Spiderware.com

2008-12-10T10:23:00.001-05:00

What My Kolbe A Index Says About Me

2007-02-24T20:07:00.000-05:00

In preparation for a Leadership Forum I was participating in this week, I took the Kolbe A Index at Kolbe.com. The Kolbe A Index evaluates your "conative styles," or typical action behaviors. Conative styles are instinctive, subconscious actions. Here's the link to a very interesting article on the Kolbe A Index from Oprah's "O" Magazine.

There are four basic "action modes", behaviors driven by your instinct (not personality or IQ):

Fact Finder - is how you gather and share information
Follow Thru - is how you sort and store information
Quick Start - is how you deal with risks and uncertainty
Implementor - is how you handle space and tangibles

My Kolbe index is a 7-3-5-4.

My "red" score of "7" on Fact Finder indicates that I try to insist on "getting as many specifics as possible" by Specifying. I am likely to research facts in depth, establish specific priorities, define objective, assess probablities, define terms with exactness, determine appropriateness, provide historical evidence, create analogies, and develop complex strategies.

My "blue" score of "3" on Follow Thru indicates that I sort and store information by Adapting. People with a high blue score are apt to have to-do-lists, detailed plans and schedules, interim milestones, and act through organization. My "3" indicates that I am resistent to order, organization, to do lists, detailed plans, milestone schedules, whch is absolutely true!

My "green" score of "5" on Quick Start indicates that I deal with risks and uncertainty by Modifying. I can respond to challenges, assist in innovation, interject spontaneously, adjust deadlines, and mediate between the vision and the given.

My "yellow" score of "4" on Implementor indicates that I handle space and tangibles by Restoring. I can test ingredients, renovate structures, convert space reproduce models, use mechanical equipment, connect concrete paths, and create simulations of physical action.

Kolbe says that I can leverage my innate ability as strengths. Kolbe says this about my index score:

You prevent getting boxed in by staying open to alternatives.
Your ability to adapt your plans helps you take advantage of opportunities.

I took the Kolbe A Index with 30 or so of my colleagues, some of whom I know quite well. To the letter, their respective Kolbe Indexes were accurate in my opinion.

I'm curious to have my team take the Kolbe, so I can accurately understand a new dynamic in the team productivity environment. But maybe, all I'm interested in getting as many specific facts as possible and thus validating, once again, my "Fact Finder" score of "7" :-).

I encourage you and your colleagues to take the Kolbe A Index, by clicking here. You can take the index online in about 20 minutes and it costs only $49.95. Send your colleagues the link to this page. I was amazed at how accurate it was in capturing and predicting my instinctive actions, and those of my colleagues.

Feel free to post your Kolbe A Index here in a comment with your assessment of your own score!

LinkedIn: Connecting to Super-connectors and the Value of the Network

2005-07-26T08:15:00.000-04:00

I don't consider myself a "super-connector" though I am in the top 80 60 on LinkedIn, and I think my network is as diverse as the "next guy".

I just got an email from a new connection, and he says this:

"I think this sums up being linked in to you:
1,044,533 new people in your network since your last login
Hahahha... that's AWESOME!"

Now, I don't know this guy well, but we did share some plesantries via email. Certainly I will accommodate his pertinent requests to "the network" as I see fit. But what an awesome feeling it must be to a newbie to be able to reach and search a million additional people who might actually be looking for candidates, or looking for partners, or looking to reconnect with former colleagues.

My investment in his quest into the network will be minor, perhaps a few requests forwarded. I'm sure his perception of the value of the network accessible through me is *much* greater than my value of having *him* as a connection.

I think there may be too much focus on the value of the relationship between two people (for which LinkedIn is not needed, by the way) in establishing connections. People do connect for different reasons, some more promiscuously than others, and for that I am grateful. Almost half of my network is in "the fourth degree", and I reached out to one of those in my fourth degree for a business opportunity today. Had I limited my personal network to my 30 or 40 closest contacts, I would *never* have access to the full potential value of the network.

As I've said in my "free report" (shameless plug), available for download in the files section of MyLinkedInPowerForum (see MLPF message 2400), people can fly to and from any two points in the U.S. *because* of the existence and availability of hubs, not because particular providers on the legs of the trip provide pillows and mimosas...

I hope that LinkedIn doesn't change the service too much going forward. I'm a firm believer in paying for value-added services, but the services should actually *add* value, not subtract functionality or network accessibility.

Joe Bartling
https://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=62910
Invitation-only email: LinkToJoe[at]gmail.com
{Note this is not my "regular" email account - I *never* check it. It
works for LinkedIn invitations ONLY.}

On-line Charity Auction of Phish-related Items for the Visually Impaired

2005-07-19T16:05:00.000-04:00

From the Delta Gamma Center, one of the organizations I support which helps blind and visually impaired kids:

We are pleased to inform you that the Mimi Fishman Foundation is hosting an on-line charity auction that will benefit the Delta Gamma Center for Children who are Visually Impaired. The Foundation is a generous supporter of our Center. We hope that you will join their efforts by participating in this auction. It began July 15 and ends July 25.

The auction features a healthy dose of Phish related items as well as various other jamband signed items and festival packages. One of the more interesting items is a “War of the Worlds” poster signed by Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning.

To view and/or bid on the auction, please visit the Mimi Fishman Foundation Page at
http://www.gratefulweb.net/auctions/mimifishman/

The Mimi Fishman Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization established in 1999 by Miriam “Mimi” Fishman (the late mother of Phish drummer Jon Fishman) and David Shulman as a vehicle to raise funds for various charities, including the Delta Gamma Center. Mimi Fishman had glaucoma and was a huge believer of helping out organizations that provided assistance to the visually impaired, especially those charities that focus on children.

Please donate and bid generously, so that others might see!

