In This Issue:

• Scaling From a Single to Multiple Product Company
• What is Branding and is it Relevant to Chip Companies?
• Tobak's Great Wine for Techies

Scaling From a Single to Multiple Product Company

There are startups that focus maniacally and execute flawlessly, and then there are startups that fail.  There’s pretty much no in between.  With focus, execution and a little luck, you bring a product to market, get a bunch of customers, make some money, and then you celebrate your great success.  Some companies get to their second round of funding this way and others milk it all the way to their IPO and beyond, depending on the strength of that single product. 

But then it happens; you hit … the wall.  There are a lot of reasons why that single product just isn’t cutting it anymore, but the most common ones are:

• the market’s moving on and the demand curve is flattening or declining
• the competition’s catching up and you’re losing market share and margin
• the projected demand never really did materialize
• you couldn’t meet the demand and somebody else did
• the business model just doesn’t have legs

Whatever the reason, it all really boils down to the need to scale revenues at the same or faster rate than before, while maintaining or increasing profits.  To complicate matters, there is a time factor involved; you have to do something before your existing business unravels and you lose shareholder, customer and employee confidence. 

Of course, there’s always the possibility that you didn’t hit the wall at all – many companies grow organically.  But organic growth is often difficult to plan, strategize and manage.  This is especially rough on publicly traded companies that are pressured to grow predictably.  So, even organically grown companies need to develop a top-down, analytical approach to growth, at some point.  But knowing when you’ve reached that point is very tricky, indeed, and many companies overshoot it.  

So, regardless of how you got here, you’re a single-product company who, for one reason or another, needs to embark on a right of passage that every company must face: How to scale your company and expand its business without losing the focus, values or competencies that got you there in the first place.  There are a myriad of questions to be answered along the way, like how to choose the right market opportunities, whether to develop new technologies and products internally or acquire them, and whether to grow horizontally or vertically?         

It’s Riskier than You Think

Many companies underestimate the risks inherent in accomplishing this major transition.  Success with a single product does not automatically translate into success with multiple products and there are many variables in the equation.  In most cases it’s a big change and smart executives approach it with equal measures of optimism and caution.  In fact, most companies are not successful in making the transition, but, in a way, that’s good news for you; there’s plenty of data to develop a set of fairly predictable failure modes to avoid and best practices to follow, if you know where to look.  But they don’t teach you this stuff in business school, so listen up.  

Failure Mode #1 – Don’t change anything, just add more products

A logical approach to the problem of scaling a company is to keep everything the same and just add new product lines.  In theory, if your organizational structure, management team, business model, core technology, marketing and selling strategy, etc. all worked for you before, why shouldn’t it work going forward?  While logical in theory, this approach only works in practice if you first analyze what worked and what didn’t and what is inherently scalable about your company and what isn’t.  And since most fail to take this preliminary step, this is the most common failure mode: building on top of a structure that is not scalable to a multiple product-line environment, or building on top of faulty assumptions.   

Best Practice #1 – Do some research, get an objective perspective

The first step in any major corporate transition is to get a fairly accurate, objective picture of your company and its business.  Obtain some objective data on what your customers, employees and other key constituents think of your company and its products.  Do a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis that analyzes strengths and weaknesses versus competitors, key market opportunities and potential threats to existing and potential future business.  Maybe even take a look at the role your company plays in the value chain, i.e. relative to infrastructure, vendors, customers and even their customers.  Value chains change over time, creating additional opportunities and threats, but only if you’re paying attention. 

Failure Mode #2 – No strategic direction

I’ve actually seen companies present acquisition targets to their board and have their board say, “how can we approve this when we don’t even know where you’re planning to take this company?”  Aside from being embarrassing to the presenter, this is the second most common failure mode for scaling a company: lack of clear strategic direction. 

Best Practice #2 – Develop a new corporate strategy  

Before embarking on this journey, you first need to know where you’re going.  Heed the sage words of Yogi Berra, who said, “If you don’t know where you’re going, you may not get there.”  Sounds obvious, I know, but many companies fail to get this part right.  After the research is done, you need to develop a new corporate strategy that leverages your existing competencies to open the door to a larger market opportunity that enables product-line growth.   

