winners’ circle? For our best-in-show choice, it’s a pretty simple formula: cool, useful features plus strong customer service equals big-time success online. Judges unanimously praised All-Outdoors Whitewater Rafting, of Walnut Creek, Calif. ( www.aorafting.com), for creating a site with streamlined good looks and nifty mile-by-mile virtual river tours. But they were even more impressed with the company’s online customer service. Web-site visitors can check trip availability, ask questions, make tentative reservations, price gear, get maps, check river and weather conditions, arrange accommodations, and even qualify for last-minute discounts. (See ” A Web Strategy Runs Through It.”) “What’s not to be wowed by?” asked judge Ron Zemke, president of Performance Research Associates Inc., in Minneapolis. “It loads quickly, it’s clean, it’s easy to understand. It has a wonderful balance of information, glitz, and service features.” Not to mention the family-owned company’s remarkable return on investment; in fact, the site is also Inc’s second-place finisher in the ROI category. Then there’s Nova Cruz Products LLC ( www.xootr.com), a New Hampshire scooter manufacturer that earned Inc’s honorable mention for General Excellence, as well as first place in Design and a third-place finish in Marketing. The Nova Cruz site looks terrific. More important, though, it gets the job done. As one judge put it: “They exhibit their products well and make it easy to find out what you want to know in a visually appealing way.” Overall, however, our judges insist there’s still plenty of room for improvement. They visited many sites where, as Gertrude Stein once observed of Oakland, Calif., there was no there there. “Too many were devoid of content and did nothing but look good,” said judge Jakob Nielsen, a principal at the Nielsen Norman Group, in Fremont, Calif. Put another way, many sites simply lacked value. Said Nielsen: “There has to be some reward to the user from visiting a site. Especially in business.” Even some of the best small-business sites could benefit from better online branding. One judge called the much-admired Nova Cruz site pretty but somewhat unfocused. “What is the name of this company?” asked a slightly exasperated Bill Demas, an executive vice-president at Vividence Corp., a consulting company in San Mateo, Calif. “Is it Xootr? Urban Transport? Or Nova Cruz?” (He’s referring to the Web site’s home page, which features all three names. For the record, Nova Cruz is the name of the company, Xootr is its product’s name, and urban transport is its mission.) And many site owners still haven’t learned that Web users have no patience for pages that take forever to materialize. “It took over a minute for some product photos and descriptions to load,” one judge observed in disgust. “Totally unacceptable in a world where customers get itchy fingers after eight seconds.” Other sites use Flash technology to create intricate introductions with dancing graphics on their home pages. Increasingly, those same sites feature a button that users can click to skip the show — raising the question of why the company bothered with Flash technology in the first place. Many small-business sites seem to fall victim to the too-much-is-better theory: they cram every centimeter of every page with tiny, hard-to-read text and links. Or they indiscriminately clutter their sites with additional articles, tips, and other resources. In its Web Awards application, one entrant wrote the following about its content-stuffed site: “The first impression you get when you come to our site is that it is an exclusively information [sic] site.” “That’s a problem,” pointed out judge Phil Terry, CEO of New York City-based Web-strategy company Creative Good Inc. However well intended, that tidal wave of supporting materials drowns out the retailer’s real mission: selling products. “It took eight clicks to find a price list,” Performance Research’s Zemke observed of the same site. “That’s something consumers hate.” Even the best small-company sites still struggle with technology. Nova Cruz, our General Excellence runner-up, was off-line for several days during judging owing to a router problem. “It was shocking to see that several sites were not up and running during the judging,” tsk-tsked Marcia Yudkin, a Boston-based author of several Internet-marketing guides. One travel agency’s site, rated highly by several judges, missed becoming a finalist because of its own technical horror story. But for all those warts and wrinkles, this year’s best sites prove that the Web still offers promise. “I see companies slowly becoming more sophisticated about using the Web as a place to do business in all its forms,” said judge Ryan Bernard, president of Wordmark Associates Inc., in Houston. “The entrants ran the gamut of sophistication from those who still see the Web as only an E-commerce tool to those who see it as a way to build and manage business activities.” Judge John Hartnett, CEO of BlueMissile, a Web-design company in Minneapolis, agreed. “What struck me was the diversity in budgets and approaches — all of which seemed to add up to the same excellent results,” he said. Based on those results, we developed what amounts to a blueprint for small-business Web-site success. Call it the “Seven Best Practices of Highly Effective Web Sites.” The winners have these characteristics: 1. They’re run by people who know what they want. Whether they’re one-person marketing sites, corporate intranets, or E-commerce efforts, our winners have clear strategies, goals, and priorities. Best example: All-Outdoors Whitewater Rafting. CEO Gregg Armstrong wanted to boost revenues by scheduling more trips and reducing the number of empty seats on each day’s expeditions. In addition to generating new business by expanding the company’s reach far beyond its northern California base, the site makes trips more profitable by offering discounts to customers who fill last-minute vacancies or book trips for off-peak dates. That helped the nearly 40-year-old company hit a record $2 million in revenues last year, up from $1 million in 1993. 2. They use technology that’s appropriate to their mission. Again, our General Excellence honorees provide sterling examples. At All-Outdoors Whitewater, it’s the virtual mile-by-mile tours and equipment illustrations. At Nova Cruz it’s the all-angle views of those hot little scooters. Cadkey Corp. ( www.cadkey.com), a software company based in Marlborough, Mass., our second-place finisher in Customer Service, earned our judges’ respect for its judicious use of Flash animation technology. Cadkey’s Flash presentation appears on the middle of its home page “but doesn’t dominate it,” said Bruce D. Weinberg, associate professor of marketing and E-commerce at Bentley College, in Waltham, Mass. “Every other part of the home page is visible and available” — a blend of dazzle and restraint that customers undoubtedly appreciate. 3. They streamline design. More and more, successful Web sites are demonstrating that when it comes to design, the most important issues are clarity and ease of use. “Too many sites used nonstandard navigation, probably in an attempt to be leading edge. One of the entries even mentioned this as a goal,” said Web-design guru Nielsen. “You don’t impress people by being difficult to use. You impress them by taking the standard design elements they already know and using them well and by stressing informative and helpful content.” Of course, there’s no such thing as the one best way to design a Web site. Successful approaches are as varied as the customers they target. What’s important is that a site’s design reflect an understanding of the needs and desires of its end users. (See ” Duh-sign of the Times.”) 4. They make sure their sites work. Enough said. 5. They make it easy for customers to learn about and contact them. Often, accomplishing that is as simple as creating two key pages — “About Us” and “Contact Us” — and making them highly visible on the home page and easily accessible from anywhere else on the site. The About Us page should tell the company’s story, at the very least including a mission statement or explanation of “what we do,” a brief history, and short bios of key executives. It might also include customer testimonials, press releases, and links to media coverage. The Contact Us page should give visitors everything they need to reach the company: mailing addresses, E-mail links, phone and fax numbers, and, if appropriate, driving directions and a list of whom to contact for what. In addition, it’s a good idea to prominently post the company’s privacy policies, explaining what information the business is collecting and how it will be used. 6. They do ROI reality checks. It’s important to know just what you’re gaining from all that time, money, and expertise you’ve poured into your Web site. Nobody does it better than our first-place ROI winner, Ipswitch Inc. ( www.ipswitch.com). Because the software developer, based Lexington, Mass., examines ROI from every conceivable angle, its executives know that for every dollar they spent on Web- related salaries and resources last year, they generated $22 in online sales. They also know that had those sales been handled by real live customer-service and sales reps, the company would have spent an additional $2 million on salaries. (See ” Many Happy Returns,” page 150.) 7. They constantly look for new ways to expand their Web use. Those range from digital newsletters to online forums to contests to relevant activities encouraging customer loyalty and participation. For example, Earth Treks Inc. ( www.earthtreksclimbing.com), a mountaineering company based in Columbia, Md., won second-place Marketing honors for creative features such as climbers’ journals and virtual participation in climbing expeditions. (See ” Traffic Magnets.”) Such interactive efforts are, in fact, a prerequisite for success on the Web, says judge Beerud Sheth, cofounder of eLance Inc., in Sunnyvale, Calif. “Web sites need to facilitate interaction and transaction,” he says. “Teasing Web users with content online just to pull them off-line is not the right approach. The businesses that will succeed online are the ones that provide users with as much of that experience online as possible.” Overall, our judges say, this year’s competition proves that, despite the setbacks of the past couple of years, Web-based small business is far from finished. “The Web lives!” crowed Richard W. Oliver, professor of management at Owen Graduate School of Management at Vanderbilt University. “Companies with a good plan and reasonable dollars and a sensible approach can still make money on the Web.” Anne Stuart is a senior writer at Inc. The 2001 Inc Web Awards The Best Small-Business Sites in America The 2001 Inc Web Awards: Winners A Web Strategy Runs Through It Traffic Magnets Duh-sign of the Times Home Groan Many Happy Returns Please e-mail your comments to editors@inc.com.