VCs That Get It! - The Entrepreneur's Magic Number

2005-06-30T17:55:00.000-04:00

Christian Mayaud, in his excellent post, Know Your Entrepreneur's Magic Number, says,

"If you look at the professional life of a typical successful entrepreneur, their ability to tolerate personal risk varies over time. If one assumes a linear increase in net worth over time (rarely the case) then this curve also roughly correlates to three distinct phases.

Phase I — The entrepreneur has essentially no personal net worth [and is able to absorb substantial risk]
Phase II — The entrepreneur is building personal net worth [becomes more risk-averse as personal net worth grows up to his "personal magic number"]
Phase III — The entrepreneur feels relatively secure financially [risk tolerance grows in proportion to their personal net worth]

Young recent college graduates behave differently from middle-aged first time entrepreneurs, serial entrepreneurs behave differently from first-time entrepreneurs, senior managers behave differently than founders, etc., etc. — in part, due to the existence of their Personal Risk Tolerance Curves and where they are along them."

David Beisel comments in his post, that the entrepreneurs magic number may also change over time based on other factros:

"The question I would raise is if an entrepreneur’s (or anyone’s for that matter) magic net worth number shifts over time. I agree that an inexperienced entrepreneur may see things differently than one who has a few successes under his or her belt, but don’t those successes broaden the view of what is in fact potentially achievable? Moreover, I would also maintain that entrepreneurs specifically are not just driven by extrinsic motivations, but also by intrinsic ones as well. There are often deeper reasons than financial ones why an entrepreneur – especially a serial entrepreneur – is willing to take significant risks with both his/her private wealth and career."

In my recent post, New Breed of CEO: Beyond the Bootstraps, I mention this situational predicament from the entrepreneurial/start-up CEO perspective. Many VCs and angel investors still seem to expect that the entrepreneur is either at:

Phase I: able to accept significant personal risk, or at

Phase III: able to accept significant personal risk

The reality is that many of us who have started and successfully built companies are at Phase II, balancing risk and personal net worth.

I am grateful that at least two VCs, Christian and David, have recognized that entrepreneurs also have their "magic numbers". If some really smart VCs could figure out a way to harness the energy and creativity of all those Phase II entrepreneurs with a more balanced risk profile, perhaps the rare MOTU might actually be bagged!

If you are looking for an awesome Phase II entrepreneur/CEO to go bag the MOTU, check this out!

LinkedIn: Adding Connections by Fishing In A Bucket

2005-06-30T08:20:00.000-04:00

I decided to take a day or two and improve my "connection ranking" by a couple hundred in LinkedIn. Every now and then I do this because, well, its fun to do. The essential by-product of this, other than a higher position in search results and a fitter profile, is that I get to meet new people in the process, which is why I do all of this relationship stuff anyway. For info on what makes a "fit" profile, read my free 22-page report on LinkedIn, called "How to Double Your Income in 6 Months Using LinkedIn". To get a copy, send me a LinkedIn connection invitation to LinkToJoe@gmail.com and request a copy of the report. (Don't send me email to that address, I *never* read it. It is only for LinkedIn invitations!)

The strategy I am using today is what I would call the "fishing in a bucket" strategy. I simply go to the profiles of people with a lot of connections who are connected to me, browse their connections, and find people who might be easy to find, and then summarily invite them to "share networks". Some may have their email address right in their profile, or a website or a blog URL listed.

This approach would likely be considered a LinkedIn "cheat". See the Cheaters Guide to LinkedIn by Christian Mayaud.

It's a lot easier to invite people who want to be found by others, almost in a "HELLO, my name is Scott" kind of way. Scott Ginsberg has been wearing a nametag in public every day since 2000. He calls it his "Front Porch Philosophy", signaling to others (strangers) that he is "approachable". Thanks to Joe McCarthy for the link.

Putting your email address,and even a connection plea, such as "Please invite me to your network?" is a LinkedIn "Front Porch Approach". It's not for everyone. Some people don't want to be connected to people that they don't know well. I believe that the fact that two people who are in LinkedIn and both want to connect to each other, provides enough social context to provide a "weak tie", one sufficient enough to produce effective multiplication of network effectivenss, a la Granovetter.

Some people use LinkedIn to manage their "Dunbar" group of 150 people. I use Microsoft Outlook and Plaxo for that. The very purpose of LinkedIn is to manage the "extension" of your network through a chain of weak ties.

The LinkedIn "official" recommendation on the "received invitations" page is, "We recommend that you only accept invitations if you know the sender and believe they would make a good connection." From a business point of view, LinkedIn must keep the value of unique connection pairs up, otherwise the network is a free-for-all, like Ryze or Ecademy. Restricting connections to those you know well for everyone limits the effectiveness of the aggregated network and greatly constrains its reach. Superconnectors know a lot of people a "a little", enough for an introduction, or at least a pass-through. Restricting connections also reduces the chance for serendipitous first-degree encounters, which can happen as easily and as frequently on LinkedIn as it does in on an airline flight, a cocktail party, or a grocery checkout line.

So I have a 100+ "new friends" today, that I didn't have yesterday, and everyone within three degrees of me now has the benefit of that additional reach. Without even lifting a finger...

Magnificent!

2005-06-27T08:12:00.000-04:00

I just wanted to take time out of my usual blogging schedule to take a moment and just tell God how MAGNIFICENT He is, and how much I thank Him for saving me by His Son, Jesus Christ, 22 years ago.

I see Him in action in my life daily, in my family, and in the seemingly "normal" encounters of life. This past week has been especially blessed and I thank Him for it.

He is my Glorious King, my Lord, my Savior, and the essence of my life and being. The very breath that I breathe He gave, and I am grateful. His mercy and love is everlasting, yet brand new every morning!

Talking the walk

2005-06-24T08:25:00.000-04:00

A few weeks ago I mentioned that I needed to work on improving my face time and talk time with my associated business people, especially those in my LinkedIn network. It's been a busy two weeks.

I met Tony Mayo, Chairman of TEC International, for coffee at Starbucks at 15th and K in DC. He turned me on to an acquisition advisor who consults companies who are wanting to work with AOL.

