Posts Tagged ‘profit’

7 Ways to Hold Consultants Accountable Now

Tuesday, September 23rd, 2014

7 ways to hold consultants accountable nowMy wife will tell you I like giving other people advice.

That’s probably why I’m a management consultant.

But even consultants have to take some of their own advice – and change in order to grow.

For example, we must find a process for linking our compensation to our results in a meaningful way.

There’s no doubt this is hard to do. But that’s no excuse for refusing to try.

However, at the risk of making a huge understatement, it’s going to take time.

So, while we’re waiting, what can a business owner do to make sure the consultants they hire actually deliver results?

1. I talked about our own solution to linking compensation to results last year in a post called “Let’s Hold Consultants Responsible For Results”. It isn’t perfect, but it’s better than the traditional model.

2. Four years ago I suggested how owners can keep control when they work with consultants.

3. Around the same time I highlighted 3 reasons why consulting engagements fail. It’s really not difficult to avoid making them.

4. Look for consultants who have had practical, “hands on” experience operating a company. They have 2 clear advantages over consultants who have spent their entire career in consulting roles, as I pointed out in 2011.

5. There are also clues that you can listen for. Consultants who are effective tend to say certain things.

Here are 2 more things that I thought about this week.

6. Yesterday I was talking to a business owner who had been referred by an existing client. He asked if I would go out and meet him. I agreed immediately because that’s the only way to determine if there’s any chemistry between us.

Some people might consider the idea of “chemistry” to be foolish. But I can tell you from experience, that without it, the risk of a project failing increases dramatically.

7. Ask what success will look like. It’s more than just a description of what the consultant’s going to do and the services they’ll deliver. It’s about knowing how, when and what they will do to help you get the results you want.

Success, they say, comes not from doing one big thing well, but from doing many little things well. Perhaps change is like that too.

We at ProfitPATH, and lots of other consultants, are chipping away, doing the necessary things that will bring change to our business.

Click here and automatically receive our latest blog posts.

Jim StewartJim Stewart is the founding Partner at ProfitPATH. He has been working with business owners for over 16 years to increase profits and improve the value of their companies. LinkedIn

Share

Strategy, Gambling and Uncertainty

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2013

The argument that strategy has become irrelevant and obsolete in our fast changing, unpredictable world is still, unbelievably, being promoted.

Beware of it. It’s just plain wrong.Strategy - a way to deal effectively with inevitable uncertainty

Business owners and management teams who buy into it limit their ability to grow and to make money. They’re playing with their own and their employees’ futures.

The people behind this “pop”, flavour-of-the-month thinking, are confused. They don’t understand either strategy development or execution.

Last week I read a great blog post which, I think, puts the case for strategy very succinctly and clearly. And while I’d like it to put an end to the “no strategy” lobby it almost certainly won’t.

In Placing Strategic Bets in the Face of Uncertainty, Roger Martin hits several key points:

•    Strategy isn’t about turning uncertainty into certainty. No one can do that because no one can accurately predict the future.

•    Strategy is about making the best possible, most informed choices that can be made now. Then responding quickly and with flexibility if those choices don’t pay off as hoped.

•    If a business owner and his/her team don’t develop and share a desired “future state” for the company how can progress toward it be tracked? And without that reference point, how will they know what matters and how to make sense of what actually happens?

•    Only by making assumptions about what has to happen in order for their desired state to be reached, can the team determine what has to be monitored – to see if the assumptions become reality.

•    In other words having a strategy is the only way to figure out what to pay attention to. And if you don’t know that, how will you be able to respond quickly to developments, which will prevent you achieving your aims?

•    Strategy is helpful (to say the least) in two ways.

o   First, the owner and her/his team are able to closely monitor their assumptions, see deviations quickly and take appropriate action immediately.

o   Second, they have a logical base or structure to which they can apply new data, updating their original thinking. This also allows a faster, better response than having to keep rethinking and recreating their approach.

Makes sense, doesn’t it?

Strategy isn’t a way to get rid of uncertainty. It’s a way of dealing effectively with inevitable uncertainty, by making and updating well-considered bets about the future.

Can You Lower Your Sales Goal During The Year?

Tuesday, July 10th, 2012

The meeting was moving along well until the topic of the annual sales target came up.

The leadership team wanted to lower it to a point significantly below the previous year’s actual results. They believed that the arguments for doing so were logical and made good business sense.