The 2001 Inc Web Awards: Winners

The 2001 Inc Web Awards General Excellence Winner All-Outdoors Whitewater Rafting www.aorafting.com First place, Customer Service Second place, ROI Marketing finalist Honorable Mention Nova Cruz Products LLC www.xootr.com First place, Design Third place, Marketing ROI finalist Customer Service First place All-Outdoors Whitewater Rafting www.aorafting.com Second place Cadkey Corp. www.cadkey.com Third place Street Glow Inc. www.streetglow.com Design First place Nova Cruz Products LLC www.xootr.com Second place TidalWire Inc. www.tidalwire.com Third place Mosca www.moscahome.com Management (intranets and extranets*) First place Sunbelt Business Brokers Network Inc. www.sunbeltnetwork.com Second place National Services Group www.nationalservicesgroup.com Third place SLP Capital www.slpcapital.com Marketing First place Merriman Capital Management www.fundadvice.com Second place Earth Treks Inc. www.earthtreksclimbing.com Third place Nova Cruz Products LLC www.xootr.com ROI First place Ipswitch Inc. www.ipswitch.com Second place All-Outdoors Whitewater Rafting www.aorafting.com Third place The Connoisseur.cc Ltd. www.low-carb.com Sole Proprietors First place Limelight www.limelightart.com Second place Somerset Estate Sales www.somerset-estate-sales.com Third place Restaurant Connection Inc. www.restaurantstaffing.com *Management awards are given for Web sites that are password protected, so the URLs are only for the companies’ general sites. How the 2001 Inc Web Awards winners were selected: Earlier this year, 800 small businesses applied online for the 2001 Inc Web Awards. Using an Internet-based judging site, members of the Inc editorial staff screened all applications, eliminating ineligible entries and selecting finalists in six categories: Customer Service, Design, Management (intranets and extranets), Marketing, Return on Investment (ROI), and Sole Proprietors. We then had outside judges (listed on facing page) review the Web sites and submit comments and recommendations. Based on the judges’ input, Inc selected the winners. The Judges Ryan Bernard is president of Wordmark Associates Inc., in Houston, and the author of The Corporate Intranet. Mary E. Boone is the president of Boone Associates, in Norwalk, Conn., and author of Managing Inter@ctively: ExecutingBusiness Strategy, Improving Communication, and Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture. Bonny Brown is director of research at Vividence Corp., in San Mateo, Calif. Erik Brynjolfsson is codirector of the Center for eBusiness@MIT at the Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in Cambridge, Mass. Michelle Chambers is the president and founder of New Tilt, in Somerville, Mass. Larry Chase is a New York-based marketing consultant, author of Essential Business Tactics for the Net, and publisher or Web Digest for Marketers in New York City. Steve Crummey is the cofounder and chairman of Intranets.com Inc., in Woburn, Mass. Bill Demas is an executive vice-president of Vividence Corp., in San Mateo, Calif. Paul Edwards is a self-employment consultant and the coauthor of Home-Based Business for Dummies. He is based in Pine Mountain Club, Calif. Martin T. Focazio is the CEO of Martin T. Focazio LLC, in Upper Black Eddy, Pa., and author of The e-Factor. Jeffrey Harkness is the cofounder of Diesel Design in San Francisco and the host of CNet’s monthly Design Talk radio program. John Hartnett is the CEO and president of BlueMissile, in Minneapolis. Randy J. Hinrichs is the group research manager in Learning Sciences and Technology, Microsoft Research, Microsoft Corp., in Redmond, Wash., and the author of Intranets: What’s the Bottom Line? Donna L. Hoffman is a professor of management, director of the electronic commerce concentration, and codirector of the eLab at the Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, in Nashville. Peter Kent is president of Top Floor Publishing, in Lakewood, Colo., and the author of Poor Richard’s Web Site. Michael P. Largey is the executive vice-president of IT Web Solutions Inc., in West Long Branch, N.J. Terri Lonier is the president of Working Solo Inc., a consulting firm in San Francisco, and the author of Working Solo: The Real Guide to Freedom & Financial Success with Your Own Business. Harley Manning is a research director at Forrester Research Inc. in Cambridge, Mass. Jakob Nielsen is a principal at Nielsen Norman Group, in Fremont, Calif., and the author of Designing Web Usability. Richard W. Oliver is a professor of management at Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, in Nashville. Don Peppers and Martha Rogers are founding partners of Peppers and Rogers Group, in Norwalk, Conn., and the coauthors of One to One B2B. Patricia B. Seybold is CEO of Patricia Seybold Group Inc., in Boston, and the author of Customers.com: How to Create A Profitable Business Strategy for the Internet & Beyond and The Customer Revolution. Beerud Sheth is the cofounder and general manager of eLance Inc., in Sunnyvale, Calif. James Slavet is the cofounder of Guru Inc., in San Francisco. Robert Spiegel is the author of The Shoestring Entrepreneur’s Guide to the Best Home-Based Businesses. He lives in Albuquerque. Phil Terry is the CEO of Creative Good Inc., in New York City. Mark C. Thompson is chairman and CEO of Network Public Broadcasting International Inc., in San Francisco, and chairman of Integration Associates Inc., in Mountain View, Calif. Bruce D. Weinberg is an associate professor of marketing and E-commerce at McCallum Graduate School of Business, Bentley College, in Waltham, Mass. Marcia Yudkin is the Boston-based author of Poor Richard’s Web Site Marketing Makeover and other Internet marketing guides. Ron Zemke is the president of Performance Research Associates Inc., in Minneapolis, and coauthor of E-Service: 24 Ways to Keep Your Customers When the Competition is Just a Click Away and other books. The 2001 Inc Web Awards The Best Small-Business Sites in America The 2001 Inc Web Awards: Winners A Web Strategy Runs Through It Traffic Magnets Duh-sign of the Times Home Groan Many Happy Returns Please e-mail your comments to editors@inc.com.

Lining Up Telecom Online

Best of the Web New Web sites offer to ease shoppers’ search for telephone and related services. Ten CEOs check out six popular sites A hassle. That’s what business owners like Paul Frick expect to find when they shop for a telecommunications service by themselves. There’s that dizzying maze of possibilities. Providers with names like Startec Global, OneStar, and Qwest offer everything from basic long-distance service to T1 Internet access and Web hosting. Plus, what about crunching the numbers for all those varying rates that presuppose different usage scenarios? And who’s to say which service is reliable? “All you get is the high-pressure sales pitch to change carriers,” says Frick, alluding to some telecom solicitations. No wonder TeleBright.com caught Frick’s eye. TeleBright is one of several Web sites offering interactive one-stop service to businesspeople shopping for a telecom carrier. “Long distance is a big chunk of our budget,” says Frick, who is a partner in Home Front Communications, a public-relations firm based in Washington, D.C. In an E-mail message he sent this past summer, Frick asked TeleBright about the savings he might achieve by switching his long-distance provider. A TeleBright representative analyzed Home Front’s long-distance bill and shot back the names of a dozen carriers that could beat the firm’s average monthly outlay of $1,000. “It was a no-brainer,” says Frick, who chose a long-distance telephone company that he predicts will save him $500 a month. Frick is in the vanguard of executives who are going online to shop for telecom services. But if the projections of Forrester Research, a high-tech-research company based in Cambridge, Mass., prove right, he’ll soon be part of a new majority. Some 65% of U.S. businesses plan to buy some of their telecom services online by 2002, predicts a recent Forrester report, Buying into Telecom Online. Online sales of telecom services to businesses will amount to $47 billion in 2004, compared with $900 million this year, according to the report. TeleBright, based in Rockville, Md., and Web sites like it serve as funnels that direct customers to telecom-service providers with which they’ve formed partnerships. Some sites invite customers to browse online databases that comprise packages of telecom services. (TeleBright falls into that category.) Others, such as Demandline.com, enable buyers to pool their requests with like-minded businesses and obtain customized bids at lower rates. The sites earn fees from the providers when they land customers. If the sites have a bright future, not all their customers are as pleased as Frick with the results so far. “Only 15% of interviewees purchase telecom services online today … and those who have tried it, pan it,” notes the Forrester report. To find out which sites were most worthwhile, Inc. asked 10 small-business CEOs to assess six of the most popular ones. The CEOs shopped for long-distance, 800-number, and Internet-access services, basing their evaluations on eight criteria, including such factors as ease of use, variety, and price. The CEOs also indicated which sites they would consider using to help select their own telecom carriers. The tone of the feedback we got was often skeptical. Many of the CEOs weren’t happy with the sites’ design. Up-front requests for personal data tended to annoy them, making them