Mark Peden, of Rulespace.com, had flown into town and ended up at 16th and L in DC, and we met up for coffee at the Caribou Coffee at 17th and L. Mark's work at Rulespace is somewhat related to my work with the Fairfax County School Board.

Marc Freedman, CEO of Razorpop,was in town as a panelist for the Digital Media Conference. Thanks to his generosity, he awarded me a free ticket to the conference (a $350 value!). Thanks, Marc. We were able to catch a F2F for an hour or so before his session. Mark is using his P2P technology to help the FBI track down and catch people who traffic in unmentional photos of children. Thanks again, Marc.

Over the past two weeks, I've spoken on the phone with a number of young entrepreneurs, offering *free* advice in the areas of marketing, financing, sales/market capture strategy, and presentations and formats for business plans, executive summaries, and why NDAs are stupid.

Some of the guys are in stealth mode, so I won't talk about them. But some of the ones who are in the marketplace are making some good headway. These guys, which include Pete Caputa of Whizspark, Andy Doan of Medrounds, and Greg Gershman of Blogdigger, are all well on their way to, well, the next phase, whatever that might be. Both Blogdigger and Pete Caputa have gotten some ink in the past two weeks, a sign of more good things to come.

I'm reminded of a phone call I received from a young entrepreneur named Shawn Fanning in June of ~~1998~~ 1999. He had gotten my number from Draper Atlantic VC Managing Partner Jim Lynch. Shawn was trying to find out if "in application" banner ads would help him in generating some revenue for his fledging file-sharing service, Napster. He seemed to think that the ad revenue from Napster would help his ~~brother~~ uncle John out with Chess.Net.

Well that, as they say, is history now, and we all now know, in retrospect, that selling ad space on Napster was not the most important thing facing his young idea. Popular culture embraced his idea and the impact of his innovation has invigorated millions of music lovers, many who now carry around IPODs and XM and Sirius satellite devices, to the delight of the Consumer Electronics Organization and the vitriol of the RIAA.

An entrepreneur's idea can change the world and the very culture we live in. Sometimes we forget that when we're hacking up some Java code that what we do might actually MEAN SOMETHING SOMEDAY.

I know a lot of these entrepreneurs don't believe me when I just tell them I want to help out with some advice. It's hard to trust anybody when you're just getting started, and maybe have taken money from family and friends, who insist on stupid NDAs. But in the end, if you don't get advice, and the right advice, you will fail anyway. So, put away your pride and ask for help. You really don't know it all. And neither do I.

Without consultation, plans are frustrated, but with many counselors they succeed. (Proverbs 15.22)

Prepare plans by consultation and make war by wise guidance. (Proverbs 20:18)

Where there is no guidance, the people fall, but in the abundance of counselors, there is victory. (Proverbs 11:14)

By wise guidance you will wage war, and in the abundance of counselors, there is victory. (Proverbs 24:6)

Enough said. I'm here to help.

Online Ad Marketplace: Another "New" is "Old"? Puleeze...

2005-06-16T17:45:00.000-04:00

Pete Caputa brings up YABI (Yet Another Big Idea, my new acronym), pointing to a new ad marketplace at Ad-Bay, and, "Yes, Grasshopper, this has been done before."

A number of companies were in this ad marketplace space back in 1998 and 1999 including mine, ADSDAQ, which was acquired by Amazing Media. The big player in the space was AdAuction which became OneMediaPlace, which became a part of MediaPassage.Com. All attempts to access any of these websites now go unanswered (after probably about $50 million in venture money, $25M here).

What's amazing to me, is that many people are still trying to come up with YABI, which are just regurgitations of "old" ideas with the same, and sometimes *inferior* technology.

I look at MySpace.com (new market) and think Homestead.com (old market). What's different now for MySpace is that the market and its future have changed, due to daily self publishing (aka blogging) and social networking amongst self publishers, IOW "building online relationships", not "putting up websites". This could have been predicted as a change in *culture*, not a change in available application technology (a better mousetrap). Homestead.com is still trying to sell static web space and they have been left in the dust, proving that their market hypothesis was dead wrong.

This leads me to *why* its more important now more than ever for entrepreneurs to get beyond the bootstraps with the right strategy.

Now, repurposing or bricolaging proven technologies (like LAMP) with a newly anticipated burgeoning market, that's something worth talking about. We could build something huge with that.

New Breed of CEO: Beyond the Bootstraps

2005-06-15T22:55:00.000-04:00

So, last week I posted in My Blue Flame: CEO Position for an Early Stage Company:

"In retrospect, I am actually a lot better at building businesses than starting them. I have a finance and accounting background, direct sales experience, and technical expertise honed on some of the world's most interesting, important and ambitious projects.

I've been really blessed by being able to make "accurate market hypotheses" time after time. I think much more like a venture capitalist than an entrepreneur, perhaps because of my finance and economics background."

Since then, I've been finding a number of interesting posts by both serial entrepreneurs and VCs alike about an interesting trend:

Entrepreneur Marc Pincus says this in his post Views From the Front Lines:

"Where's the leverage? --- So the big dilemma facing most seasoned entrepreneurs today is about leverage. The VC's and other investors get plenty by making multiple bets within large funds. they can be reasonably confident that over their fund's life they can deliver good returns and make good and sometimes obscene money. Entrepreneurs have to make totally concentrated bets and wait several years to see if they pay off at all."

In another post Marc says this:

"I wonder whether the best entrepreneurs will also evolve to this merchant banking approach where they create much more leveraged investment opportunities to pursue new markets with far greater capital from the outset rather than bootstrapping. in this new world, we may see a complete blurring and mashing of entrepreneur, VC and hedge fund."

