​Complaints about meetings are one of the hardy perennials of management. Alongside email, dealing with millennials and the stupidity of the C suite, you will hear this in along any corridor and around every water cooler.

​If you have a startup mindset, you may be tempted to think this is a real world problem and therefore a big opportunity. Spend any time on the subject and you will quickly learn that there is a solution out there already. Effective meetings are based on a well understood formula.
 

• Make sure the right people are in the meeting.
• Only those who need to be there should attend the meeting.
• The meeting should be set for a strict and limited time.
• The meeting should have a clear agenda set in advance and stick to it.
• Background information should be circulated before the meeting and everyone should read it.
• Time in the meeting should focus on the decisions to be made.
• Clear and specific actions should be agreed and recorded.
• There should be someone in the meeting made accountable for every action.

 
I could make this longer but you get the picture. And this is not new. Everyone in every business knows this.
 
Occasionally a new wrinkle appears. For example, Scrum or lean software development often relies on short, sharp meetings where everyone stands up.
 
This sounds new and smart. Yet the UK Privy Council has been meeting standing since time immemorial.  (Note: This is literally true. Time immemorial is defined in English Law as being any time before 6 July 1189 and the Privy Council definitely predates this. Gotta love those lawyers!)
 
And I have never heard anyone hold this body out as an exemplar of efficient and decisive business meetings. 

​The truth is no-one can stick to these rigid rules. Meetings have a social value over and above their business purpose. Colleagues work in different departments or may be scattered across buildings and locations. In field work like sales, meetings may be the only time some team members return to base. 
 
Even in small close knit teams live software developers, the daily or weekly meeting serves a purpose. Some things are just better shared with a group than in a one to one discussion. And Shakespeare’s Antony could never “cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war” over a coffee in the forum. It needs an audience, a meeting.
 
People like getting together and chewing the fat. No amount of logic and discipline over minutes and actions and agendas will ever change this. Human behaviour will eat any rationalist meeting approach for breakfast. Along with the biscuits and the bacon rolls if they are provided. 

​I should apologise at this point. I will get to the other end of the telescope but my real point about meetings is that we should start in the middle. The “other end” would be working backwards from the actions to determine how meetings should be run. Tempting but no more likely to overcome human psychology than the traditional approach.
 
Instead my starting point is another common attitude. How often have you heard something like “I’m not sure if [insert name of meeting] is a waste of time but I always try to go along because its fun.” 

​That quote is the definition of a successful meeting. The attendees are motivated to attend. They enjoy being there. And they want to participate. Given these preconditions you can achieve anything.
 
So instead of starting with the purpose and agenda, go to the middle and build out. 

​Bring together a group of people that like each other or feel they can learn from each other or have some other clear motivation to be in the same room together. Choose a time slot and venue that suits people’s diaries. If possible give them some additional motivation like free doughnuts or a couple of beers.
 
Once people want to be there you can think about what you want to achieve. This could be big decisions. But it might also be smaller things. For example, the core of the meeting might be to brief the team on a new strategy. The outcome you want is for each attendee to take away a couple of personal actions to make it work.
 
There is no need to have a hard line on actions and accountability. In this situation, that will feel like bullying not management.
 
And you want to people to enjoy the meeting. Otherwise, all that effort is a one off. They will come to your first meeting but not the next one. 

​The final element is to think about what is needed in advance.
 
Most people like to know why the meeting is taking place. So a clear purpose is a minimum requirement. A simple statement like “Monthly Team Meeting” can be enough. No need to get evangelical.
 
For many meetings that is all the pre-work you need. Regular meeting have a rhythm of their own and an agenda is rarely necessary. An agenda and material to read in advance may be required. But there is no rule that says there must be an agenda.
 
A lot depends on timing. In a startup or a deal situation things can move fast. Advance notice can be tough to organise. I can remember, during a takeover bid, holding a Board meeting at midnight and scheduling the next one for 4 am.
 
Set agendas can be a straitjacket rather than a control. Especially in a startup. This week’s big issue can be superseded by the time you sit down to have the meeting. Any preparation should be set in the context of what is required for a good meeting. Not just a wish list of what you would like to talk about. 