wary of proceeding further. “Simplexity’s first page requires a Ph.D. to figure out,” complained panelist Ron Zemke, president of Performance Research Associates, a training and leadership consulting firm based in Minneapolis. However, once they overcame their initial displeasure with the sites’ architecture, most of the CEOs said they had obtained some useful information. The sites’ offerings apparently vary in quality, depending on region. At least that’s what the panelists’ feedback would suggest. The CEOs who were based on the West Coast had a higher level of satisfaction with what they found for their region, compared with what their counterparts from other regions said about the sites’ offerings for their areas. “I very easily got quotes for cell-phone rates and long-distance rates,” said Christopher Butler, president of the Performance Engineering Group Inc., a management-consulting business based in Santa Barbara, Calif., referring to Demandline’s coverage of western providers. In contrast, Leslie M. Fox, president and CEO of Fox & Associates, a public-relations company based in Chicago, looked at the site’s offerings for her region and reported that it had “very limited products to offer.” The following is a site-by-site summary of what caused the 10 CEOs to turn their thumbs up or down. www.telebright.com What it’s good for: Learning something more about vendors and their services and getting an idea about the range of rates. In other words, the panelists agreed that the site was a good place to do research. Don’t waste your time if: You live in the Midwest. The site doesn’t yet have a broad selection of packages for that market. What our CEOs had to say: The service didn’t offer the complete range of products and providers they needed to make an informed buying decision. “It’s appropriate for residential users and very small businesses that don’t have ready access to strategic communications-services planning,” said one panelist. What you should know: TeleBright doesn’t collect fees for booking business for carriers but takes a percentage of the users’ monthly payments. So the company doesn’t make a dime till you start paying your bills. www.simplexity.com What it’s good for: General information about the kinds of services available in a region. None of the CEOs found the selection to be comprehensive enough, but they all thought the site had educational value. Don’t waste your time if: You don’t have a lot of patience. The site challenged all the panelists with what they described as a cryptic registration process and unreliable technology. What our CEOs had to say: They wouldn’t go back. The site didn’t offer enough options to allow them to make an educated choice, and its design was cumbersome. “Using this site feels like you are signing up for a 10-year hitch with the Marine Corps,” said one CEO. What you should know: Simplexity is a request-for-proposal site that lets you submit anonymous requests for customized bids to a variety of carriers. At the time of the evaluations, the site bundled only long-distance service with calling-card and toll-free services, although it has since introduced wireless, Internet, and data services. www.telezoo.com What it’s good for: Companies buying large amounts of services. The reviewers agreed that the site doesn’t cater to the small-business owner. Don’t waste your time if: You are buying on a small scale, want prices instantly, or want to remain anonymous. Before the site will provide pricing options, it requires shoppers to submit requests for proposals and divulge personal information about themselves. What our CEOs had to say: Most liked it. Some were intrigued enough to consider investigating the site further. “Even though I didn’t actually provide a request for proposal, there are services my company will need in the future, and I will use this site to comparison shop for them,” one of the evaluators said. What you should know: It requires some technical sophistication to negotiate the site, but it can work smoothly for those in the know. www.demandline.com What it’s good for: An easy way to shop for telecom services, according to most of our CEOs. However, they also felt the selection wasn’t as comprehensive as it could have been. Don’t waste your time if: You don’t have the patience to submit requests and wait for responses, or you are buying services on a small scale. What our CEOs had to say: Opinions were mixed. One of the panelists was intrigued and said that he “will definitely go back and shop for additional services.” But another saw no value to the site’s offerings and said she was “more comfortable with the traditional way of buying things.” Even those who were impressed with the site thought it could improve. “They need to add more services and a wider array of current vendors,” said one CEO. “If it stays the same, I don’t think it can compete against the more comprehensive sites like Telezoo.” What you should know: This is the only site among those reviewed that offered a host of business-support tools. Demandline markets end-user and network software support, payroll and credit-card processing, equipment leasing, temp staffing, and retirement services — along with telecom services. www.telecomsmart.com What it’s good for: Comparison shopping. Despite the logistical hurdles they encountered, all the CEOs thought the site offered a useful gateway to a variety of packages and carriers being offered in their area. Don’t waste your time if: You’re short on patience. Before you can gain access to any packages of information at TelecomSmart.com, you have to go through a rigorous registration process. The technology and length of the questionnaire irked one CEO, who said if he hadn’t been doing a site review, he would have quickly moved on. What our CEOs had to say: Some thought shopping at this site was a better way to buy telecom services than calling the phone company, but one evaluator thought the site’s design made it more trouble than it was worth. What you should know: You can fax a copy of your phone bill to the company, and it promises to E-mail you within 48 hours a list of carriers and packages in your area — -with pricing suited to your needs. www.essential.com What it’s good for: Buying small telecom packages for home use. Most of our CEOs agreed that this site catered primarily to residential and home-office buyers, and they found little value in it for their own companies. The consensus was that Essential.com was of limited value. When asked what he would skip at the site, one CEO quipped, “Everything.” Yet it received a B- grade overall. Don’t waste your time if: You’re buying services for a large business. Although some of the CEOs thought the site was a good way to do quick research, others dismissed it as lacking in options. What our CEOs had to say: The consensus was that the site was of limited value. “I was unable to find a useful side-by-side comparison as the information was very basic,” said one reviewer, who reported being further stymied by a lack of online customer-service response. When asked what he would skip at this site, one CEO quipped, “Everything.” What you should know: Not only can you buy phone and Internet services at the site, but it also offers electricity, natural-gas, propane, and heating-oil services. The bottom line TelecomSmart won kudos from our panelists on the grounds that it offered the widest variety of service options and carriers. Demandline and Essential ranked high in accessibility. Telezoo received high marks for its user-friendly format, too, but lost points for inattention to small-business needs. TeleBright scored well in usability but got mostly fair marks in other categories. Simplexity rated low, in part because of its limited selection in certain areas. Sarah Fister Gale is a freelance writer based in Minneapolis. The savvy entrepreneur’s guide to buying telecom services on the Web Comments Would our CEOs go back? What is the site good for? Biggest weaknesses www.telebright.com “No” Getting an idea about the range of rates No criteria for sorting what you are learning www.simplexity.com “No” General information on services available The whole thing www.telezoo.com “No, but I would have my MIS person look at it” People who are tech savvy Not good for small businesses www.demandline.com “Yes. It offers an easy way to shop” The nuts and bolts of telecommunications shopping Lacking in sophistication www.telecomsmart.com “Yes, it was helpful” Side-by-side comparisons Long service questionnaire www.essential.com “No” Wireless-plan shopping Unwieldy comparison button Grades Ease of navigation Ease of use Variety of services Flexibility Help options Ease of comparison Pricing Security Overall grade www.telebright.com B- B B- D B C+ C C- C+ www.simplexity.com B- C D- F B C- C F C- www.telezoo.com B B+ B C- C B+ C B B- www.demandline.com B+ A- C+ D B B+ B B B- www.telecomsmart.com B C+ A- B+ B A B B+ B www.essential.com A- B C C+ B+ C C C B- Our panelists Michael W. Allen, chairman and CEO, Allen Interactions Inc. Jennifer Alstad, president, B-Swing Inc. Bill Belgard, chairman and CEO, Light-Speed Learning Inc. John Biancini, president and CEO, CIO Partners Christopher Butler, president, the Performance Engineering Group Inc. Kevin Daum, CEO, BYDH Inc. Leslie M. Fox, president and CEO, Fox & Associates Inc. Alisa Lippincott, owner and president, Brew Ha Ha Inc. Stu Tanquist, president, Express Learning Inc. Ron Zemke, president, Performance Research Associates Please e-mail your comments to editors@inc.com.

Got Money?