Tom O'Neill comments on Marc's posts calling this Closing the Gap between Capital & Innovation:

"Mark Pincus has an interesting post about the possibility of a blurring of the lines between entrepreneurship and venture capital. If this is a trend, it's certainly one that I would encourage--the idea of co-creating vs. waiting is one that makes a great deal of sense. I believe there is a huge opportunity to create a new VC model that combines the best attributes of VC, EIRs and incubators."

As an experienced CEO [see my LinkedIn profile] and blog post about my availability, I've already bootstrapped dozens of companies. To be honest, I'm out of boots and out of straps. I've traded them for stock, options, warrants and a bit of cash. I've already proven I can make gold out of straw. The last thing my wife wants to hear is that I have another one of my "kooky" ideas that will change the world that I want to run out my, er I mean *our*, family dining room. I've had way too many computer racks in the basement and too many T-1 lines run to the house.

Marc and others are picking up on a trend. Some of the best early stage CEO/entrepreneurs, like me, are not necessarily motivated by starting "YABI" - "Yet Another Big Idea" (I just coined that myself - like it?) to pitch to investors. Been there, done that! Many of us want to apply our skills, talents and experience at the point where *our* entrepreneurial instincts and leverage is maximized, and for me, that is between the 'A' and 'B' rounds.

The world is waiting, not for the next YABI, but the next company to execute a successful strategy under the direction of an experienced early-stage CEO to capitalize on an accurate market hypothesis.

Based on that accurate market hypothesis, experienced and successful entrepreneurs/CEOs can sense a multiplication of value (represented by the expansion of the net present value of discounted future cash flows) ahead of time and craft a strategy and lead a team to capitalize on that market movement.

Re: LinkedIn article in Business W**k

2005-06-13T20:36:00.000-04:00

From my post on MyLinkedInPowerForum.

People have a right to express their opinion. I respect that.

The blog post mentioned in the article is from 18 months ago and is from a person who obviously has no current or past interest in LinkedIn. He has 7 connections and no LinkedIn profile, even 18 months later. Perhaps he only has 7 friends "worthy" of a LinkedIn connection? If he had a profile and actually used the system, I would consider his point, but its obviously he has an axe to grind for one reason or another.

I checked the blogosphere and the guy hasn't posted any additional articles or posts about LinkedIn or "the problem", so this seemed to be a random rant by a guy obsessed with controlling his inbox.

What is more curious to me is how Business W**k "Tech Beat" mentions this 18 month old post. What kind of "tech beat" is that? To me, a "beat" is something that regularly occurs, like a heart beat, or a nightly crime blotter. This article is like somebody going to the cemetery to get a listing of who's who... Maybe it should be called Business "Early Last Year" instead of Business W**k.

I purposely didn't link to the article or the blog. I don't want to give the posts any more credibility than they deserve, which IMHO is *zero*.

Joe Bartling
https://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=62910
Invitation-only email: LinkToJoe[at]gmail.com
{Note this is not my "regular" email account - I *never* check it. It
works for LinkedIn invitations ONLY.)

Is Less Really More? Is Small Really Big? - Sorry, No...

2005-06-09T18:32:00.000-04:00

Ok, so I like for Pete Caputa to find cool posts for me to read. He's my "newsreader"! It saves me time :-)

Here's one he found on Fred Wilson's blog, called Less Is More going into the whole "small is the new big" thing.

He (Fred) says:

"Our dream at Union Square Ventures is to one day fund a company that gets to a billion dollars of revenues with less than 10 employees and does it legally. We may never do it, but someone will. Because less is more."

I don't know about that. Economics and free-market activities will tend to bring an equilibrium to the productivity of the *people* involved, especially if there is some arbitrary constraint to a "specific number of people", such as 10.

Ok, so NewLittleBigFirm.Com hires me to come in and do a SWOT analysis:

Here we go:
Strengths: You have 10 people - that's good; costs are low, productivity is really high
Weaknesses: You have 10 people - that's bad; we really count on everybody to put in 24/7 at 110%
Opportunities: We could do X,Y, and Z, but everybody is working pretty hard already, and Jane is going out on maternity leave, and Bill is going out on vacation...
Threats: Oh my, we only have 10 people, what if one leaves?; OMG, what if all 10 leave???

And then there is the issue of actually *collecting* the $1 billion in revenue. If clients know that you don't have anyone keeping up with your A/R, your DSO numbers will skyrocket, sending the collectability of *all* your revenue spiralling downward, which sends your valuation plummeting, and the phone calls from your board multiplying, and before long, you got nothing...

Actually "small is small" and "big is big". A lemonade stand will remain small; it can never become big without a stimulus. No matter how cheap you buy lemons for or how many hours you stay open, you will be limited to *small* without "expanding to capitalize on a huge burgeoning market", thought out and skillfully executed with an accurate market hypothesis. And the whole point of attracting "capital" is to "capitalize" on the unrecognized market opportunity, before someone else who *does* have capital identifies your vulnerability, due to your lack of capital, and beats you over the chasm.

A billion dollars in revenue with 10 employees is actually a pretty easy thing to do. Find a big company with a billion dollars+ in revenue (say like GM or United Airlines), and then fire everybody except 10 people. [Hmmm, wait a minute, that's what GM and United Airlines *are* doing...]

Oh, but you say you want to *build* a company form scratch with a billion dollars in revenue and ten employees. I'm as positive a leader as anyone else is, starting and building a business is hard, even if you are an experienced CEO. Building a profitable, growing, sustainable, healthy business into a growing marketplace is even tougher, I don't care who your ten employees are. It's just not gonna happen.

Do these "small is big" marketing types *sleep* through their required accounting, economics and finance classes when they are going for their MBAs???

Auren Hoffman in DC...

2005-06-08T22:56:00.000-04:00

Just last week I blogged, Do You Know Auren Hoffman? - Not Yet! You remember Auren, he's the guy that gets paid handsomely for introductions.