​So there you have it.  An alternative formula for good meetings. Plan how you can make the meeting good fun and add social value. Then set out what you can achieve - be realistic. And finally do the minimum needed in advance. No agenda without a reason.
 
One other thing. Most of this article is written in the context of the person drive ing the meeting. I have sort of assumed the reader is in a leadership position. CEO or founder for example.
 
And there is no doubt good meetings require good leadership.
 
Everyone has a role to play in this. Even if you are just a small cog in the business wheel. Come along to the meeting with the right attitude. Enjoy the discussion and work to make it fun for others. Make a note of your own actions and get on with it. Don’t wait for the minutes.
 
Leadership is about you, not about job titles. 

This has lots of implications regardless of the type of customer you are targetting. The gulf between product and service buying for an enterprise SaaS customer is especially wide.
​
I want to point out a couple of key things in this piece. ​

Another excellent article which caught my eye was a product manager’s guide to moving up market from Tom Tunguz.

I can’t improve on the list of product features your SaaS product needs to be enterprise ready. If you ever enter into an enterprise procurement process, covering these bases will save you a lot of heartache. And likely prevent your bid falling at the first hurdle.

But don’t be deceived into thinking this is anything like enough. As the title says this is just for a product manager. Selling SaaS to the enterprise has multiple dimensions. Meeting certain technical standards and the preconditions set by procurement is only the entry ticket.

Last week someone asked me to share the basic proposal structure I used to use when selling complex professional services. Writing this down reminded me of a fundamental truth about selling services.

Every sale needs its own unique selling point.

Most entrepreneurs will be familiar with the idea of a USP. A clear and distinctive advantage that set your SaaS apart from the competition.

The implication is that there is a clear USP which will appeal to a range of potential customers. Services are not like that. Services are personal. So each customer likes to feel that the USP is designed from them and them alone.

Back in the day, we used to refer to this as the killer slide. Every proposal had to have one page that made the buying decision for the client. 

Achieving this when you are selling to the enterprise needs a couple of things. 

First, this will never appear on the procurement agenda. Procurement’s job is to get specific answers to a whole range of standard questions. This allows them to do like for like comparisons and score your SaaS against its competitors.

Winning this type of scoring is an art form in itself. But it does not touch on USP. By definition this defies comparison. To figure this out you need to talk to the real buyers. The people in the enterprise that will benefit from your SaaS.
​
Your USP for a specific customer needs to be couched in the benefits that key people within that enterprise will realise if they use your SaaS. (Note use it, not just buy it.) 

The service mindset is the key to enterprise SaaS. Building a product with the right operations and support to deliver behind it is a core essential. You can take account of these needs from the outset of your startup.

Once you engage with customers, you have to get on the business benefits agenda.

Satisfy procurement and deliver the wow factor the business buyers. away. Or, click the Write button and compose something new.

This particular learning has been front of mind for me during the past week. And things right v the right thing turns out to be a good way of shining a light on some of the more frustrating moments.

​I like to focus on helping entrepreneurs and companies. There are plenty of other smart people and organisation trying to help in the same way. You would think that making life easy for founders would be important. And on the face of it, Scotland and the UK should be a good place to achieve that.
 
There are a handful of key measures Economists like to turn to when explaining the relative economic performance of different countries. A favourite is the Ease of Doing Business index compiled by the World Bank.  The UK ranks 7th in this list and 16th for the specific category “Starting a Business.”
 
Yet it doesn’t seem to work out that way. So often a promising startup pitch becomes entangled in a web of process and bureaucracy

One recent experience sticks in my mind. The entrepreneur had a strong, simple idea in a high value life sciences niche. Life sciences is not my speciality but this lady was the best entrepreneur in the sector that I have seen in the last 4 years. It was all clear and compelling. Questions were answered with confidence and little bit of brio.
 
Then we got to IP.
 
And found what felt like dozens of unanswered and unanswerable queries. Many of which lay in then hands of an organisation that I know is committed to helping companies like this get started. Yet the founder was left unable to get to any clear answer. Never mind a simple one.
 
And there are plenty of other areas where the ecosystem designed to help has enmeshed startups in complexity they don’t need.
 