That means, not just having a long-term strategic vision for your company, but also having specific success strategies for getting there and metrics for measuring success.  And we’re not talking about just any watered-down corporate strategy here; we’re talking about a corporate strategy that reflects your unique value proposition, solves a significant, critical customer or industry problem and enables leadership positioning.  The new corporate strategy should plot a trajectory for a company with a larger vision that encompasses a broader product strategy than your previous strategy.  The analyses of the research phase will help considerably in this effort. 

Best Practice #3 – Develop a strategic plan

Overlay the corporate strategy you developed in best practice #2 on top of the research you did in best practice #1 and do a gap analysis.  This will tell you what you need to change in getting from a single to multiple product business.   This is where you analyze the risks and tradeoffs associated with specific product / market opportunities, make versus buy decisions on technology and manufacturing, finance considerations, sales channel considerations, etc.  These analyses are typically done by functional discipline: R&D, marketing, sales, finance, HR, etc.  The result is a strategic plan that’s essentially a blueprint for transforming the company from its current state to the next stage in its corporate lifecycle. 

Failure Mode #3 – We have a new plan, so everyone will magically follow it

Management teams often complete the process described above, or something like it, and then announce to employees that they have a new strategy, look how great it is, and rallying them to execute.  It’s usually six or nine months later that the management team figures out that nobody’s doing anything differently. 

Similarly, the management team probably ends up taking the new strategy outside the company, to the investment community and customers.  But the result’s the same: the dogs won’t eat the dog food.  Failure mode #3 is essentially the assumption that people will behave according to your plan, simply because that’s what makes sense to you and your management team.        

Best Practice #4 – Communicate the strategy and drive change

Employees, customers and investors do what they perceive is best for them.  As a result, any change in corporate strategy must be followed by a specific plan to communicate that change to all key constituents in a manner specifically designed to change their behavior.  In addition to a communication strategy, the goals of all employees throughout the company must be aligned to ensure maximum leverage in bringing about the change, including specific metrics designed to measure the new plan’s success.  Your strategic plan should therefore incorporate the communication, goal alignment, metrics and change management necessary to ensure the new strategy gains lasting traction.          

Approach with Caution

In summary, the transition from a single-product to a multiple-product company is full of risk and should be approached analytically and methodically to ensure success.  The following four-step process, relating to best practices one through four above, provides a reasonable framework for doing that:

• Step one: determine the current state of your company, competitors, customers and the markets you address
• Step two: determine a new corporate strategy that leverages your existing competencies, while opening the door to a larger corporate vision that enables leadership potential for multiple product lines
• Step three: analyze the tradeoffs involved in taking the company from its existing state to the one defined in step two and develop a plan that will take the company to the next stage
• Step four: develop a plan to communicate the new corporate strategy, drive the strategic plan and effect behavioral change, both internally and externally

Lastly, keep in mind that companies and markets are dynamic things – the only constant is change.  Any multiyear plan, as one designed to transition a company from a single to multiple product lines must be, should be revisited periodically to measure success to plan, determine what’s changed – both inside and outside the company – and revise the plan accordingly.  In that sense, a good strategic plan is never static, but always adaptable to changing conditions.       

Back to top

Coming in the June Issue of Invisor Insights:

• Corporate Turnarounds and Repositionings - Coming Back from the Dead
• Brand Management - Building Long-Term Shareholder Value
• Tobak's Great Wine for Techies - Miracle Meritages and The Truth About Wine Ratings

What is Branding and is it Relevant to Chip Companies?

If marketing is the most poorly understood function in high-tech companies, branding is surely the most poorly understood aspect of high-tech marketing.  I’ve heard industry executives equate branding to a company’s or product’s advertising campaign, name, logo, graphics or even a slogan or tag line.  While branding is indeed associated with all these things, it’s kind of like saying that people prefer Coke over Pepsi because of Coke’s name, logo, ad campaign or product packaging; we all know it’s much more than that. 

You might not be surprised to learn that the word brand, as it is used today, does indeed derive from the branding of livestock.  So in a literal sense, it would be correct to use the word in relation to a company’s name or logo.  However, the study of corporate and product branding has come to mean and encompass much more than that.  Today, corporate or product branding means a lot more than the name or logo we print on a business card or product label.  As a result, I think it’s particularly useful to begin this discussion by defining certain branding terms, as they relate to modern companies and products, as opposed to “book” definitions:

Brand.  A distinct entity, identified by name and/or graphic and often trademarked, that represents a company, product or service.  

Brand Equity.  A set of assets linked to a brand that adds to the value of a company, product or service represented by the brand.  Examples of assets include brand awareness and brand loyalty. 