After my blog post, I sent Auren a quick email pointing out my blog post at Spiderware.Com. He responded with a polite email thanking me for the nice blog. The next day Auren surprised me with an email Evite to a gathering in DC, just a short distance from my office in downtown Washington, DC. Seems that Auren was flying in from the West Coast. I checked the guest list and found that I actually already knew some of Auren's friends in DC. It was great to meet Auren in person, but I learned some very important and valuable lessons about "networking", and about "friendship".

So, last night, there were probably 25 of "Auren's friends" at the Russia House, an elegant and comfortable venue with couches and coffee tables just off Dupont Circle, and just perfect for impromptu conversations. Everyone I met already knew Auren, and most of them knew each other, so I could tell that these guys must make an effort to do this often. That made me feel *very* appreciative of Auren's personal invitation to me. There were lots of hugs and neck grabs and barrel squeezes, much like a fraternity. I don't see much of this type of camaraderie between the entrepreneurial CEO techgeeks, venture capitalists and government contractor "suits" I hang with (not at the same time!). The fellowship here was quite comfortable. I found that a simple "How do you know Auren?" was the perfect icebreaker and that each guest had a different story to tell. One I talked to met him at Renaissance Weekend, some through some of Auren's political activities, and one (the [only] liberal?) from some of Auren's work with high school kids.

Of course, a few of the guests asked me, "And how do you know Auren?". I answered, "Well I blogged about "not knowing Auren last week" and that he was polite enough to invite me tonight." Most thought that that was just totally cool, and "just like Auren".

I shared a few words with Auren and he seemed pleased that I already knew a few of his "friends". I stayed for a couple of hours and felt totally comfortable discussing all of the things Auren's friends talk about, things like what's going on on Capitol Hill, the White House, Foreign Policy, Immigration, the economic explosion of freedom in the former Soviet Union, and the firing of the blogging Washingtonienne, and her new book deal...

I appreciate Auren for revealing his life to me through the gathering of some of his closest friends in Washington (I guess "43" couldn't come). The thing that struck me most was that Auren knew these people face-to-face, knew them well, even though most of them live in DC, 2500 miles from where he lives in San Francisco. I thought to myself, that if I went to San Francisco and invited people who knew me there to join me for conversation at a club, NO ONE WOULD COME! I wonder what would happen if I gave the same invitation HERE in Metro DC, where I live, would anyone come?

So, Auren, although we only spoke for a minute, I have learned a lot from you. I learned that I need to reach out and touch my acquaintances more, call them, go visit with them, but most of all, spend TIME with them, face-to-face, engaged. I need to invest in my relationships even more, deepen them, so that I might be blessed with people who might just call me "friend".

So, cheers to you, Auren, my new friend. And thanks, I owe you a lot already... If there is *anything* I can do for you, you've got it.

The Best Reason to Join LinkedIn...

2005-06-08T07:50:00.000-04:00

...is that your wildest dreams will come true.

Nobody over 20 gets that...

But seriously, someone asked me why there weren't too many young people on LinkedIn. Perhaps its that they don't see a need to network "for business purposes" yet. But more likely, they are networking in their own environment, probably on Xanga.

My Blue Flame: CEO Position for an Early Stage Company

2005-06-07T20:11:00.000-04:00

[Added 6/9/05: Credit to Keith Ferrazzi and his book Never Eat Alone (page 26) for the "blue flame" metaphor: the place where "passion" and "ability" intersect]

I've been quite reflective lately about what it is that *I* do best. Sure, I know how to turn ideas into businesses, and have started at least 30 businesses of varying sizes over the past 30 years, with a pretty good track record. I've had a couple of nice exits. I haven't hit the home run yet by selling up to AOL, yet, but there is still time!

In retrospect, I am actually a lot better at building businesses than starting them. I have a finance and accounting background, direct sales experience, and technical expertise honed on some of the world's most interesting, important and ambitious projects.

I've been really blessed by being able to make "accurate market hypotheses" time after time. I think much more like a venture capitalist than an entrepreneur, perhaps because of my finance and economics background.

I started a PC retail and mailorder business in 1982 (selling Commodores and CPM machines) arround the same time as IBM announced the first MS-DOS PC and rode that wave into the "clone market"

I started my first software business in 1983, called Space Shuttle Software (Shuttle was *big* news back then.)

I started a dial-in online service (with 300 baud modems) in 1983 called "CompuNet". At the same time, CompuServe was providing service to business customers only

I became interested in "relational databases" in 1985 with Advanced Revelation on a Honeywell mainframe using a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pick_operating_system, moving into using new-fangled Oracle database software on DEC VMS in 1986 and XENIX

I went to work for Oracle in 1988 when it was a little $250M company on Davis Drive in Belmont California. I carried (and met) a sales quota of 1% of Oracle's entire annual revenue! [Oracle now books $11 BILLION in revenue each year]

I was one of the first persons to identify the trend of client-server applications

I had one of the first commercial domain names (SQLWARE.COM) in March 1983

I started providing email service to dial-in customers in 1993

I provided access to Usenet newsgroups in 1993, including those on WWW,an interesting project yet to be announced outside of geekdom

My database consulting company, SQLWare, had its first website in 1994, and was marketed as "The Internet Database Solutions" company, in 1996, as we were tying in back-office application systems to front-end browsers, long before most people even thought of doing it

I pioneered mass-appeal Internet network advertising on "mom and pop" independent websites, and built a network (ADSDAQ) of 8,000 websites displaying targeted, rich-media ads (and a lot of banner ads too). My basis, which is still true today, is that advertisers are looking for a particular audience (eyeballs) for their advertising, which just happens to be site independent

I developed network inventory (ad capacity) in 1998 by using "viral marketing", though I'm not sure the term was really in use yet, which meant that our site acquisition budget was, er, *zero*. Cool!

I started getting involved with social networking software like LinkedIn, Spoke and Ryze, late in 2003, and started blogging in the second wave, in early 2004

I have been a pioneer in personal independent publishing (read:blogging), localization opportunities and wireless communities.