Ed Palmer might not think of himself as a pioneer. But he’s among the first wave of company builders to look for investors on the Internet without a middleman Ed Palmer is at his desk, bracketed by two Macs, poring over the number of hits received by the various components of his business’s Web site. The company’s only other full-time employee is a cubicle away, dashing off a string of E-mail notes from his computer. This could be almost any Web start-up, if it weren’t for the company’s only other room–a storage room across the hall–one that should be filled with humming servers and blinking modems. Instead, the room turns out to be littered with crates, pallets, and ungainly mechanical devices–an inventory of actual things. Palmer’s company, SolarAttic Inc., is not a flash-fire Silicon Valley Web start-up but a conventional small company in a Minneapolis suburb that has been engaged in a gritty, 13-year struggle to score with products that could at best be called medium-tech. What especially distinguishes SolarAttic from the typical Internet business is that despite the fact that sales have been taking off, venture capitalists, angels, and other investors have not been lining up to hurl money at the company to propel it into the next stage. As a result, Palmer has modified SolarAttic’s growth strategy to include an on-line wrinkle so cutting edge that few Web businesses have dared to try it. Namely, the company is trying to go public by finding its own $1,000-here, $500-there investors over the Internet. No investment banks, no brokers. The realization of ultra-low-cost, wide-open stock offerings–a pure, frictionless transfer of money from the public to a company–may ultimately become one of the most powerful applications of the Internet. It’s turbocapitalism: for ordinary investors, a chance to get in on the ground floor of even tiny, distant, or obscure companies; for underfunded, non-Web start-ups, an opportunity to get their story out to people who might be willing to take a modest gamble. Dozens of companies have already altered the conventional model of fund-raising to take advantage of the Internet’s reach and efficiency. But surprisingly few companies have tried to go all the way and strip their efforts down to a simple on-line proposition: send me money and I’ll give you a piece of my company. SolarAttic, as unlikely a high-tech pioneer as it may be, is one of them. The results have not been entirely pretty. Despite garnering a small sea of leads, the flow of actual on-line investment in the company has barely reached the level of a trickle. Among the challenges the company continues to face: getting the right people to its site, differentiating its offer from those of con artists, and slogging through a morass of state regulations. But SolarAttic is forging ahead, learning what works and what doesn’t as it goes along. As the company embarks on its third public offering–the second that is based on the Web–Palmer offers a simple explanation for why he keeps at it: he is convinced, as are many others, that this is just too good an idea to ultimately not work. Anyone who has ever climbed into an attic on a sunny day can appreciate the basic idea behind SolarAttic. Heat gets trapped up there. Why not put it to work? Palmer, for one, cannot abide the fact that energy is literally floating around the tops of homes while their owners pay good money for heat in other forms. Call it an engineer’s disdain for the inefficient. Palmer worked on guided-missile-system computers for the navy and later on civilian computers, before a friend’s offhand remark 16 years ago changed his life. The English, said the friend, often keep their water heaters in their attics not only for the pressure gain that gravity provides but also for the free temperature boost. Never mind that the English also eat meat in pies and beat one another up at sports events. Free energy was a good thing, Palmer declared, and worth following up on. Two years later, with salaried life permanently behind him, Palmer began his attic-heat-tapping experiments–ultimately taking over nearly two-thirds of the floor space in his Elk River, Minn., home, including the entire basement and garage. The goal: to figure out a way to transfer the heat to piped-in water that could then be pushed into a swimming pool. Since he didn’t own a pool, he set up a 125-gallon horse trough in the garage; to compensate for Minnesota’s frequent dearth of sunlight, he set up electric heaters in the attic to provide heat that he could then get rid of. His efforts fell short until he hit on the missing ingredient: a fan to blow the hot attic air over his boxed-in network of thin piping. Unfortunately, having a good product concept and moving a good product are two different things. At the rate Palmer was going, he had already run through his savings; he and his wife were living on $12,000 a year, mostly borrowed, and his wife was doing all their home maintenance and repair work. He went to a venture capitalist and was told to come back after he sold the first 100 systems. He went looking for angels but found himself in a geographical bind: investors based in mostly chilly Minnesota couldn’t relate to the pool market in general and to a solar-dependent product in particular; investors in warmer climes were not interested in a company that was so far away. He kept plugging away. “If you lose faith, that’s when things start to unfold on you,” he says. Finally, in 1986, Palmer wrote up a list of just about everyone he had ever known and sent roughly 700 of them a letter asking them to invest, valuing the company at $1 million. He was even willing to trade away majority ownership of the company if he could raise that much, since he figured he could exercise effective control with a concentrated 20% of the stock. In any case he raised a nonthreatening but badly needed $50,000. Palmer’s first sale wouldn’t come for three more years. In 1989 he finally sold a pool heater–to a reseller in Florida–for $1,600. And the feedback from that first sale was extremely promising. After performing a test, the customer reported that his pool’s water temperature had risen by 20 degrees to 98 degrees Fahrenheit. Even better, as the temperature in the pool went up, the customer’s energy costs to heat the pool went down. Typically, pool owners have reported costs as high as $300 per month to heat their swimming pools. By contrast, Palmer’s heater costs about $11 a month to operate, treating pool owners to a “warm pool without hot bills,” as Palmer puts it. Heating pools is not a quirky endeavor. According to Palmer, it is a $200-million annual market, based on the number and retail cost of pool heaters being sold. By the early 1990s, Palmer started thinking seriously about going public. It wasn’t grandiosity; he had simply recognized that the SEC had lowered the bar for small-company securities offerings a few years before by creating the small-corporate-offering registration, or SCOR, and so-called Regulation A offerings, both of which require no or minimal scrutiny from the SEC. Subject to state regulation, companies can raise up to $1 million in a 12-month period with a SCOR, or $5 million with a Regulation A offering. Palmer talked to brokers, but none were interested in taking part in offerings below $10 million (Palmer’s was less than $5 million) and the correspondingly small fees that their 10% commission would generate. No problem, he thought. He’d do it the way he had done everything else: on his own. In 1994, Palmer filed for a $1.5-million-minimum and $3-million-maximum Regulation A offering in Minnesota, and was promptly blindsided by state regulators, who told him he had only 180 days to raise the money–even though there was no such rule on the Minnesota books. Palmer eventually resolved the matter with state regulators, but the fight had been so time-consuming that the offering languished and ultimately fell short, necessitating the return of the $250,000 he had raised and placed into escrow. But Palmer walked away with a list of 1,000 interested investors, and to a few of them he sent a letter offering a private placement at a 20% discount from the public offering price, which generated $125,000. Two years later Palmer figured it couldn’t hurt to put up a Web site that provided sales and technical information about his company. It wasn’t long after the site’s debut that he realized the Web could be a big selling tool for SolarAttic. “People used to call about a product and ask something like, ‘What’s the PCS1?” notes Jim Stanley, Palmer’s half-brother and SolarAttic’s vice-president of sales and marketing. “Now they download the technical manual first, and then call and say, ‘Here’s my credit-card number.” By mid-1997, the site was pulling in as many as 40,000 hits a month (and it now pulls in roughly 100,000 a month). That was the good news. The bad news was that the company was now generating far more leads and opportunities than Palmer and Stanley could handle. Ultimately, Palmer wanted to hire more people–and he figured that with an expanding array of products, the potential market he could tap into could be worth as much as $10 billion. The capital requirements of that vision, combined with the fact that he was still living on fumes himself, meant that he needed another round of financing. Drawing on a heady brew of desperation, optimism, and masochism, Palmer decided to go back to the public offering well in a big way. While mulling over strategies for how to make things turn out better this time, Palmer stumbled across an article that told how Spring Street Brewing Co. had conducted a successful Regulation A initial public offering over the Internet. (See ” The Real Legacy of Spring Street Brewing.”) It all double-clicked for Palmer. To his engineer’s eye, using the Web to facilitate the transfer of small plugs of money to the stock of a small company whose potentially fabulous growth was being stunted by a lack of capital was like, well, using the PCS1 to transfer heat from a stuffy attic to a chilly pool. Three trends central to the recent evolution of our economy point to the likelihood that small investors will embrace Internet-based direct stock offerings from small companies: The small investor has become more independent of brokers and mutual-fund managers, less risk averse, and more enamored of IPOs. The Internet has gradually been greasing the gears of investment mechanisms, cutting commissions and making more investment instruments and professional-quality information about them directly available to anyone with a computer and modem. The country’s economic engine is increasingly fueled by small companies. Direct public offerings will provide opportunities far more interesting than today’s typical IPO. Currently, the vast majority of small investors are locked out of IPOs altogether, and anyone who does manage to buy in is paying not only for a piece of the company, but also for the underwriter’s 7% commission and at least 3% or so in other fees related to the costs of going public. What’s more, the companies represented by today’s high-profile IPOs have had their growth and market potential thoroughly plumbed by venture-capital and investment-banking pros; the chances that you’ll see something that everyone else has missed, and thus end up with a true bargain, are not good. Buy directly into a tiny, unsung company’s do-it-yourself Internet offering, on the other hand, and you’ve got a genuine, undiluted chance of surfing in front of a wave of growth that other investors–including the pros–haven’t spotted. Needless to say, the risks would be correspondingly high. To pick the gems out of what will likely be a field made up predominantly of losers, small investors will have to do what angels do today: apply careful analysis and good instincts. Except you won’t have to risk $50,000 or more, as you typically do today, to buy in at ground zero; $500 or so should do it. Welcome to the dawn of the micro-angel. What can small companies hoping to raise money