Brand Perception.  The feelings, thoughts, impressions and reactions a brand invokes, resulting from cumulative experience with the company, product or service represented by the brand. 
Brand Identity.  A set of attributes that define or describe a brand; used as a guideline in brand management.

Brand Management.  Utilizing the brand identity to proactively influence a company’s or product’s brand perception, typically to increase brand equity. 

As for the term branding itself, it has come to mean all of these things, which does complicate matters somewhat.  To simplify things, here’s my definition: 

Branding.  1) The study of corporate, product and service brands, including brand equity, brand perception, brand identity and brand management.  2) The development and execution of strategies and tactics designed to manage a brand, typically to improve the brand perception or equity.

After a page of definitions, you’re probably beginning to wonder, why bother?  Isn’t this kind of stuff only relevant to companies that sell products directly to consumers, like Coca Cola or Apple Computer?  Perhaps, but let me ask you a question.  Do you think branding is import to Applied Materials, Cisco, IBM or Intel?  With minor exceptions, these companies don’t sell products to consumers.  Well, the answer is that each of these companies spends big-time on branding.  In fact, each of them has gone through at least one change in their corporate brand strategy, as well.  The question is why?  Well, I’ll tell you why, and it goes like this.

Why Branding Impacts Profit Margins and Shareholder Value

Once upon a time, technology was a game for scientists, hobbyists and the military.  Back then, in the good old days, if you designed it, they came.  Why?  Because everything was one-of-a-kind and a huge improvement over what came before. But the industry has matured since then, and today, technology is driven by the needs of students, parents, children and workers.  Not only that, but these folks all have choices for every electronic product.  Moreover, electronic product manufacturers have choices for chips and software, and so on.  In fact, the high-tech industry has become a highly competitive battlefield, and this is only the beginning.  The market has moved from a hobbyist phase to mass-market adoption, but it is now moving steadily toward commoditization. 

What commoditization means is this.  In the old days, technology buying decisions were based solely on who had the technology or product that actually worked.  Today, in this era of choices and intense competition, buying decisions are based more and more on the cumulative experience companies and consumers have had with individual suppliers of products and services.  Whether it’s an OEM buying chips, a mother buying a video game console for her child, or an investor buying stock, buying decisions are based more and more on brand perception.  In this manner branding influences every company’s competitive position, profit margins and ultimately, shareholder value.  That’s why branding matters, a lot, and it matters to every company throughout the electronics supply chain, even chip companies.

Still not convinced?  Let’s look at an example, shall we?

A Tale of Two Companies

Back in 1992, the financial metrics of Intel and AMD were surprisingly similar.  Sure, Intel’s revenues were 4X that of AMD’s, but their financial performance was otherwise comparable: gross margins for both companies were just north of 50%, net income was roughly 15-20% of revenue and earnings per share was about $2.50, all very respectable numbers.  And although both companies had 486-class microprocessors at the time, Intel got to market years ahead of AMD, so Intel’s processor performance and features were always ahead of the smaller company.   

In contrast, these days, AMD’s processors are comparable to Intel’s in every way – perhaps even more advanced in terms of performance and features.  AMD even has tier-one customers, something they didn’t have back in 1992.  Based on that information, you’d think that the financial performance of these companies would at least be comparable today … but nothing could be further from the truth.  So, how do we account for that illogical discrepancy?  Well, in 1991, Intel launched a branding campaign called Intel Inside.

Intel knew that AMD’s design and manufacturing capability could catch up to them someday.  Moreover, Intel was not willing to rely on their OEM customers to determine their financial future.  As a result, Dennis Carter, Intel’s head of corporate marketing, devised a way to achieve a timeless competitive advantage, independent of the performance and features of their products relative to AMD’s.  It was the first branding campaign from any chip company and the magnitude of the result couldn’t have been predicted.  Intel Inside was designed to educate computer users about the role microprocessors played inside their computers, and that Intel was the premier provider of computer processors.  But the campaign also created demand for Intel’s processors and in so doing, created an insurmountable competitive barrier that remains to this day.   