• Actual performance at the end of the first quarter was well behind target.

• Research, admittedly informal, revealed that sales producers made a limited contribution in their first year with the organization. Things improved in the second year. But it took 3 years for them to produce sales at a rate which would keep the organization at the level of the previous year.

• Because of growth, almost half of those responsible for producing the sales were in their first year with the organization.

• There had been a number of large non-recurring sales in the previous 2 years. And while it was reasonable to hope there might be some this year, it seemed unwise to plan on them.

Some of those at the meeting were shocked. After all, this was only the end of the first quarter.

The target was set a few short months ago. The leadership team believed it was possible then. How could they argue it was impossible now!

Then the view was expressed that companies couldn’t (or didn’t) change their budgets once the year started.

We hear this quite often and my response is usually “Who says they can’t”? There’s no external authority that says it’s not allowed.

Publicly traded companies regularly revise their budgets during the year (ask any RIM shareholder). They call the new set of estimates a forecast.

Why can’t privately owned companies do the same? What happens if, for example, it becomes apparent that the company can or will exceed its budget? There isn’t a leadership team I know that won’t revise upwards.

The challenge is when it comes to a downward revision. Our first response is that it’s giving up, quitting, losing. But that’s an emotional reaction.

What happens, for example, if the economy tanks; or a competitor introduces a new technology; or people with needed skills can’t be found; or financing for additional resources couldn’t be obtained?

All of these events can be demonstrated to have happened. They’re not a matter of opinion, they’re facts. To cling to a budget that was developed either before any of those things occurred or which assumed their impact would not be as great as it was seems illogical.

I mentioned some of the facts in this case earlier. Here are some others.

• Every member of the current leadership team was new to their role when the budget was developed.

• No analysis of the drivers of the organization’s previous results had been done in recent times. So none was available to help or inform the new team. 

• The previous leadership team had been in place for only a year and had other challenges to deal with.

• The handover period between the teams from was relatively short.

After some heated discussion the budget was lowered.

If you enjoyed this post you’ll also enjoy Where Do The People Fit?

Click here and automatically receive our latest blog posts

Bad Strategy – How To Spot It

Tuesday, August 30th, 2011

Many business owners are in the middle of their business planning or budgeting process for 2012.

So, for those pressed for time, I’ll summarize a timely article by Richard Rumelt, adapted from his new book “Good Strategy/Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters”, and published in the McKinsey Quarterly.

Here are Rumelt’s 4 hallmarks of bad strategy.

1.    Failure To Face The Problem

A strategy, according to Rumelt, is a response to a challenge. But if the challenge isn’t defined, it’s impossible to assess the quality of the strategy. And if you can’t do that you can’t reject it as bad or improve on it.

For example in 1979 International Harvester produced a Strategic Plan which was thorough and rich in detail. The overall direction was to increase share in each of their served markets while reducing costs.

Unfortunately the Plan didn’t address Harvester’s main problem – its inefficient work organization. This stemmed from grossly inefficient production facilities and the worst labour relations in US industry.

This problem could not be fixed by driving people to increase market share or by investing in new equipment. Harvester survived for a couple of years but began to collapse after a disastrous 6 month strike. The rest, as they say, is history.

2.    Mistaking Goals For Strategy

Rumelt describes a CEO who had a plan to grow revenues 20% a year with profit margins of 20% or more.When asked how this aggressive plan would be achieved, the CEO replied “With the drive to succeed – by picking stretch goals and pushing until we get there”.

The CEO then quoted Jack Welch who said “We have found that by reaching for what appears to be the impossible, we often actually do the impossible.” But he had forgotten that Welch also said “If you don’t have a competitive advantage, don’t compete.”

Rumelt argues that a company needs a unique internal strength or an opportunity created by a change in the industry for this type of growth. Stretch goals and motivation alone are not enough.

He illustrates the inadequacy of this “push until we get there” type of thinking, by referring to the great pushes in the 1914-18 war. The troops who were slaughtered didn’t suffer from a lack of motivation – they suffered from a lack of competent, strategic leadership.

3.    Bad Strategic Objectives

This can take the form of a long list of things to do – often labeled strategies or objectives. These lists result from planning sessions in which the focus is on doing a wide variety of things, not a few, key things.