through an Internet DPO do to connect with potential micro-angels? Unfortunately, you probably won’t learn much by examining the offerings out there today. I searched the Web using keywords and phrases like IPO, direct public offering, investors wanted, SCOR, and the like, and checked out dozens of small-business and capital-raising-related sites and bulletin boards. Of the 20 or so registered small-company stock offerings that I turned up, many appeared to be hybrids of one sort or another, depending at least as much on conventional techniques as on the Web to attract and convince investors. The bottom line: the pure Internet DPO is largely unexplored territory. On the other hand, three years from now it will probably seem like old hat, with thousands of small companies competing for investors’ attention. The ideal moment to strike will probably lie somewhere between now and then–and your guess is as good as anyone else’s. If there’s a shadow hanging over the on-line DPO market, it’s that being cast by securities fraud. Traditional stock offerings are heavily scrutinized by brokers and the SEC; typically, no one does due diligence on a DPO. DPOs that take place entirely on the Internet are ripe for con artists for the same reason that they are so appealing to legitimate companies: they are quick and cheap to set up. The SEC has charged 83 individuals and companies in the past year with Internet securities fraud, 26 of them for hawking entirely fictitious deals. Two years ago a company called Interactive Products and Services (IPS) Inc. rolled out a DPO to develop WebTV products; the offering was listed entirely on the Internet. IPS pulled in about $200,000 from small investors before California officials shut the operation down as a scam and sent its CEO to jail. Not surprisingly, con artists have figured out the kind of leverage they can achieve via the Net. In my search for offerings, I came across hundreds of bulletin-board investment solicitations in almost comically fishy-sounding ventures ranging from gold mines to magazines for “exotic models.” But only the most naïve investors would be taken in by those sorts of come-ons. On the other hand, what to make of a company like Fonecash.com? Listed on Direct Stock Market (DSM), a Web site that specializes in listing DPOs and private placements, as a developer of a credit-card-transaction-processing device, Fonecash.com is floating a $990,000 DPO. The Fonecash.com Web site consists of an “under construction” notice, and the company had not returned phone calls by press time. Another DSM-listed company, Specialized Autocore Services Inc., also failed to respond to a request for information, and the phone number of a third company on the site, the Gourmet Source Inc., yielded a “no longer in service” message. Investors aren’t likely to throw their money into an operation that doesn’t even answer its phone. In mid-1996, Ed Palmer decided to run a little test, putting up on the SolarAttic Web site the prospectus from his 1994 stock offering. Sure enough, he started getting E-mail requests for more information. By the end of 1997, his new offering was in place on the site. SolarAttic now had a better picture to present to potential investors. The company’s sales-growth rate was close to 80% and accelerating hard. A pool dealer in Arizona signed on as the first official SolarAttic regional dealer. But once again Palmer found himself facing off against state regulators. The offering met with relatively little resistance in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Palmer also painlessly tacked on Delaware, Arizona, and Colorado because those states require almost no paperwork, provided that a company is going after only a limited number of accredited investors. But Wisconsin, representing seven midwestern states that allowed pooled registration, dictated that a minimum amount of money be raised. The funds had to go into escrow until the minimum was met; if not, the money had to be returned to investors. California refused to accept the filing as a SCOR offering, instead requiring that Palmer fill out a long questionnaire that addressed the same information. The Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance sent Palmer a letter threatening criminal prosecution for violating a state law against unregistered solicitation of funds because of the Web site, even though the site clearly stated that Nebraska residents were not eligible. But it was Minnesota regulators who again seemed to set out to prove themselves the pit bulls of the DPO world, demanding that the company set up an “independent, disinterested” board of directors and even issuing a stop order against the offering. Reflecting on those and other state regulatory hassles sends Palmer into a Lenny Bruce-like rant. “These regulators were engaging in illegal activities,” he fumes. “They were breaking their own laws. How is a company supposed to put together a disinterested board? Is that an oxymoron, or what?” He churned out a press release accusing one Minnesota regulator of imposing several illegal requirements on SolarAttic. And he ended up dropping most of the rule-mongering states from his offering. Palmer claims the battles with Minnesota regulators cost him in excess of $90,000 in legal fees and his time, and set the company back years. “The SCOR rules were supposed to make it easy for small businesses to go public,” he says. “It’s supposed to be uniform, but each state lobs its own preposterous things at you. They say it’s to protect the public from crooks, but crooks don’t care about the rules. It may seem strange to hear this from a small-business owner, but I wish the federal government would take over the regulation of these things.” When the regulatory hassles were finally behind him, Palmer started to focus on driving potential investors to his Web site. He started by analyzing statistics that told him where visitors were coming from and what they were doing when they got to his site. For example, 9% of visitors came to the site from a Yahoo search, and of those, 38% had included the word solar in their search, versus only 3% who had used accredited. Only 2.5% of visitors were examining the offering “tombstone,” and eight times as many visitors were downloading technical manuals as were downloading prospectuses. Conclusion: Yahoo searches were a great potential source of referrals, but they were sending over mostly potential customers, not investors. In light of that information, Palmer decided to sign up for a $4,500 banner ad with Yahoo. The ad would be displayed at the top of the search-results page whenever someone asked for such investment keywords as IPO, DPO, SCOR, and so on. But after studying stats revealing that after 20,000 showings the banner had enticed only 200 people to click to the SolarAttic site, Palmer discontinued the ad. Next, he contracted for 50,000 page views of an ad for his offering with the Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition–ads that, he says, would be shown only to the site’s 18,000 subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. But again, the results were disappointing: 200 hits, after subscribers had been exposed an average of three times each to the ad. “I realized that people don’t want to be distracted by banner ads when they’re on-line looking for information,” says Palmer. “It doesn’t make sense to pay thousands of dollars for 200 hits when I can generate 300 hits from a $90 Business Wire press release.” Palmer also tried talking up his offering in various newsgroups, on bulletin boards, and in chat rooms, posting nearly 7,000 messages. But most of the forums quickly erased his messages, presumably for the same reason cited by the Motley Fool when it erased the message Palmer had placed in the “Minnesota” section of that site: the site is for publicly traded companies only. The sites that didn’t erase his message generated mostly “nastygrams,” as Palmer puts it. By that point, he knew better than to try a mass E-mailing, a.k.a. spamming. “People don’t want unsolicited E-mail, period,” he says, noting that it’s difficult to limit such mailings to particular states. Instead, Palmer limited his mailings to “opt-ins”–Web surfers who indicated their interest in receiving them. Finally, Palmer says he spent $750 to place his offering on DSM. DSM has since turned over some 40 leads to him, but most turned out to be from states in which the offering wasn’t registered. Palmer says DSM and other sites like it can be useful; for one thing, such sites often offer mechanisms for investors to trade stocks originally offered in a DPO, providing much-needed liquidity to the investment. Other lessons: few people are interested in downloading an 82-page prospectus (a process that takes about 10 minutes via a standard modem connection), judging by the fact that only a small number of people ever bothered to download his; no matter how interested investors become in the stock, they’re more likely to call up to buy rather than plug in their credit-card number; and $500 is the largest acceptable minimum investment for most Web surfers, something Palmer figured out after starting off with a $3,000 minimum before dropping it to the lower figure. Oh, and one more thing: pioneering is hard, be it for attic-heat-transfer systems or Internet fund-raising. Palmer ended up raising a mere $20,000 on this round. On the plus side, the company got to keep the money this time around because it had avoided states that required a minimum level of funding–proving, at least, that some sort of useful learning curve is in effect. Even better, the company’s increasingly bright sales picture has helped Palmer bring the total amount of money he has privately raised to over $600,000. (He now owns no stock personally but through a family trust exercises control of 40% of the company.) The obvious conclusion: private fund-raising was the way to go for SolarAttic. But that wasn’t the way Palmer saw it. “I know we’re destined to be a public company,” he says. Ever the optimist, Palmer concludes, “We could grow to a hundred million a year, easy.” That’s a long way from the $118,000 the company brought in last year, but, on the other hand, revenues so far this year are up 250% over the same period last year. There are now more than 200 SolarAttic pool-heating units installed throughout 31 states. Buoyed by that growth rate, at press time Palmer was registering a $4.8-million Regulation A DPO in New York and–combative fellow that he is–Minnesota. He ticks off the reasons that things will be different this time around: he’s learned a lot of the ins and outs of marketing stock on the Internet; Internet DPOs are gaining credibility; and he knows how to keep the satanic state regulators at bay. He also says he’s going to try to play the affinity card this time around, using the Internet to zoom in on the environmentally conscientious. He’s also going for a reverse affinity play. “If you’re a pool owner who learns about our technology as a potential investor, I might get you as a customer, too,” he says. And if this round fizzles like the others? Then he’ll try again. “I go by the kick-the-can theory of money raising,” he says. “I won’t allow myself to think I have to have a certain amount or I can’t make the business go. That’s linear thinking. I’ll spend the rest of my life making this work.” You can almost hear the Minnesota regulators gnashing their teeth. David H. Freedman is a contributor to Inc. Virtual road show Clay Womack, CEO Direct Stock Market Launched: 1993 What Direct Stock Market is: A listing service for direct public offerings (DPOs) and private placements. Direct Stock Market provides an on-line community environment in which investors can discuss offerings, but they must do their own due diligence. Direct Stock Market also helps companies to put together Web-based “virtual road shows.” And isn’t: An automated system for filing a Regulation A or Regulation D offering. You still have to do all the paperwork yourself–off-line. The