Intel’s gross margin, net income as a percentage of revenue and earnings per share haven’t changed much since 1992.  In contrast, although their technology and products have closed the gap with Intel, AMD’s financial metrics have declined dramatically.  Gross margins are typically around 33% and, with the exception of the peak of the tech bubble in 2000, AMD hasn’t been profitable on an annual basis since 1995.  To be sure, Intel’s stock has increased roughly 5000% relative to AMD’s during this interval.  Perhaps Intel Inside wasn’t the sole reason for this dramatic shift, but I don’t think anybody in the industry would argue the undeniable fact that it played a critical role.               

How Does Branding Influence People?

Now that we know how much branding matters to technology companies, let’s take a look at how it works.  It turns out that everyone that matters in your corporate ecosystem: customers, employees, investors, even suppliers, have a perception of your company’s brands, and that perception influences each brand’s equity.  It doesn’t matter if you’ve ever done any advertising, public relations or even if you have a web site or not.  Their perception comes from any and all interaction with your company and its products – from a meeting with someone from your company, from your competitors, from a news story they read, and most importantly, from their experience in using your products or services.  People formulate impressions, both negative and positive, both left brain (analytical) and right brain (emotional), whether you’ve ever tried to influence them or not.  The sources of brand perception are many, complex and interact with each other.  The diagram below explains the factors that influence brand perception.   

So, the message here is that your company and its products and services have brand identities and everyone that matters to your company has a perception of those brands.  And most importantly, those impressions influence those people’s buying decisions, no matter where your company is in the supply chain.   The big question is, does it make sense to allow your customer’s and shareholder’s  impressions of your brands to be derived at random, or does it make sense to manage your company’s brands on a consistent basis, with a goal of increasing each brand’s equity, to the best of your abilities?  Let me ask the same question another way: do you manage your company’s finances, product development and manufacturing operations, or do you just let the chips fall as they may and hope for the best, so to speak?  That’s what I thought. 

Stay tuned for next month’s Invisor Insights for brand management strategies that will give your company a competitive advantage and increasing shareholder value, coming in early June.

Back to top

Tobak's Great Wine for Techies

After I wrote the focus on new world Pinot Noirs in last month’s letter I discovered two significant omissions: Steele makes a couple of great Pinots from Carneros and Bien Nacido, the former is very good and low cost, and the latter is excellent and is priced accordingly, but I think the Carneros holds up quite well against more expensive rivals.  In addition, I’ve discovered a relatively new winery, named Testarossa, which specializes in Chardonnays, Pinots and Syrahs that are second to none, so it’s this month’s featured winery, below. 

This month we’re focusing on a craze that’s caught fire in California over the past decade, but goes back hundreds of years in France – Rhone wines, from the famous Rhone Valley in France.  We’ll look at new and old world perspectives on this most unique style.  Parlez vous Rhone?  Well you should.  We’ll also discuss the importance of specific vintages. 

On a side note, please excuse my lack of accents on French vowels, or any other vowels, for that matter.  It’s just too much of a pain.  Guess you’ll have to learn to pronounce this stuff in a French class.  Drink up!

Rhone Wines, from Chateauneuf-du-Pape to Bonny Doon

The Rhone Valley is a vast region that, you guessed it, follows the Rhone River and stretches from Cote-Rotie, near Lyon, in the North, to the edge of Provence, near Avignon, in the south.  Wines of the northern Rhone tend to be made primarily of one wine variety; the reds are primarily Syrah and the whites, Viognier or Marsanne.  The most famous appellation in the northern Rhone is called Hermitage, which has become synonymous with the Syrah varietal and is probably where this awesome noble wine was born.  Other major northern appellations include Crozes-Hermitage, Cote-Rotie, Cornas and Condrieu. 

In contrast to the north, appellations of the southern Rhone have notoriously perfected the art of blending, with up to five or six varietals used in some wines.  I believe that 13 different wine varietals are used throughout the southern Rhone, but I don’t know if anyone has ever tried to blend all 13 in the same bottle!  The most famous appellation of the southern Rhone is Chateauneuf-du-Pape, which I think means “house of the nine monks,” or something like that.  Also in the south are Gigondas and Cotes du Rhone.  The primary varietals used in southern Rhone wines are Grenache, one of the most widely planted red grapes in the world, which actually originated in Spain, where it is called Garnacha, Mourvedre, Syrah, Cinsaut, Viognier, Marsanne and Roussanne.  The strangest thing about the blending done in the Rhone is the use of a small amount of white wine, typically Viognier, in some red wine blends.  Hey, it works.