On the very same evening I heard about challenges related to complex shareholder arrangements for a company that has not product yet and has not started trading. Questions surrounding the best way of ensuring that a startup qualifies for EIS or SEIS, the two excellent tax incentives that exist in the UK. And another entrepreneur worn down by the time and effort required to go through the process for a pitching competition designed to give startups free money.
 
This happens all the time.
 
Sometimes its the founding team that initiates the problem. In other cases, the system designed to help is just too process heavy. But every time there is more people like me and other senior mentors could be doing to help.
 
Matters of shareholder law and contracts, tax incentives, distribution of public money and IP are all important to get right. Risk and complexity do exist in these arrangements. The way this reality is approached is wrong. 

Complex solutions are offered and pursued. Or worse, the situation is allowed to go unresolved. Professionals and others weigh the options while the startup tries to move forward. In time, the weight of this uncertainty becomes crushing. A huge obstacle to investment. And a real drain on the time and energy the founding team needs to get things moving.

​Too often (and I include myself in this) experienced professionals hear the problem and switch straight into doing things right mode.
 
We all need a big dose of doing the right thing mentality.
 
In the shareholder example above, there was a lawyer in the room. The entrepreneur explained what he wanted to achieve with his co-founder. Rather than taking him at his word, she challenged the underlying thinking. Take an alternative approach and get a simpler, faster, cleaner solution.
 
Great work Julie.
 
Advisors need to look for the simple way through. Resolve obstacles and move forward. Or to be clearer, get shit done. There is nothing worse than confusion and uncertainty. Not knowing your IP rights or shareholder structure kills any investment and the business with it.

So the job of an advisor is to make it easy for entrepreneurs to focus on innovation getting in front of customers. That is doing the right thing.

All that aside, a different thought struck me as I was driving home. In my mind, these guys are already a customer. They are busy people with high pressure jobs that are literally life and death. And they gave up 3 hours of time between them to help me out.

Since I have gained value, I must owe them more value in return. Its an obligation plain and simple. 

That took me back to thinking about this article from Price Intelligently which argues for a retention first mindset rather than an acquisition first approach. The authors have approached this from a metrics standpoint. And they demonstrate clearly that reducing churn can be a straight path to rapid growth.

But metrics are outcomes not strategy. Churn and its relative LTV are good examples. They capture an important concept. Yet they result from measuring customer lifetime at the end not from the beginning. That can’t be right!

Nonetheless, I liked the principle when I first read the post. I was also a little bit doubtful to be honest. Retention first sounds very attractive to someone who prefers building relationships to cold sales. So was I just playing to my own preferences?

My customer meeting has put that niggling doubt to bed. Good business works on human relationships. Not just transactional benefits.

That’s why numbers and benchmarks are useful tools but no way to run a business. 

So for me, retention first is a simple principle. One that applies to any B2B SaaS from day one. And it works like this:

• As soon as you figure out someone is a potential customer, your job is to retain their interest.
• Real lifetime value is measured by the benefits gained and the depth of relationship. Not by the date when a customer stops paying.
• You measure the strength of your business by relationships not pipeline.
• Like everything else this is not a zero sum game. You are trying to give more value than you get. Whether money changes hands or not.

This is why CRM systems were developed in the first place. Too many are now just pipeline crunchers. With new, richer data sources, there is a big opportunity to do this differently. We can all begin with how we approach any and all business relationships. 

Competitive pitching drives a whole lot of bullshit.

Its become one of the centrepieces of every startup ecosystem. If you want to build a reputation, grab some PR, grow your network, win cash prizes and generally just fit in, you need to pitch to win.

Founders are groomed by a whole coterie of experts and supporters. How to hone your message? How to pitch your startup? Get yourself investment ready? Business is framed as a race and only the fastest and strongest are winners. 

Only 1 in 10 startups survive (try fact checking that stat by the way!) The logic of pitching competitions says that to be in that top decile you need to beat the other nine guys on that stage.

Set down in plain English, its kind of obvious that is nonsense. Winners need to beat the incumbent competition or create new markets or change the way people shop or disrupt the value chain. Or any one of a hundred other ways to innovate.