Rumelt refers to the planning committee for a small city whose strategic plan contained 47 strategies and 178 action items. Action item number 122 was “create a strategic plan.”

Another type of weak strategic objective is one that is “blue sky”. It’s typically a restatement of the desired state of affairs or the challenge- and skips over the fact that no one knows how to get there.

Good strategy works by focusing energy and resources on a very few, pivotal objectives and builds a bridge between the critical challenge and action. Thus, the objectives a good strategy sets stand a good chance of being accomplished.

4.    Fluff

The final hallmark of bad strategy is a restatement of the obvious, combined with a generous sprinkling of buzzwords. Rumelt’s example is a retail bank which said “Our fundamental strategy is one of customer-centric intermediation.”

An intermediate is a company that accepts deposits and then lends the money – in other words, a bank. The buzz phrase “customer centric” could mean that they compete by offering better terms and service. But their policies didn’t reveal any distinction between it and other banks.

So “customer-centric intermediation” is pure fluff. Eliminate it and the bank’s fundamental strategy is being a bank.

5.    My final words

In my next post I’ll finish summarizing the article and talk about why there is so much bad strategy.

2 Key Questions Every New Product Must Answer

Friday, June 10th, 2011

1. It Failed!

Everyone can think of companies – large and small – that have committed resources and spent money on new products/services only to fail.

Does anyone remember Sony’s Mini-Disc or the Apple Newton? Then there are those high profile classics New Coke and Crystal Pepsi.

How do large, credible organizations make mistakes like these?  And if they can do it, what chance do smaller, owner managed companies, with significantly less resources, stand?

2. Here’s A Reason Why.

One reason for these lapses is that the team members making the key decisions (who often spend most of their time in the company’s offices not in the field) believe passionately that the idea is going to work. That’s because, when you’re close to something it’s easy to become convinced you’re right. And when you feel that way you tend to push on regardless.

Maybe their research was faulty, or maybe they just didn’t do any.

Or maybe they didn’t take the time to take a step back and ask the question “What role can our product/service play in the market?” before committing resources to the initiative.

That’s not just a marketing strategy question – it’s a business strategy question. Because if it’s a bad idea and it fails, money and other resources that could have been deployed elsewhere are wasted. And the reputation of the company as a whole – and the people backing the project – is damaged.

3. Products Have To Earn The Right To Exist.

A company’s new products have to earn the right to exist. They do that when the answers to the following 2 questions are “Yes!”
• Do the products provide value that is perceived to be unique compared current offerings?
• Can they generate sufficient revenue, profit and cash to be sustainable?

As a business owner you can find the answers to the questions in a couple of different ways.

The first is by posing them in the early discussions about the products. Finding the answers will generate a lot of the information that will be required to assess the target market, develop a marketing mix, complete financial forecasts and weave them all together in a business case. So it’s hardly a waste of time!

The second is to wait and look for the answers when the business case has been completed.

4. The Important Thing Is………

Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. The important thing is to choose one and use it.

If you proceed without answering the 2 questions then you are taking unnecessary risk with your money and other resources – and your reputation.

The Future Of Your Business: Succession or Exit?

Thursday, May 5th, 2011

Our guest this week is Jim Pullen of Concert Partners. His career has included cross-border mergers and acquisitions of international technology companies. He is a senior advisor to Tequity, a specialist M&A firm in the technology sector.

Succession or exit – it’s a stark choice, but since we are all mortal, one of these is going to happen!

A recent study of Canadian businesses showed that while 70% recognized that a transition or exit will have to take place, only 7% had a plan! And incidentally, selling at the best price at the right time doesn’t constitute a plan!

I worked for an international mergers and acquisitions company in both London (UK) and Boston (USA). While I was there we carried out a study of 250 M&A transactions we were involved in, over a span of 8 years.  The transactions took place in Europe, US, and Canada. 

We wanted to find the key areas that buyers looked for in a transaction.  Based on the study, we developed a framework for ranking and assessing a company on the factors that were proven to drive a valuation.

The main areas of value enhancement that emerged are described below.

1. Financial

This category includes basic financial metrics such as profitability and revenue growth.  Companies with high profit margins and high rates of revenue growth obviously command a higher valuation. 

Other aspects include the type of revenues a company generates.  Recurring revenues can add to a valuation as it makes the company’s cash flow more predictable. So, for example, a company that sells big ticket one-off products could look to build up more of an offering around maintenance and post-sales services for their product – where they can sign their clients into multi-year maintenance contracts. 