Syrahs are world-class wines.  They’re big, rich, complex and spicy.  They’re also tannic and pretty long-lived.  In fact, most Syrahs can use a few years of bottle aging.  Think of Syrahs as Cabernet Sauvignons on steroids.  I’m sure wine connoisseurs would have a problem with this analogy, but hey, it’s my column.  Chateauneuf-du-Papes, on the other hand, are drinkable young and long-lived, an unusual combination.  In fact, the best Chateauneuf-du-Papes can last for decades.  These wines are typically Grenache-based, but Mourvedre, Syrah and other varietals are incorporated for added structure and tannins.  These wines can be quite robust, complex and spicy.  I had my first Chateauneuf-du-Pape, a ’94 Beaucastel, at a great restaurant in New Orleans called The Pelican Club, where I also met Michael “I’m Batman” Keaton.  The stars aligned and I never looked back.  In contrast, pure Grenaches, like those found in Gigondas, can be of light to medium body, spicy, and are quite versatile and food friendly.

Rhone whites are typically either Viognier or Marsanne, and both are robust, floral, fruity and can be extraordinary, especially the Viogniers.  As an aperitif, I think it gives Chardonnay a run for its money, and it pares well with light French or California cuisine, like fish, chicken or some entrée salads.             

There are probably hundreds of Rhone winemakers, but some of my favorites and the more reputable estates include:

• Chateau de Beaucastel (Chateauneuf-du-Pape, red and white)
• Ch. Rayas (Chateauneuf-du-Pape, red and white)
• Domain Jean-Louis Chave (Hermitage, red and white)
• Chapoutier (Hermitage Sizeranne, Chateauneuf-du-Pape Barb Rac)
• Paul Jaboulet (Hermitage)
• Also: August Clape, Clos des Papes, Ch. La Gardine, Dom. De la Janasse (CNP Cuvee Chaupin and Vieilles Vignes), Dom. De Marcoux (CNP), Ch. La Nerthe, Dom. Du Pagau, Dom. Du Vieux Telegraphe (CNP), among many others.

More than two decades ago, various California wine-makers began experimenting with Rhone varietals, and there is now a wide range of availability of reds, and some whites too, that offer excellent value when compared to the relatively high prices of Cabernets and Chardonnays.  The wine-makers that started and propagated the trend are called The Rhone Rangers and, like Zinfandel, they have quite a following, which includes me.  Some of the top Rhone-style wine makers in the US are: 

•  Bonny Doon, near Santa Cruz, makes a wide variety of Rhone-style wines and the wine maker, Randall Grahm, has been one of the main instigators of the US Rhone movement.  He also makes the funniest wine labels on the planet; check out the label of their famous Chateauneuf-du-Pape style blend, Le Cigare Volant – and the wine’s pretty good, too. 
• Jade Mountain, based in Napa, which is part of the Chalone Wine Group, makes some of the best Syrahs on this side of the Atlantic, as well as a number of excellent, yet reasonably priced, Chateauneuf-du-Pape style blends and a very good Viognier.
• Bob Lindquist, wine maker at Qupe, in the Santa Maria Valley, makes some incredible Syrahs, Chateauneuf-du-Pape style blends, not to mention a great Chardonnay and a few Rhone whites, as well. 
• Unti, a small family-owned winery in Sonoma, makes some of the best Rhone-style wines around, including an awesome Syrah and a Petit Frere Syrah.  And George is the nicest guy you’ll ever meet. 
• Others include: Joseph Phelps (Syrah Vin Du Mistral), Testarossa (Syrah), Swanson (Alexis, Syrah), Treana (proprietary red/white blends) and Calera (the best Viognier). 

Does Vintage Matter?

Yes.  But when somebody tells you something like, “don’t buy any 1998 Cabs, they’re all crap, it was a bad year,” take it with a grain of salt.  Sure, 1998 wasn’t the best year for Napa Cabs, but that doesn’t mean that some winemakers didn’t still come up with a great wine that year, or that is was bad for other regions too.  Sometimes you get some really good deals, that way, if a year is tarnished.  Conversely, when somebody says that 2001 and 2002 are the best years in decades for German Rieslings, it doesn’t mean they’re all great.  On the other hand, if you’ve never tried German Rieslings before, now might be a good time to go out a try a few, if you think you might enjoy them.  Moreover, the manufacturer and the quality of a specific vineyard or reserve bottling are much more important than the vintage year for an entire region. 