I've developed partnerships with big companies to market my (little) companies' products and services. I've sold lots of "million dollar deals". I've had to do it. I had no choice. I had to eat. And I got to be really *good* at it.

So rather than come up with the "next big idea" and bootstrap it out of my basement, I want to make myself available, as CEO, to build a company which just *might* be the next big thing. I'm looking for a company with some backing, perhaps an "A" round, who needs to get to the "B" round. This is "old hat" to me. I know what to do. And I know how to focus outward into the marketplace and get the "buzz" going, and get the *sales* going, and get the *team* going*, and get the *business* going.

That's what I do best. If you know of such an opportunity, please let me know: joe.bartling@spiderware.com.

LinkedIn: The New Online Video Game for Businesspeople???

2005-06-02T18:53:00.000-04:00

I've been reading Steven Johnson's new book, Everything Bad Is Good For You, and I must admit, I'm very impressed. The back cover says, "...Johnson argues that the pop culture we soak in every day [including video games, and television shows, such as '24' and Desperate Housewives], has been growing more sophisticated with each passing year, posing new cognitive challenges that are actually making our minds measurably sharper".

In Part I of his book, he goes into "Games", online games such as Everquest, Ultima, SimCity and the like and for 30 pages describes the very things I do on LinkedIn every day. Johnson's last book, an excellent expose of the brain and its functions called Mind Wide Open: Your Brain and the Neuroscience of Everyday Life, certainly qualifies him as more of an expert on grey matter than anyone *I* know.

He says in "Everything Bad",

"Where our brain wiring is concerned, the craving instinct triggers a desire to explore. The [brain's dopamine] system says, in effect: "Can't find the reward you were promised? Perhaps if you just look a little harder you'll be in luck---it's got to be around here somewhere." He says, "Most of the crucial work in game interface design revolves around keeping players notified of potential rewards available to them, and how much those rewards are currently needed." "Seeking" is the perfect word for the drive these designs instill in their players. "When you are hooked on a game, what draws you in is an elemental form of desire: the desire to see the next thing".

"In the video game world, you learn by playing. This is one reason video games can be frustrating to the non-initiated. You sit down at the computer and say, "What am I supposed to do?" The regular gamers in the room have to explain, "You're supposed to figure out what you're supposed to do." You have to probe the depths of the game's logic to make sense of it, and like most probing expeditions, you get results by trial and error, by stumbling across things, by following hunches."

"Early PacMan players found that the monsters roamed the maze in predictable ways, and if you followed a certain course---literally called a "pattern"---you'd complete the level without losing a man every time you played. Patterns weren't built into the official rules of the game; they were a legacy effect of the limited computational power of the arcade machine. To detect those limitation, you had to probe the PacMan game by playing it hundreds of times, experimenting with different strategies until one sequence revealed itself. Video games force you to speculate about what's going on under the hood. You have to probe [the physics of the game] to progress."

Okay, so I admit it, I am hooked on LinkedIn, it is *my* video game. I probe the physics of it at every turn. I really do want to know what LinkedIn's forwarding algorithm is! I want to connect directly with others to shorten the distance between me and others who might be able to help me (my "guild" or "clan", oh no, I'm starting to sound like my teenager!). My connections and I chat on Yahoo IM just like my teenage son does with his "guildmates". And in the end, this is a bona fide business activity, one in which many deep and valuable relationships are being developed every day.

Because the dynamics of my network is different than anyone else's it actually exhibits properties of emergence, which Johnson has also written about. Although my LinkedIn world is a different world than yours, as we probe the physics of this together and share our experiences, [MLPF is a great resource for that], we can discover the world together, and hopefully, change it for the better.

In search of a dopamine reward, perhaps, I check my LinkedIn home page a few times every day looking for new "Invitations to Connect" or "Requests to Forward". I search (probe) all different ways to find out who is who in my industry, my city, or my position.

And in the end, I still have people ask me, "So what do you get out of this, is it worth the time you put into it?".

I don't know, let me go and see how many people I can reach now!

Do You Know Auren Hoffman? - Not Yet!

2005-06-02T18:02:00.000-04:00

Peter Caputa and Greg Narain, had been chatting about knowing, er... actually "not" knowing, Auren Hoffman, who gets paid handsomely for introductions, a "for-hire" social networker. What a cool job!

I'd seen Auren's "name" lots of times from being a LinkedIn Oldtimer . I quickly searched my computer using X1 and found that I had sent him an invitation to join me on LinkedIn back in May of 2004.

At the time, I found his profile interesting as we both had initiatives to help youth reach their potential, and we shared some mutual acquaintances, so I reached out to him for a direct connection.

Auren politely responded to me via email, saying, "Joe – I’m sorry, I cannot remember how we know one another." I admire him for taking the time to respond without blatantly declining my invitation, or just ignoring it, as some do. Unfortunately for me, I didn't continue the email dialogue at the time, but will do so again soon. We are only two connections apart from each other and share a number of very interesting mutual connections, so not being "directly" connected on LinkedIn isn't really a big issue. And I do have his email address!

On the other hand, perhaps he should know me! I could open up some doors in Washington, DC for him and I'd be happy to do it. And my introductions are usually over a Venti Drip and don't come with an invoice, though I do think that is totally cool!

How is Your "Folly Detector"?

2005-05-31T18:01:00.000-04:00

I've been wrestling for a while about how to post this. I wanted to say something about wisdom, particularly "business" wisdom, but didn't know how to explain it without sounding "churchy", so here it goes with an alternative spin...

One gift that I have and that I have been developing over the last 25 years as a business leader is what I call a "Folly Detector". It's not a "BS" detector, as BS is pretty obvious to anyone who is been around it, even for just a little while. A question or two exposes BS for what it truly is. [Thanks to Christian Mayaud at Sacred Cow Dung for reminding me of the "BS Generator" website.]

Wisdom is the experience of knowing what TO DO in a given situation. "Folly" is a subtle, tempting, diametrically-poled opposite, and is usually the state of doing nothing, or the state of doing the same thing you've been doing.