Companies with strong cash generation are also more attractive to buyers.  They are able to take on more debt that can be used to finance growth.  It also makes a leveraged buy-out possible.

2.   Market & barriers to entry

In this category the factors include the strength of customer relationships and degree of uniqueness the company enjoys in its market.  Companies that have a direct and strong relationship with the end users/purchasers of their product will get a higher valuation.

Brand, which clearly has to be part of a long-term strategy, plays a large role in the value a buyer places on a company.  We found that a strong brand can make up to 70% of the value in a company.

In terms of barriers to entry, companies should use many mechanisms to defend their position. Examples are legal protection though patents and trademarks, exclusive relationships with key suppliers, and building internal expertise through strategic hiring.  Anything a company can do to make it harder for competitors to enter their space will help command a premium on valuation. 

3. Human resources

In this category, the framework looks at both technical skills and management skills.  As companies grow, it is important to distribute the key skill sets deeply across the organization.  Often after an exit, the founders will want to leave, either because they have a large financial gain or they prefer to be entrepreneurs over working in a large corporation.  A buyer will place a premium on a deep management team so the company can continue to innovate and execute even with the loss of the founders.

4. Strategic fit

This factor relates to the degree that the company being acquired is a strategic fit for the buyer’s product portfolio.  We have seen cases where buyers are willing to pay a 50%-70% price premium for a company that fills out a missing piece of their product portfolio and gives them access to the markets and expertise. 

Partnerships are an excellent way to lay the foundation with a potential buyer.  A partnership is a low-commitment way for them to get deeper experience with a potential acquisition. If things work out well and strategic synergies start to develop then it is easy to take the step towards a deeper relationship.
 
5. Governance

The last factor involves good governance.  We have found that a strong board of directors can add a 25% premium to the value of a company.  This is due to the buyer having more assurance that the company has been well governed and there will be no unexpected surprises they need to deal with.

A Few Final Thoughts.

There are 3 main ways in which the succession issue can be handled: a younger generation of the family takes over; the executives buy out the owner via a management or leveraged buy-out (MBO/LBO); or there is a liquidity event (the shares are given some realizable value) by means of a trade sale or listing on a public market (Initial Public Offering or IPO).

Whichever route is taken, it is clearly in the shareholders’ interest to maximize the value of the business prior to that event.  The ideal time to begin that process is on day one, but it may not be too late; 2 years is a realistic timescale in which to groom a company for sale/transition.

Let me leave you with 2 thoughts. Begin thinking about it today. And get some help from people with experience.

Jim currently provides corporate development consulting services and mentors early stage businesses at the ventureLAB in Markham. You can contact him at jpullen@concert-partners.com

The 2 Truths Every Business Owner Has To Face

Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011

There are 2 truths every business owner has to face.

You can’t sell a business which isn’t successful. No one’s going to buy a company that hasn’t consistently produced good profits and cash flow – which they believe will continue after the change in ownership.

No one is immortal. So, every privately owned business is going to be sold, to the next generation or a third party, at some point in time.

Why some owners ignore the second truth.

Building a successful company requires vision, developing a flexible strategy and actually implementing that strategy. Then there’s finding funding, hiring and keeping good people, dealing with customers and suppliers, managing/leading and I’m only getting warmed up…………………..

When building a successful business is totally absorbing and fulfilling why would you consider selling? When all of your time and effort is focused on dealing with what is happening now, thinking about an exit strategy seems irrelevant.

Here’s another reason. While all business owners start their companies because they have an idea they think is a winner – their baby – the people who currently own businesses come from at least 2 different generations. And with this, as with everything else, each generation views things differently.

Many older owners – if they even think about it in these terms – didn’t get into business for the capital gain at the end of the day. They got into it to provide an income for their families over their working life time and to build something tangible.

However, younger business owners – those in their thirties and forties – are more likely to be focused on selling before retirement age and doing something else with the money they make on cashing out.

Why you can’t ignore the second truth – especially if you’re older.

If you’re older you are, by definition, closer to the end (however you define it) of your career. And we know that a large number of Canadian business owners are closing in on 65 or 70 – or more. We also know that the majority of them haven’t begun planning for succession or a sale.

This is bad news. Here’s why.