But being better at talking in front of a slick slide deck isn’t one of them. Nor is looking a bit more promising that nine other striving entrepreneurs, in the same number of different markets segments, with different products, new business models and not a dollar of revenue between them. 

​
At one level this all seems harmless. Startups get a bit of exposure. All that coaching helps them sharpen the message. The pitch itself build confidence and presence. So why not?

If it was all just a bit of fun, I could go along with that theory. But that’s not how it works. Pitching competitions work like the beauty queen circuit. There are favourite sons and daughters. Stars are born and also rans discarded. The winners get the cash - usually small but not insignificant amounts. And investment often follows.

These competitions sit at the heart of our mechanism for picking the businesses which will be the future of our economies. Those who succeed on the catwalk are set on the road.

Angel investors and their advisors love this stuff. Of course, a fair bit of the cash sticks to the hands of advisors so its easy to see why they like the system. There are a bunch of other interested parties as well. The promoters and sponsors of contests bask in the good they are doing. Taxpayers’ cash flows into the winning companies.

All those who play the game have reputations as good guys. They are doing their bit and that builds trust and standing. We have bred self reinforcing systems based on self satisfaction and underpinned by apparently ruthless competition.

Yet its all built on sand. There is little due diligence. Facts and figures often don’t exist so they can’t be checked. Valuation models look impressive but they have no substance. So is this game really the best way to allocate scarce resources? ​​
Remember that economics is defined as “the science of scarce resources.”

A lot of hope and no small amount of political, human and financial capital is invested in startup ecosystems around the world. Technology has the potential to disrupt the old order, spark a new wave of prosperity and transform society for the better.

We are also giving encouragement to some of our brightest and best young people. Entrepreneurs surely deserve the truth. Tell them what we really think of their business idea and their potential. The pitching charade can give a business 3 years or more of life. Often on a false promise.

I think its time to find a better way to distribute our support. 

Until recently, I worked for one of the leading professional services firms in the world. The organisation had fantastic depth of human talent. And an unrivalled client base amongst the leading companies across the globe. We all made a ton of money.

Yet as leaders we could never escape the feeling that something was missing. Every client engagement was different. A team of smart people would think through a complex business problem and use their experience and a bit of innovation to develop a specific solution. 

If only, we could capture the essentials and repeat the same solution over and over. What a business model that would make! 

​For years we struggled to turn gold plated, world leading services into products. Every leader was adamant this was the way forward. I well remember one senior partner literally thumping the table in a 3 Michelin Star London restaurant. Barking “Repeatable solutions” at us in his most stentorian tone.

Contrast this with the startup world today. SaaS is the business model of choice for software.

By definition, it takes a product (software) and turns it into a service. And technology enables this mindset to spread far wider than just software. As one of the leading thinkers in the industry, Ben Thompson of Stratechery, put it recently, we are now in a world of “everything as a service.”

It looks like the leaders in services are desperate to become product businesses. While those who make a living from products are striving just as hard to turn those into services.

What is going on here? No doubt part of the answer is “grass is always greener” mentality. On a more positive angle, both attitudes show a bit of an innovation mindset which can only be a good thing for customers. But in the end, I don’t think we will see an outright exchange of business models. Services will win.

As customer we love to be treated to excellent service. Delivering services is more painful for most people. As technology overcomes that particular barrier, expect to see a service mentality take over (almost) everywhere. 

If you are building a product or running a product company, remember selling and delivering services needs a different approach to success. 

The Trump/ UK Government approach to big international has been bugging me for some time now. The approach is to treat everything like a business deal. This is plain wrong. Nothing illustrates this better than the posturing and contradictions that have accompanied the start of Brexit process this week. 
 
It feels like the best we can hope for is the least bad outcome. On both sides of the Atlantic. It also occurs to me that there are some important lessons here for any B2B company, SaaS or otherwise. Because the Trump “art of the deal” and the May “business like approach” are not only bad politics. They represent a terrible way to do business as well.
 
Sometimes the study of what not to do can hold valuable lessons. In that spirit, what can B2B SaaS learn from the mistakes our leaders are determined to make?