"Folly" is very hard to detect, and many, even most businesses and businesspeople, engage in a perpetual existence of it. You never hear people say, "What is the foolish thing to do, I don't want to do that!." Or even more rare, "Is what we are doing foolish?" We seem to get on a path and then stick to it, no matter what the consequences. And that is a real shame!

Merriam-Webster defines "folly" as follows:

1 : lack of good sense or normal prudence and foresight
2 a : criminally or tragically foolish actions or conduct
b obsolete :
EVIL, WICKEDNESS; especially : lewd behavior
3 : a foolish act or idea
4 : an excessively costly or unprofitable undertaking
5 : an often extravagant picturesque building erected to suit a fanciful taste

Many great leaders and executives have highly tuned "folly detectors", some do not. I think it is a gift, that, finely tuned, can be used to build great companies and successfully navigate difficult waters. It's a genuine feeling in the gut, perhaps like a woman's intuition, that may seem to the ungifted as "magic", or even arrogance or presumption.

Having a finely-tuned "folly detector" saves you your most valued resource: time. An executive's (especially the chief executive's) time is the most valuable resource a company has.

The problem with "folly", is that it seems completely natural to follow. Folly is actually the opposite of wisdom, which by its very nature, takes years of actual experience to develop. Folly, on the other hand, is something we all get and have right away, before taking a single step into the business world.

Have you ever wondered why companies are not run like a democracy? One employee, one vote. Does that sound good to you? What would you vote for? A longer lunch break, 4 weeks vacation, guaranteed pensions for all?

Even in the board room, directors sometimes "vote" on important matters, and they should. But running a business is not a beauty contest, and the chief executive is not out to win it. I've seen lots of "fools" on boards, and sometimes they are in the majority.

Many executives fall into success. They got into or started a business just at the right time and they were at the right place and rode into success on their company's back. Usually it was "market forces" that drove those companies to success, not performance by individuals or even individual companies. I'm reminded of the thousands of ISPs that were acquired in the 1990's by public companies with big bucks. There are thousands of guys walking around with millions of dollars, not because they were wise, or had good "folly detectors"; most of them were just blessed by serendipity.

But in the long run, great chief executives and other great leaders need to have and be "folly detectors".

Successful "folly detection":

1) Warns you in advance to avoid a bad path
2) Warns you when you are already on a bad path
3) Warns you that you *might* be on a bad path
4) Warns you that you might want to pursue another path
5) Warns you when the path you are on shifts while you are on it (you are now heading in a bad direction)
6) Advises you on what to do when you discover you are on a bad path

Now, I have as positive an attitude as anyone I know, and I have incredible faith and favor, both in God and in men. But a positive attitude will NOT overcome folly, no matter how positive you are!

Many business people, board members, and VCs, are just too proud to admit they are on a bad path, or just don't know they are on one. I saw lots of Internet companies sticking to their unachievable business plan (the path) after the Internet market meltdown. FOLLY DETECTED! And what did many of those firms do? They fired the founding team and tried to hire "Meg Whitman" (of Ebay) or some other "brand name" CEO. FOLLY DETECTED AGAIN! You would have to assume that it must have been the collective founders' fault for the Internet meltdown, given all of the extricated founders around the country.

I think it costs about $25 million to develop an executive with a honed "folly detector". That's at least how much mine has cost to develop. It takes hundreds of personal hirings, scores of personal firings, dozens of million dollar deals and lots of partnerships. It takes lots of personal interaction with financiers, partners, vendors, industry analysts, employees, and yes, even bloggers.

A word to the wise is sufficient.

Re: The "Cost" of Blogging

2005-05-29T21:46:00.000-04:00

From my post on LinkedInBloggers

Hmmm, I'm not sure I know anyone that actually blogs for the money. I mean, who is the customer, and who would pay, and for what?

Some people blog nonsense, some people blog for personal reasons. I'm not sure why I do it. I don't blog that often, it goes in spurts. When I'm in a creative season, it's easy to blog. When I'm not, I don't. It usually takes me about 20-30 minutes to put out a blog article, and sometimes I can write it on my PDA on my 28 minute train commute in the morning.

Some people blog every day. I can't do that. I won't put out something just to say something or to be on a schedule.

The cost of blogging is some time, and some vulnerability. I think that blogging should reveal your soul: your heart, your mind and your emotion. If it doesn't, just post a website...

In reply to:

"OK you bloggers, you have a number of blogging newbies here. I know I am wondering but I bet I'm not alone. What is the 'cost' of blogging?

Some people like to 'gab'. Others like to write. Others still like to talk.
Some like to talk, write, and listen only if it is about themselves. While these people exist, I do not think we have any here. I get the feeling that the bloggers here do it because it makes them money.

It may well be that 'business blogging' 'always' makes more $ than the 'cost' in time (though I doubt the 'always').

The trouble is, that I imagine blogging to be very time consuming, not so much for the time it actually takes to type in but for the time it takes to create the content. It is rare that I can create content on-the-fly. I need to think about it, write it, re-write it, polish it, ask others to review it, etc.

I imagine that I would have to have considerable content prepared before starting to blog. Sort of like buffering a multi-media download. Once I had my 'buffer', I might have a chance to 'keep up' with the 'streaming'.

I'm sure others feel the same. So, how about telling us how to get started and what we can expect from the process."

LinkedInBloggers group on Yahoo

2005-05-26T08:25:00.000-04:00

From my post on: Yahoo group LinkedInBloggers

Joe Bartling here. My main blog is Spiderware.Com, "A blog about social, economic and spiritual networking". I've just started posting articles again,
mostly specific to LinkedIn. Last year, I blogged quite a bit about networking in multiple aspects of life, which is the theme of my blog. I believe that through developing relationships with people through networking and applying ACTION to it, the world can be made a better place.

