| Topic Name: |
Management Issues |
| Message Name: |
Bursting Dot-Coms |
| Date Posted: |
05/25/2000 |
| In Reply To: |
It seems that most of you are speaking about dot coms that were started by technologists, then figured they could run the show by themselves once they closed their first round. Good companies will separate management, biz dev, tech and marketing -- then strive to create a common culture to unite the company through turbulent times. The fact that weak leadership can exist is a function of the overabundance that has existed in the market over the last 3 years.
If the past few months on the NASDQ have taught us anything, it is that a company cannot be built on only to please Wall Street trends -- it must be built on an ability to adapt, grow and create real tangible value. These things are coming into focus now, and the weak companies are suffering. This creates an opportunity for real leadership to emerge and capture the right staff.
I have built a company from zero to 50 people over the past 9 months out of cash flow with 100% retention. That is based on the ability to provide vision and direction to a team of exceptional people who can seize many opportunities. Our profitability, retention and leadership assets are profoundly attractive to investors now, and that shows me that the best leaders will always rise to the top and the wannabe entrepreneurs will return to their rightful place in the R&D department.
|
| Message: |
I totally agree with the previous 3 messages - what they have to say about dot-coms and about managers in dot-coms. Having worked with quite a few dot-coms, I can say that most of these people are misuided enthusiasts than vision-driven entreprens. These people do not have the information they need to make any decision, do not know what they would be doing in the near-future, niether do they have a valid revenue model. The business model itself seems to be made of bits an pieces and whatever measures had been taken so far seem to be adhoc rather than with a startegy or goal in mind.
With all the hype around dot-coms, people forget one important thing - the dot-com is not a Kamadhenu ( Hindu myth - a cow that would grant you all you want). A dot-com is a BUSINESS - you need to invest as much time and effort into researching and analysing it as you would when you start any new business or invest anywhere. This is what that seems to be lacking today. Even people who have invested in dotcoms have not much of an idea of the company's business and revenue models. (I know acquaintances who have invested in companies around the world and have no idea whatsoever about the top management, what the company is doing, etc).
Admit that the early-movers have made a quick-buck with seemingly little effort but then that is the way in all new markets, right! Only when this is realised will we see less failures and more importantly, less expectations built around new ventures.
I am in no way taking any credit away from the successful people. Kudos to them - in such a scenario thay have managed to come out with flying colours ..
Any comments?
|
|