on-line advantage: Investors can scan the prospectuses of several dozen DPOs and private placements, and companies can get their offerings in front of thousands of small-business-friendly investors. “There are 80,000-plus businesses in the United States that are growing at a rate of at least 50% per annum, and the VCs are only doing 2,000 deals at any point in time,” says Womack. “I want the other 78,000 businesses on our site.” Your odds of finding funding: Probably better than if you posted the offering only on your own Web site. Womack has done a good job of generating publicity for the site. But mismatches are common. Interested investors may respond on-line from states in which your DPO isn’t registered. On the other hand, if Direct Stock Market becomes a broker-dealer as planned, your offering could find a much wider audience. (For a price.) Fee: From $2,500 to $4,000, depending on the size of the offering, for a 90-day listing. –D.F. We’re from the government. We’re here to help Terry Bibbens, Entrepreneur in Residence Ace-net Launched: 1997 What ACE-Net is: A Small Business Administration-sponsored listing service for companies that have completed the paperwork for a streamlined direct public offering (DPO). The Angel Capital Electronic Network (ACE-Net) was designed to make small offerings (up to $5 million) cheaper and easier to pull off by eliminating the need for a broker-dealer and lowering the legal barriers; a listing on ACE-Net satisfies many states’ securities regulations. And isn’t: A vehicle for launching a full-fledged DPO–you can’t sell stock to just anyone, only to “accredited” investors. The on-line advantage: “A single filing on ACE-Net suffices to exchange stock certificates and checks in multiple states. The offering document is created from a simple Q&A the entrepreneur fills out on-line. Your lawyer, accountant, and board can also log on and review the document and make changes in real time. And you can also quickly modify the offering depending on the marketplace. Rewriting the offer and refiling it is not hard to do on-line.” Your odds of finding funding: Until recently, dismal, if you hoped to do a national direct offering. Despite its government connections, ACE-Net has lacked crucial nationwide support and publicity. That’s slowly changing, now that 37 states and 1,000 investors are on board. In one recent six-month period, 20% of the 140 companies listed in ACE-Net’s national database had received financing. The DPO route hasn’t exactly caught fire, perhaps because it’s the wrong vehicle for appealing to angels. But you don’t have to do a DPO to tap local ACE-Net resources–and connections to angel groups. Fee: Up to $450 for an annual listing. –Susan Greco The IPO classifieds Stephen D. Pelletier, CEO Offroad Capital Corp. Launched: 1999 What OffRoad Capital is: A “placement agent” for established private companies seeking growth capital of $3 million to $15 million. Several thousand accredited investors–including angel groups and some VCs–are expected to kick in a minimum of $25,000 per investor per deal. Road shows will be real and virtual: CEOs make studio appearances and take questions from investors via E-mail or phone. “We’re not just a listing service. We help these companies get financed.” And isn’t: An underwriter of deals. The on-line advantage: The ability to create a public “marketplace” for vetting and selling private placements. “Real companies with real revenues and profits should be able to tap equity, not just debt. Within three years, it will happen,” says Pelletier. “We’re using the Internet to create a marketplace for growing companies.” Your odds of finding funding: Slightly better than at Garage.com if your annual sales growth is at least 20% and your company’s valuation is at least $20 million. You also need a clear exit strategy, such as a public offering, merger, or acquisition. Of 400 companies recently considered, 5 have received financing. All industries are welcome, but “don’t be surprised” if the first deals are Internet plays, says Pelletier. Fee: From 3% to 9% of any money raised. –S.G. A match made in . . . cyberspace? Guy Kowasaki, CEO Garage.com Launched: 1998 What Garage.com is: A matchmaker for company founders and sophisticated angel investors, select venture capitalists, and corporate venture-capital divisions. Entrepreneurs receive help with creating a management team or marketing strategy and with pitching their companies to the investors involved, who collectively have kicked in an average of $2.9 million per deal. “We’re a broker-dealer, quasi investment banker, and what I call a venture ‘gapitalist.’ We fill that gap from $1 million to $4 million,” says Kawasaki. “The bottom line is we’re trying to help two guys or two gals in a garage get seed capital. We find ‘em, fix ‘em, and fund ‘em.” And isn’t: The final word. “Angels have to do their own due diligence. There’s no on-line yenta yet.” The on-line advantage: “It’s compressing time to ‘high value’ money and providing a greater breadth of exposure for the entrepreneur. It’s all about opening up the channels. Taking information over the Internet is 100 times more efficient for us than taking a paper business plan. We determine the questions and how much space entrepreneurs have to answer each one–it’s all standardized. And the plans are searchable forever. All plans are created equal through the Internet. And we read every one of them.” Your odds of finding funding: Nil, unless you’re a hot start-up in high tech, biotech, or health sciences. Garage.com expects to close on 30 deals culled from a projected 10,000 business plans to be submitted by the end of the year. Fee: Typically, 5% of money raised. Garage.com also buys a small stake in the company at the “pre-deal valuation” price. –S.G. On the auction block Ian Zwicker, President WR Hambrecht & Co. OpenIPO Launched: 1998 What OpenIPO is: A process by which WR Hambrecht & Co., an investment-banking firm, takes companies public by auctioning shares over the Inte

Got Money?

Ed Palmer might not think of himself as a pioneer. But he’s among the first wave of company builders to look for investors on the Internet without a middleman Ed Palmer is at his desk, bracketed by two Macs, poring over the number of hits received by the various components of his business’s Web site. The company’s only other full-time employee is a cubicle away, dashing off a string of E-mail notes from his computer. This could be almost any Web start-up, if it weren’t for the company’s only other room–a storage room across the hall–one that should be filled with humming servers and blinking modems. Instead, the room turns out to be littered with crates, pallets, and ungainly mechanical devices–an inventory of actual things. Palmer’s company, SolarAttic Inc., is not a flash-fire Silicon Valley Web start-up but a conventional small company in a Minneapolis suburb that has been engaged in a gritty, 13-year struggle to score with products that could at best be called medium-tech. What especially distinguishes SolarAttic from the typical Internet business is that despite the fact that sales have been taking off, venture capitalists, angels, and other investors have not been lining up to hurl money at the company to propel it into the next stage. As a result, Palmer has modified SolarAttic’s growth strategy to include an on-line wrinkle so cutting edge that few Web businesses have dared to try it. Namely, the company is trying to go public by finding its own $1,000-here, $500-there investors over the Internet. No investment banks, no brokers. The realization of ultra-low-cost, wide-open stock offerings–a pure, frictionless transfer of money from the public to a company–may ultimately become one of the most powerful applications of the Internet. It’s turbocapitalism: for ordinary investors, a chance to get in on the ground floor of even tiny, distant, or obscure companies; for underfunded, non-Web start-ups, an opportunity to get their story out to people who might be willing to take a modest gamble. Dozens of companies have already altered the conventional model of fund-raising to take advantage of the Internet’s reach and efficiency. But surprisingly few companies have tried to go all the way and strip their efforts down to a simple on-line proposition: send me money and I’ll give you a piece of my company. SolarAttic, as unlikely a high-tech pioneer as it may be, is one of them. The results have not been entirely pretty. Despite garnering a small sea of leads, the flow of actual on-line investment in the company has barely reached the level of a trickle. Among the challenges the company continues to face: getting the right people to its site, differentiating its offer from those of con artists, and slogging through a morass of state regulations. But SolarAttic is forging ahead, learning what works and what doesn’t as it goes along. As the company embarks on its third public offering–the second that is based on the Web–Palmer offers a simple explanation for why he keeps at it: he is convinced, as are many others, that this is just too good an idea to ultimately not work. Anyone who has ever climbed into an attic on a sunny day can appreciate the basic idea behind SolarAttic. Heat gets trapped up there. Why not put it to work? Palmer, for one, cannot abide the fact that energy is literally floating around the tops of homes while their owners pay good money for heat in other forms. Call it an engineer’s disdain for the inefficient. Palmer worked on guided-missile-system computers for the navy and later on civilian computers, before a friend’s offhand remark 16 years ago changed his life. The English, said the friend, often keep their water heaters in their attics not only for the pressure gain that gravity provides but also for the free temperature boost. Never mind that the English also eat meat in pies and beat one another up at sports events. Free energy was a good thing, Palmer declared, and worth following up on. Two years later, with salaried life permanently behind him, Palmer began his attic-heat-tapping experiments–ultimately taking over nearly two-thirds of the floor space in his Elk River, Minn., home, including the entire basement and garage. The goal: to figure out a way to transfer the heat to piped-in water that could then be pushed into a swimming pool. Since he didn’t own a pool, he set up a 125-gallon horse trough in the garage; to compensate for Minnesota’s frequent dearth of sunlight, he set up electric heaters in the attic to provide heat that he could then get rid of. His efforts fell short until he hit on the missing ingredient: a fan to blow the hot attic air over his boxed-in network of thin piping. Unfortunately, having a good product concept and moving a good product are two different things. At the rate Palmer was going, he had already run through his savings; he and his wife were living on $12,000 a year, mostly borrowed, and his wife was doing all their home maintenance and repair work. He went to a venture capitalist and was told to come back after he sold the first 100 systems. He went looking for angels but found himself in a geographical bind: investors based in mostly chilly Minnesota couldn’t relate to the pool market in general and to a solar-dependent product in particular; investors in warmer climes were not interested in a company that was so far away. He kept plugging away. “If you lose faith, that’s when things start to unfold on you,” he says. Finally, in 1986, Palmer wrote up a list of just about everyone he had ever known and sent roughly 700 of them a letter asking them to invest, valuing the company at $1 million. He was even willing to trade away majority ownership of the company if he could raise that much, since he figured he could exercise effective control with a concentrated 20% of the stock. In any case he raised a nonthreatening but badly needed $50,000. Palmer’s first sale wouldn’t come for three more years. In 1989 he finally sold a pool heater–to a reseller in Florida–for $1,600. And the