If you build a successful company but make no plans for your exit you destroy the value you’ve created. It’s only a question of the degree to which you do it.

It’s not logical to end a career spent laboriously creating value by doing something that gives that value away.

So if you are an “older” business owner – or if you know someone who is – do something about it now.

It’s not too late – but it will be very soon.

If you’re not sure where to start speak to us – or others like us.

How Strategy Evolves – A Great Example

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

We consultants love to hold forth about how strategy and business models can, and should, evolve. But today I came across an article written by someone who has actually proved that it works.

Here’s how.

Worm Your Way Into Business – The Original Strategy.

Tom Szaky, a Canadian immigrant, started TerraCycle as an eco-friendly waste management company. His customers paid him to haul away their organic waste and, instead of dumping it in a landfill, feed it to worms.

In less than a year he realized that they couldn’t get customers to pay them enough to make a profit doing it.

Then they figured out that instead of making money only by providing a service they could also turn the output into a saleable product.

Evolution # 1 – Turn S#*t Into Gold.

TerraCycle took the worm waste and sold it as premium, organic Plant Food, packaged in recycled soda bottles. The product was sold by major retailers – e.g. Home Depot, Wal-Mart – and revenues grew to over $3 million in 4 years.

They sourced bottles via their web site and a program launched in schools. TerraCycle paid the shipping to get the bottles to their plant and made a 5 cent per bottle donation to a school or charity of the sender’s choice. The program was so successful that they were soon paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars. And that almost broke the bank.

So they tried to find sponsors to pay the shipping and donations in exchange for publicity. That idea didn’t work but it did lead to another opportunity.

Evolution # 2 – More Waste = A Broader Product Range.

Sponsors didn’t want to pay to haul away waste created by other companies – but they did pay TerraCycle to take away their own waste. The opportunity was to turn that waste into raw materials to be used to make consumer products e.g. backpacks made from used juice pouches.

Within a year the new products were sold by the major retailers who agreed they embodied the same values as the Plant Food – better, greener and cheaper.

But once again, success brought a problem. Over time TerraCycle had learned how to bottle worm waste profitably. But it didn’t know how to manufacture these new products, manage supply chains or compete against low cost, Chinese manufacturers.

In 2008, TerraCycle lost $4.5 million on sales of $6.6 million.

Evolution # 3 – Focus On Eliminating Waste.

Szaky, walking through a major retail store one day, noticed that Disney had products in a wide range of categories – from shower curtains to food products. He realized that one company could not be an expert in so many consumer product categories – and then a friend explained licensing.

TerraCycle evolved once more and now even their Plant Food is manufactured under licence. The company has grown to over $13.5 million in sales, is operating in 14 countries – and is profitable.

Szaky says that they will stick to their core business (eliminating waste). But he knows there will other challenges to deal with and that more evolution may be required.

Summary.

It’s easy to assume that a company has always done business using its current strategy/business model. But it frequently isn’t that way – e.g. Starbucks original strategy was for customers to stand, listen to classical music and be served by baristas with moustaches.

Strategy Made Practical

Monday, October 11th, 2010

Back in June a friend of mine Jeremy Miller at Sticky Branding commented in his blog that “When you get into strategy and planning you can easily get caught up in the MBA speak.” While I might have phrased it differently (probably because I have an MBA) he has a good point.

All of the business owners we talk to have a strategy. Some may not refer to it using the word “strategy”. But they can all answer 3 questions:
1. Why did you start the company?
2. What do you want to get out of it in 3 years?
3. How are you going to get there?

The answer to the first tells us what their vision and mission statements are. Their response to the second question reveals their goals and the answer to the third is their strategy.

Some colleagues argue that we’re over-simplifying. But we always get a response to those questions, while we’ve proved we may not if we say “Tell me your vision for the company”. If the answers we get are not complete we simply ask follow on or clarifying questions.

By asking the questions in a way that they can be easily answered we avoid making anyone feel uncomfortable if they’re not familiar with “technical” terms. And the responses are generally phrased in practical, pragmatic language.

Returning to a sports analogy for a moment, developing and executing strategy is like playing your favorite sport. We all have some level of skill at it but there are times when we need, or want, to improve those skills.

That’s when we get some help from a professional, e.g. a personal trainer. We usually get the best results when their input is in language we understand and is practical.