​Top of the list is the way you treat potential customers and business partners. The TB approach (I am going to shorten Trump/ Brexit to TB to keep things simple) is a combination of overt or closet threats and bluster about how strong “we” are in comparison to “them.” 
 
The threats of course are empty. Or at least implementing them would damage us more than the other party. Think through the implications of the UK reducing security co-operation with Europe for example. This is a pretty easy point for a business. How could it be of any help to go around threatening stuff that damages your own business?
 
Showing the other side you are strong sounds more attractive. Yet this is an illusion. It too carries an implied threat. I am stronger than you therefore I can bully you if I want. This is not a great message to send to anyone you do business with. Customer, partner, supplier or team. Plus, is that really the kind of business you want to run?
 
You need to start by respecting the people you aim to do business with. Treat everyone as an equal. This is the only basis for a sustainable business relationship. Period. 

​Once you apply this basic principle, it leads straight to the next lesson. TB either ignores or dismisses the things that are most important to the other party. Anyone living in the UK sees this in the starkest terms every day. 
 
The whole Government, opposition and media agenda is obsessed with UK/ EU trade. Its actually quite bizarre. Writing a piece about an international trade agreement in a tabloid newspaper would have been journalistic suicide 18 months ago. Now not a day goes by without ill informed comment along the lines of “the EU needs us more than we need them.”
 
Yet our European allies have two principal concerns. Maintaining the guarantee of peace on the continent. Which was the overriding objective of the Treaty of Rome. And respecting the commitments and partnerships that every EU member state has entered into in good faith. 
 
The two sides have different agendas and objectives. How good are the chances of deal? In business, you have two options. If there is no common ground, then don’t try to do business with each other. Simple. 
 
On the other hand if you believe there is value from a business relationship, then make sure you have a clear understanding of the objectives on the other side. This will obviously inform the negotiations. You should also make it a clear test of any deal. If you can’t see how the other party benefits, then it is a bad deal. 

​It strikes me as I think this through that this conceals another important lesson. TB also appear not to know their own objectives. Never mind the other side. The forthcoming US/ China summit makes this clear. China has a clear target to preserve and enhance bilateral trade. Without allowing the US to interfere in its own sovereignty. Could you state the US aim in such clear terms?
 
There is a high chance the Xi Jinping will run rings round the supposed master dealmaker. So it may seem obvious but make sure you are clear on your own business goals in any deal. 

With mutual respect, clear objectives and value for each side, the core of a good deal is in place. The rest is about people, tactics and time. The mindset you need here is load, aim fire rather than load, fire, aim. In other words listen and understand before each move.  Some simple examples:
​

• Your enterprise customer tells you that legal need to review the contract. Instead of explaining why lawyers should not get in the way, ask for the contact number. Then find out what their people see as the key risks.

• The finance people can only look at the deal after completing the annual budget cycle. Don’t make beat them over the head with exaggerated financial claims. Respect their time and book the earliest available slot to speak.

• The manager who runs the system your SaaS would replace is against the deal (surprise!) Rather than going round him or her, schedule a meeting and find out what a win would look like. Then factor that into the deal.

 
If you don’t believe the last one will work, watch the summit next week. Look out for Chinese investment in US infrastructure projects in amongst the trade arguments.
 
Its easy to be seduced by the benefits of your own SaaS. The worst symptom is when you find yourself telling the customer that buying is a “no brainer.” There is only one person with no brains in that conversation. 

​If you can bear to watch, the TB processes unfolding offer plenty of lessons for selling B2B SaaS to the enterprise. Despite the professed business expertise of those involved, a good rule of thumb is to study the political reports and then do the opposite.
 
Much of what I have written above seems obvious when you think about it. Yet it can be hard in the heat of the deal. So try to remember two other things, listen to people.
 
That sounds like one thing but it is two. Listen and people. Listen and be especially careful to hear the bad news as well as the good (all too easy when observing TB in action!) Don’t deceive yourself. Sometimes the other side are telling you No. Understand it and get over it.
 
And the other side is always people. Understanding the organisation is important of course. But that breaks down into a lot of individuals. Respect each of those people. Understand their personal agenda. Find benefits for each individual where you can. It takes time but it works.