The bottom line is that wine quality has become so good that most years are at least good years, these days.  The effort to improve quality from vintage to vintage began in California, but the techniques used here are being adopted in France and Italy, as well.  The 90s were a great decade for wine, worldwide, but I think that’s mostly because of quality improvements as opposed to luck with crops and the weather.  At the end of the day, taste the wine or buy a bottle and taste it, and if you like it, buy more.  In general, I wouldn’t worry too much about the vintage. 

Tobak’s Monthly Picks

Wines (All Rhones, of course)

All the French Rhones named above are great and available, but most are expensive.  Go for it, if you dare.  Their American counterparts are more cost-effective:

•  Bonnie Doon.  Syrah, Old Telegram Mourvedre, Le Cigare Volante CNP blend, Viognier, Clos de Gilroy light Grenache are all good, all reasonably priced.  
• Jade Mountain.  Napa Valley Syrah is really good in the $20s, Paras Vineyard Syrah is great at almost twice the price, and Paras Vineyard Cask P-10 Syrah is top of the line.  Also various CNP-style blends, Les Jumeaux, La Provencale and Mourvedre are good and sub-$20.  Also good Viognier around $20.
• Qupe.  Bien Nacido Reserve Syrah is awesome for $30s, non-reserve in the $20s.  Also Los Olivos Cuvee blend and Marsanne are good.   
• Unti. Hard to get, Sonoma County winery, but some of the best Rhone-style wines around at reasonable prices.  Syrah, Syrah Petit Frere, Grenache and Grenache Rose, all priced in the $20s.
• Testarossa.  Syrah is awesome, in the $30s.
• Swanson.  Alexis, an innovative Cabernet Syrah blend, for around $45.
• Treana.  A CNP-style proprietary red blend, in the $30s, and a Viognier Marsanne blend.
• Calera.  The best Viognier in America - $32.
• Ferrari-Carano.  Tremonte Syrah, if you can find it.
• Arrowood.  Hard to get Viognier, $20 - $30.
• Acacia.  New Viognier, low $20s.

Winery

Testarossa, Los Gatos, CA.  Well, I’d seen these wines around and was curious, but I didn’t resolve that curiosity until proprietors Rob and Diana Jensen relocated their headquarters and tasting room to the historic Novitiate of Los Gatos, home of the ancient wine-making monks.  I know, monks again.  There must be a connection.  Anyway, I guess the Jensen’s were Silicon Valley folks who, in 1993, followed their dream and Testarossa Vineyards was born.  It’s a pretty common story these days, except for one big difference; these wines are awesome!  Testarossa offers a number of vineyard designated Pinots, Chardonnays and one killer Syrah.  The Syrah, Gary’s Vineyard Pinot Noir and Bien Nacido Charonnay were awesome and my favorites, but frankly, I loved all their wines and added them to the ever-growing list of winery clubs I can’t afford but belong to anyway.  This is one winery to watch … closely.  Visit them in Los Gatos and at www.testarossa.com.

 Merchant

K&L Wine Merchants.  Absolutely the best place to buy great wines at the best prices on-line.  Also, if it’s convenient, one of the more fun brick and mortar places to shop in the Bay Area. The staff is actually knowledgeable and helpful. www.klwines.com

Resources

Clarke & Spurrier’s Fine Wine Guide – A Connoisseur’s Bible, Oz Clarke and Steven Spurrier, Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998.  This wonderful book has been one of my primary resources since its printing in 1998.  It’s a little dated, but as a starting point for someone who wants to drink only good wine and is willing to spend a little to do it, it will help you filter out 95% of the pack and just focus on the good stuff.  The book’s relatively small and therefore usable, and it doesn’t try to rate every single wine / vintage ever made … only the good ones. 

Winesearcher.com. The best search engine for the best prices on hard-to-find wines.  www.wine-searcher.com. 

Back to top

Steve Tobak
Partner, Invisor Consulting
Steve Tobak is a twenty-three year veteran of the tech industry and a founding partner of Invisor Consulting. His commentary is direct and he appreciates your equally direct feedback. He can be reached at stobak@invisor.net.

Subscribe
If you would like to receive Invisor Insights, click subscribe.

Unsubscribe
If you would like to stop receiving Invisor Insights, please reply to this email with the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.

Feedback
We welcome your comments and feedback. Please email us at feedback.

Privacy Policy
The Invisor Insights email list is strictly private and is never shared with anyone.