feedback from that first sale was extremely promising. After performing a test, the customer reported that his pool’s water temperature had risen by 20 degrees to 98 degrees Fahrenheit. Even better, as the temperature in the pool went up, the customer’s energy costs to heat the pool went down. Typically, pool owners have reported costs as high as $300 per month to heat their swimming pools. By contrast, Palmer’s heater costs about $11 a month to operate, treating pool owners to a “warm pool without hot bills,” as Palmer puts it. Heating pools is not a quirky endeavor. According to Palmer, it is a $200-million annual market, based on the number and retail cost of pool heaters being sold. By the early 1990s, Palmer started thinking seriously about going public. It wasn’t grandiosity; he had simply recognized that the SEC had lowered the bar for small-company securities offerings a few years before by creating the small-corporate-offering registration, or SCOR, and so-called Regulation A offerings, both of which require no or minimal scrutiny from the SEC. Subject to state regulation, companies can raise up to $1 million in a 12-month period with a SCOR, or $5 million with a Regulation A offering. Palmer talked to brokers, but none were interested in taking part in offerings below $10 million (Palmer’s was less than $5 million) and the correspondingly small fees that their 10% commission would generate. No problem, he thought. He’d do it the way he had done everything else: on his own. In 1994, Palmer filed for a $1.5-million-minimum and $3-million-maximum Regulation A offering in Minnesota, and was promptly blindsided by state regulators, who told him he had only 180 days to raise the money–even though there was no such rule on the Minnesota books. Palmer eventually resolved the matter with state regulators, but the fight had been so time-consuming that the offering languished and ultimately fell short, necessitating the return of the $250,000 he had raised and placed into escrow. But Palmer walked away with a list of 1,000 interested investors, and to a few of them he sent a letter offering a private placement at a 20% discount from the public offering price, which generated $125,000. Two years later Palmer figured it couldn’t hurt to put up a Web site that provided sales and technical information about his company. It wasn’t long after the site’s debut that he realized the Web could be a big selling tool for SolarAttic. “People used to call about a product and ask something like, ‘What’s the PCS1?” notes Jim Stanley, Palmer’s half-brother and SolarAttic’s vice-president of sales and marketing. “Now they download the technical manual first, and then call and say, ‘Here’s my credit-card number.” By mid-1997, the site was pulling in as many as 40,000 hits a month (and it now pulls in roughly 100,000 a month). That was the good news. The bad news was that the company was now generating far more leads and opportunities than Palmer and Stanley could handle. Ultimately, Palmer wanted to hire more people–and he figured that with an expanding array of products, the potential market he could tap into could be worth as much as $10 billion. The capital requirements of that vision, combined with the fact that he was still living on fumes himself, meant that he needed another round of financing. Drawing on a heady brew of desperation, optimism, and masochism, Palmer decided to go back to the public offering well in a big way. While mulling over strategies for how to make things turn out better this time, Palmer stumbled across an article that told how Spring Street Brewing Co. had conducted a successful Regulation A initial public offering over the Internet. (See ” The Real Legacy of Spring Street Brewing.”) It all double-clicked for Palmer. To his engineer’s eye, using the Web to facilitate the transfer of small plugs of money to the stock of a small company whose potentially fabulous growth was being stunted by a lack of capital was like, well, using the PCS1 to transfer heat from a stuffy attic to a chilly pool. Three trends central to the recent evolution of our economy point to the likelihood that small investors will embrace Internet-based direct stock offerings from small companies: The small investor has become more independent of brokers and mutual-fund managers, less risk averse, and more enamored of IPOs. The Internet has gradually been greasing the gears of investment mechanisms, cutting commissions and making more investment instruments and professional-quality information about them directly available to anyone with a computer and modem. The country’s economic engine is increasingly fueled by small companies. Direct public offerings will provide opportunities far more interesting than today’s typical IPO. Currently, the vast majority of small investors are locked out of IPOs altogether, and anyone who does manage to buy in is paying not only for a piece of the company, but also for the underwriter’s 7% commission and at least 3% or so in other fees related to the costs of going public. What’s more, the companies represented by today’s high-profile IPOs have had their growth and market potential thoroughly plumbed by venture-capital and investment-banking pros; the chances that you’ll see something that everyone else has missed, and thus end up with a true bargain, are not good. Buy directly into a tiny, unsung company’s do-it-yourself Internet offering, on the other hand, and you’ve got a genuine, undiluted chance of surfing in front of a wave of growth that other investors–including the pros–haven’t spotted. Needless to say, the risks would be correspondingly high. To pick the gems out of what will likely be a field made up predominantly of losers, small investors will have to do what angels do today: apply careful analysis and good instincts. Except you won’t have to risk $50,000 or more, as you typically do today, to buy in at ground zero; $500 or so should do it. Welcome to the dawn of the micro-angel. What can small companies hoping to raise money through an Internet DPO do to connect with potential micro-angels? Unfortunately, you probably won’t learn much by examining the offerings out there today. I searched the Web using keywords and phrases like IPO, direct public offering, investors wanted, SCOR, and the like, and checked out dozens of small-business and capital-raising-related sites and bulletin boards. Of the 20 or so registered small-company stock offerings that I turned up, many appeared to be hybrids of one sort or another, depending at least as much on conventional techniques as on the Web to attract and convince investors. The bottom line: the pure Internet DPO is largely unexplored territory. On the other hand, three years from now it will probably seem like old hat, with thousands of small companies competing for investors’ attention. The ideal moment to strike will probably lie somewhere between now and then–and your guess is as good as anyone else’s. If there’s a shadow hanging over the on-line DPO market, it’s that being cast by securities fraud. Traditional stock offerings are heavily scrutinized by brokers and the SEC; typically, no one does due diligence on a DPO. DPOs that take place entirely on the Internet are ripe for con artists for the same reason that they are so appealing to legitimate companies: they are quick and cheap to set up. The SEC has charged 83 individuals and companies in the past year with Internet securities fraud, 26 of them for hawking entirely fictitious deals. Two years ago a company called Interactive Products and Services (IPS) Inc. rolled out a DPO to develop WebTV products; the offering was listed entirely on the Internet. IPS pulled in about $200,000 from small investors before California officials shut the operation down as a scam and sent its CEO to jail. Not surprisingly, con artists have figured out the kind of leverage they can achieve via the Net. In my search for offerings, I came across hundreds of bulletin-board investment solicitations in almost comically fishy-sounding ventures ranging from gold mines to magazines for “exotic models.” But only the most naïve investors would be taken in by those sorts of come-ons. On the other hand, what to make of a company like Fonecash.com? Listed on Direct Stock Market (DSM), a Web site that specializes in listing DPOs and private placements, as a developer of a credit-card-transaction-processing device, Fonecash.com is floating a $990,000 DPO. The Fonecash.com Web site consists of an “under construction” notice, and the company had not returned phone calls by press time. Another DSM-listed company, Specialized Autocore Services Inc., also failed to respond to a request for information, and the phone number of a third company on the site, the Gourmet Source Inc., yielded a “no longer in service” message. Investors aren’t likely to throw their money into an operation that doesn’t even answer its phone. In mid-1996, Ed Palmer decided to run a little test, putting up on the SolarAttic Web site the prospectus from his 1994 stock offering. Sure enough, he started getting E-mail requests for more information. By the end of 1997, his new offering was in place on the site. SolarAttic now had a better picture to present to potential investors. The company’s sales-growth rate was close to 80% and accelerating hard. A pool dealer in Arizona signed on as the first official SolarAttic regional dealer. But once again Palmer found himself facing off against state regulators. The offering met with relatively little resistance in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Palmer also painlessly tacked on Delaware, Arizona, and Colorado because those states require almost no paperwork, provided that a company is going after only a limited number of accredited investors. But Wisconsin, representing seven midwestern states that allowed pooled registration, dictated that a minimum amount of money be raised. The funds had to go into escrow until the minimum was met; if not, the money had to be returned to investors. California refused to accept the filing as a SCOR offering, instead requiring that Palmer fill out a long questionnaire that addressed the same information. The Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance sent Palmer a letter threatening criminal prosecution for violating a state law against unregistered solicitation of funds because of the Web site, even though the site clearly stated that Nebraska residents were not eligible. But it was Minnesota regulators who again seemed to set out to prove themselves the pit bulls of the DPO world, demanding that the company set up an “independent, disinterested” board of directors and even issuing a stop order against the offering. Reflecting on those and other state regulatory hassles sends Palmer into a Lenny Bruce-like rant. “These regulators were engaging in illegal activities,” he fumes. “They were breaking their own laws. How is a company supposed to put together a disinterested board? Is that an oxymoron, or what?” He churned out a press release accusing one Minnesota regulator of imposing several illegal requirements on SolarAttic. And he ended up dropping most of the rule-mongering states from his offering. Palmer claims the battles with Minnesota regulators cost him in excess of $90,000 in legal fees and his time, and set the company back years. “The SCOR rules were supposed to make it easy for small businesses to go public,” he says. “It’s supposed to be uniform, but each state lobs its own preposterous things at you. They say it’s to protect the public from crooks, but crooks don’t care about the rules. It may seem strange to hear this from a small-business owner, but I wish the federal government would take over the regulation of these things.” When the regulatory hassles were finally behind him, Palmer started to focus on driving potential investors to his Web site. He started by analyzing statistics that told him where visitors were coming from and what they were doing when they got to his site. For example, 9% of visitors