Imagine a personal trainer saying something like “The rectus abdominals and obliques can be strengthened using a vehicle with wheels which is moved by pushing pedals with the feet while the internal and external obliques can be flattened and the waist can be reduced.”

When they could just as easily have said “Cycling can strengthen your stomach muscles and trim your waist.”

We believe that to get the best results – steady growth and increasing company value – strategy has to be made practical. That’s one of the reasons we started the business.

4 Reasons Why Every Business Should Be Sold…..Eventually

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

We’ve had a couple of interesting conversations result from the last post. It warned against letting fear caused by the short term economic outlook drive you into making decisions which will damage the value of your business in the long term. The reason for building long term value is so that the owner can get a good price for the business when he/she is ready to do something else.

One conversation started when a colleague suggested that not all business owners expect or intend to sell their companies. (When I say “sell,” I’m including the transfer of ownership from one generation to the next.) I’ve always believed that, on a day-to-day basis, most owners are more concerned with making the year’s profits goals than the value of the business as an asset. But it had never really occurred to me that anyone would not consider selling either for the right offer or when they’re ready to retire.

I can think of at least 2 things that would affect your expectation of being able to sell. One is thinking that your company couldn’t be worth much and the other is believing that it wouldn’t be interesting or attractive to anyone else. I have met owners who believed one or both of those things. It happens if they have never talked to anyone about how a business is valued, or they are too close to (and overwhelmed by) the day-to-day challenges of their situation. But, provided there is enough time, it should be possible to position any business for sale.

But to have no intention of selling your business! That jolted every Scottish cell in my body – and then some! My friend argued that some people start businesses simply to keep themselves – and possibly family members – busy and to provide them an income. I couldn’t argue with that, particularly if it was a small business in a very specialized field, although I couldn’t think of anyone I knew who thought that way.

It just all seemed so illogical to me. Whether they own a small business or a larger one, all entrepreneurs take the same risks. It’s only the extent of the risk that varies. But surely the perception of risk varies with the person taking it. What may seem to be very little risk to one person can still keep another awake at night. In that case the same 4 reasons for selling apply to everyone.

The first 2 reasons are all about rewards – one for taking risks and the other for investing time.  Why would anyone take the financial risks – personal guarantees to Banks, liability for statutory deductions and civil lawsuits, working without healthcare and pension benefits and the missed opportunity of a steady income working for someone else (and that’s only a partial list) – for only a salary and bonuses? In the early years the salary (if there is one) will be lower than an employer would have paid, so the bonuses (when they come) may only be a way to catch up.

Best case is that the salary and annual bonuses pay for the dream car, boat or cottage, provide a nice home for the owners’ families and give their children access to healthy hobbies and a great education. But what about the money to take great vacations with their spouse or partner when the owner’s ready to move on, the kids have gone or when the owner’s ready to retire? That’s the sort of thing that the funds from the sale of the company are required for.

The second reward is for the long, long hours – the evenings, the weekends, the missed vacations – which business owners pour into their companies. The annual compensation may seem good in absolute terms – but try calculating an owner’s hourly rate. And the countless frustrations they deal with during those hours – demanding customers, unreliable suppliers, unsympathetic financial backers, difficult employees, to name but a few.

Reason #3 – No one lives forever – but a company can easily outlast a person. Think about Wal-Mart, The Body Shop and any company that continues to thrive after the founder has moved on. A business owner spends a significant portion of their life building something which generates profits and cash – and jobs – on an ongoing basis and which gives them enormous satisfaction. So, why would they not want to see it continue (as a legacy if nothing else)? Perhaps it’s a characteristic of entrepreneurs that they believe they’re indestructible, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of aging.

The final reason (at least for now) is that we want our kids to have more than we did. Ideally the business owners’ children would want to spend their lives doing the same thing they have done, running the business. If that is the case, fine. But if it isn’t, the child could grow into the Doctor who discovers the cure for cancer, or a successful businesswoman in a completely different field. Either selling to them, or selling for them to do something else, is a great way to give them a start.

This is why we remind every business owner who will listen that there are 2 reasons for growing a company. It’s why I remind people that every recession I’ve lived through has come to an end. And when that happens some companies take off more quickly than others. They’re the ones whose owners refused to be panicked into doing things they would later regret. They kept long term value and the selling price in mind – when making short term decisions.

Post History