came to the site from a Yahoo search, and of those, 38% had included the word solar in their search, versus only 3% who had used accredited. Only 2.5% of visitors were examining the offering “tombstone,” and eight times as many visitors were downloading technical manuals as were downloading prospectuses. Conclusion: Yahoo searches were a great potential source of referrals, but they were sending over mostly potential customers, not investors. In light of that information, Palmer decided to sign up for a $4,500 banner ad with Yahoo. The ad would be displayed at the top of the search-results page whenever someone asked for such investment keywords as IPO, DPO, SCOR, and so on. But after studying stats revealing that after 20,000 showings the banner had enticed only 200 people to click to the SolarAttic site, Palmer discontinued the ad. Next, he contracted for 50,000 page views of an ad for his offering with the Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition–ads that, he says, would be shown only to the site’s 18,000 subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. But again, the results were disappointing: 200 hits, after subscribers had been exposed an average of three times each to the ad. “I realized that people don’t want to be distracted by banner ads when they’re on-line looking for information,” says Palmer. “It doesn’t make sense to pay thousands of dollars for 200 hits when I can generate 300 hits from a $90 Business Wire press release.” Palmer also tried talking up his offering in various newsgroups, on bulletin boards, and in chat rooms, posting nearly 7,000 messages. But most of the forums quickly erased his messages, presumably for the same reason cited by the Motley Fool when it erased the message Palmer had placed in the “Minnesota” section of that site: the site is for publicly traded companies only. The sites that didn’t erase his message generated mostly “nastygrams,” as Palmer puts it. By that point, he knew better than to try a mass E-mailing, a.k.a. spamming. “People don’t want unsolicited E-mail, period,” he says, noting that it’s difficult to limit such mailings to particular states. Instead, Palmer limited his mailings to “opt-ins”–Web surfers who indicated their interest in receiving them. Finally, Palmer says he spent $750 to place his offering on DSM. DSM has since turned over some 40 leads to him, but most turned out to be from states in which the offering wasn’t registered. Palmer says DSM and other sites like it can be useful; for one thing, such sites often offer mechanisms for investors to trade stocks originally offered in a DPO, providing much-needed liquidity to the investment. Other lessons: few people are interested in downloading an 82-page prospectus (a process that takes about 10 minutes via a standard modem connection), judging by the fact that only a small number of people ever bothered to download his; no matter how interested investors become in the stock, they’re more likely to call up to buy rather than plug in their credit-card number; and $500 is the largest acceptable minimum investment for most Web surfers, something Palmer figured out after starting off with a $3,000 minimum before dropping it to the lower figure. Oh, and one more thing: pioneering is hard, be it for attic-heat-transfer systems or Internet fund-raising. Palmer ended up raising a mere $20,000 on this round. On the plus side, the company got to keep the money this time around because it had avoided states that required a minimum level of funding–proving, at least, that some sort of useful learning curve is in effect. Even better, the company’s increasingly bright sales picture has helped Palmer bring the total amount of money he has privately raised to over $600,000. (He now owns no stock personally but through a family trust exercises control of 40% of the company.) The obvious conclusion: private fund-raising was the way to go for SolarAttic. But that wasn’t the way Palmer saw it. “I know we’re destined to be a public company,” he says. Ever the optimist, Palmer concludes, “We could grow to a hundred million a year, easy.” That’s a long way from the $118,000 the company brought in last year, but, on the other hand, revenues so far this year are up 250% over the same period last year. There are now more than 200 SolarAttic pool-heating units installed throughout 31 states. Buoyed by that growth rate, at press time Palmer was registering a $4.8-million Regulation A DPO in New York and–combative fellow that he is–Minnesota. He ticks off the reasons that things will be different this time around: he’s learned a lot of the ins and outs of marketing stock on the Internet; Internet DPOs are gaining credibility; and he knows how to keep the satanic state regulators at bay. He also says he’s going to try to play the affinity card this time around, using the Internet to zoom in on the environmentally conscientious. He’s also going for a reverse affinity play. “If you’re a pool owner who learns about our technology as a potential investor, I might get you as a customer, too,” he says. And if this round fizzles like the others? Then he’ll try again. “I go by the kick-the-can theory of money raising,” he says. “I won’t allow myself to think I have to have a certain amount or I can’t make the business go. That’s linear thinking. I’ll spend the rest of my life making this work.” You can almost hear the Minnesota regulators gnashing their teeth. David H. Freedman is a contributor to Inc. Virtual road show Clay Womack, CEO Direct Stock Market Launched: 1993 What Direct Stock Market is: A listing service for direct public offerings (DPOs) and private placements. Direct Stock Market provides an on-line community environment in which investors can discuss offerings, but they must do their own due diligence. Direct Stock Market also helps companies to put together Web-based “virtual road shows.” And isn’t: An automated system for filing a Regulation A or Regulation D offering. You still have to do all the paperwork yourself–off-line. The on-line advantage: Investors can scan the prospectuses of several dozen DPOs and private placements, and companies can get their offerings in front of thousands of small-business-friendly investors. “There are 80,000-plus businesses in the United States that are growing at a rate of at least 50% per annum, and the VCs are only doing 2,000 deals at any point in time,” says Womack. “I want the other 78,000 businesses on our site.” Your odds of finding funding: Probably better than if you posted the offering only on your own Web site. Womack has done a good job of generating publicity for the site. But mismatches are common. Interested investors may respond on-line from states in which your DPO isn’t registered. On the other hand, if Direct Stock Market becomes a broker-dealer as planned, your offering could find a much wider audience. (For a price.) Fee: From $2,500 to $4,000, depending on the size of the offering, for a 90-day listing. –D.F. We’re from the government. We’re here to help Terry Bibbens, Entrepreneur in Residence Ace-net Launched: 1997 What ACE-Net is: A Small Business Administration-sponsored listing service for companies that have completed the paperwork for a streamlined direct public offering (DPO). The Angel Capital Electronic Network (ACE-Net) was designed to make small offerings (up to $5 million) cheaper and easier to pull off by eliminating the need for a broker-dealer and lowering the legal barriers; a listing on ACE-Net satisfies many states’ securities regulations. And isn’t: A vehicle for launching a full-fledged DPO–you can’t sell stock to just anyone, only to “accredited” investors. The on-line advantage: “A single filing on ACE-Net suffices to exchange stock certificates and checks in multiple states. The offering document is created from a simple Q&A the entrepreneur fills out on-line. Your lawyer, accountant, and board can also log on and review the document and make changes in real time. And you can also quickly modify the offering depending on the marketplace. Rewriting the offer and refiling it is not hard to do on-line.” Your odds of finding funding: Until recently, dismal, if you hoped to do a national direct offering. Despite its government connections, ACE-Net has lacked crucial nationwide support and publicity. That’s slowly changing, now that 37 states and 1,000 investors are on board. In one recent six-month period, 20% of the 140 companies listed in ACE-Net’s national database had received financing. The DPO route hasn’t exactly caught fire, perhaps because it’s the wrong vehicle for appealing to angels. But you don’t have to do a DPO to tap local ACE-Net resources–and connections to angel groups. Fee: Up to $450 for an annual listing. –Susan Greco The IPO classifieds Stephen D. Pelletier, CEO Offroad Capital Corp. Launched: 1999 What OffRoad Capital is: A “placement agent” for established private companies seeking growth capital of $3 million to $15 million. Several thousand accredited investors–including angel groups and some VCs–are expected to kick in a minimum of $25,000 per investor per deal. Road shows will be real and virtual: CEOs make studio appearances and take questions from investors via E-mail or phone. “We’re not just a listing service. We help these companies get financed.” And isn’t: An underwriter of deals. The on-line advantage: The ability to create a public “marketplace” for vetting and selling private placements. “Real companies with real revenues and profits should be able to tap equity, not just debt. Within three years, it will happen,” says Pelletier. “We’re using the Internet to create a marketplace for growing companies.” Your odds of finding funding: Slightly better than at Garage.com if your annual sales growth is at least 20% and your company’s valuation is at least $20 million. You also need a clear exit strategy, such as a public offering, merger, or acquisition. Of 400 companies recently considered, 5 have received financing. All industries are welcome, but “don’t be surprised” if the first deals are Internet plays, says Pelletier. Fee: From 3% to 9% of any money raised. –S.G. A match made in . . . cyberspace? Guy Kowasaki, CEO Garage.com Launched: 1998 What Garage.com is: A matchmaker for company founders and sophisticated angel investors, select venture capitalists, and corporate venture-capital divisions. Entrepreneurs receive help with creating a management team or marketing strategy and with pitching their companies to the investors involved, who collectively have kicked in an average of $2.9 million per deal. “We’re a broker-dealer, quasi investment banker, and what I call a venture ‘gapitalist.’ We fill that gap from $1 million to $4 million,” says Kawasaki. “The bottom line is we’re trying to help two guys or two gals in a garage get seed capital. We find ‘em, fix ‘em, and fund ‘em.” And isn’t: The final word. “Angels have to do their own due diligence. There’s no on-line yenta yet.” The on-line advantage: “It’s compressing time to ‘high value’ money and providing a greater breadth of exposure for the entrepreneur. It’s all about opening up the channels. Taking information over the Internet is 100 times more efficient for us than taking a paper business plan. We determine the questions and how much space entrepreneurs have to answer each one–it’s all standardized. And the plans are searchable forever. All plans are created equal through the Internet. And we read every one of them.” Your odds of finding funding: Nil, unless you’re a hot start-up in high tech, biotech, or health sciences. Garage.com expects to close on 30 deals culled from a projected 10,000 business plans to be submitted by the end of the year. Fee: Typically, 5% of money raised. Garage.com also buys a small stake in the company at the “pre-deal valuation” price. –S.G. On the auction block Ian Zwicker, President WR Hambrecht & Co. OpenIPO Launched: 1998 What OpenIPO is: A process by which WR Hambrecht & Co., an investment-banking firm, takes companies public by auctioning shares over the Inte