I've made the case about how networking can open up the hope of adoption to many children in the country of South Africa, where there are 1,400,000 orphans. I have made the case that networking can help prevent and cure blindness around the world: Did you know that 80% of blindness in the world is either curable or preventable? Did you know that effective networking can transform the inner city, giving hope to otherwise isolated bright stars with vision and hope, but having no one to share the vision with.

Anyway, I hope you'll visit my blog and add it to your blogroll and your newsfeed.

Thanks to Des for his kind words and invitation, and good luck with this new Forum! Let's relate!

Joe Bartling
https://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=62910

LinkedIn: The Myth of Having "Too Many Connections"

2005-05-25T18:28:00.000-04:00

From my post on MyLinkedInPowerForum.

To me, having too many connections is like having too much MONEY.
Bring me the connections, and bring me the money! People seem to
think that a person who has "too many connections" doesn't have a
life. Though that may be true :-), it's not because he/she has too
many connections.

This issue seems to be one of "control". People are busy. They think
that by "managing" their number of connections, that they are managing
their time, and or their reputation. The fear is that by having more
connections, that there must be a correlating requirement of time to
manage LinkedIn requests.

I can tell you emphatically that this is NOT TRUE!

I've figured out anecdotally that LinkedIn is handling about
50,000-55,000 requests per month, and that has been fairly consistent
and growing slowly since January. With over 2 million users, the
average number of requests per member would be .025 or 2.5 out of
every 100, meaning that only 2.5% of members get even a single request
in a month. The median number of connections for all 2 million
LinkedIn members is still "1", meaning that more than half only have
one connection.

Though connections on LinkedIn follow a scale-free power law (get my
free report - MLPF message #2400 for an explanation), requests do not.
The reason for this is that there is quite a bit of homogeneity
between two super-connectors, in other words a lot of the same people
are connected to each other, and their clustering coeffecient (see the
paper) becomes closer to one. So two people who have 1000 connections
each, may have a coefficient of .5 meaning that they share 50% of the
same connections.

Because of this, 95% of the connections are owned by less than 5% of
the members. The top 500 users in LinkedIn with the most connections
have a total of about 350,000 connections, an average of about 700
each. But most of them share hundreds of connections between them, I
know I do.

I'm in the top 150 with about 850 connections and I only process about
15 requests a month. It's interesting that that number has not
changed much in 18 months when I only had 50 connections. I've found
that as my number of connections increases, that the number of my
"monkey in the middle" requests have actually decreased. So the
requests I am actually forwarding are typically to and from people I
actually *know*, which is exactly what I want to spend time on. I
spend about one minute processing a request, checking out the profile
of both the sender and receiver if I don't know them, and writing a
short note, then sending it on its way.

If I can process one request every minute, I could process over 10,000
LinkedIn requests every month by myself. Five of me could process
EVERY SINGLE LinkedIn request from the entire LinkedIn network
population. Would I want to do that? YES! Why wouldn't I? Wouldn't
I LOVE to have 50,000 people every month depending on me for
developing and furthering their relationships with other business
people. Remember, when you help enough people get what they want,
you'll always get what you want!

But since I handle all of my requests in 15-30 minutes a month, and
I'm in the top 150 LinkedIn users, why is *anyone* concerned that
their volume might be more time-consuming than that?

I'd be interested in hearing how many *real* requests Christian Mayaud
forwards per month. He has 8 times as many connections as I have, so
he should get 120 requests to forward every month. That should take a
few hours a month, certainly not a huge investment of time considering
the current value of his potential reach. But if my theory is true,
he doesn't receive 120 requests to forward each month. Since he has
*only* 6823 (at least this minute) direct connections, he is only
directly connected to less than .3% of LinkedIn members. If he were
to get .3% of the requests, he would get 165 requests per month,
certainly a manageable amount.

So, what are you worried about? Just BUILD YOUR NETWORK and *relate*
to people!

Joe Bartling
https://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=62910

What Does Networking Mean To You?

2005-05-25T08:25:00.000-04:00

From my post at MyLinkedInPowerForum

I just started reading Keith Ferrazzi's new book, "Never Eat Alone,
And Other Secrets to Success, One Relationship At A Time",
and there it is in Chapter one:

"Over time, I came to see reaching out to people as a way to make a
difference in people's lives as well as a way to explore and learn and
enrich my own; it became the conscious construction of my life's path.
Once I saw networking efforts in this light, I gave myself permission
to practice it with abandon in every part of my professional and
personal life. I didn't think of it as cold and impersonal, the way I
thought of "networking." I was, instead, *connecting* -- sharing my
knowledge and resources, time and energy, friends and associates, and
empathy and compassion in a continual effort to provide value for
others, while coincidentally increasing my own. Like business itself,
being a connector is not about managing transactions, but about
managing relationships."

I couldn't have said it better myself and its exactly how I feel about
"networking". I'm only 9 pages into Keith's book and I've already
received many times more value than the $16.47 I paid it.

Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter

2005-05-24T08:25:00.000-04:00

I stumbled onto a radio interview of author Steven Johnson this morning on NPR. I thought, "Could this be the Steven Johnson that I have blogrolled?". When I heard him talking about the interconnectivity of the connections and plots on Dallas, Hill Street Blues, and "24", I knew it was him! I am a fan and I have blogged about one of his previous books, Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. I am happy to have his as one of only 24 blogs on my blogroll.

I love his intellectual approach to things, and now I know why I like the Fox's "24" so much, and have since the first season. It's the ONE program I watch, and for a guy who lives "connected and connecting", its neat to find out why we do certain things.

His new book is call "Everything Bad Is Good For You" and can be ordered from Amazon here. I've just ordered a copy and hope you will too.

Using Gmail to process LinkedIn connections

2005-05-23T18:12:00.000-04:00

Originally posted at MyLinkedInPowerForum

I see that Vincent has posted an offer to share his 50 GMail invites.
(see MLPF message #2985:

I've just set up one of my GMail addresses to manage my LinkedIn new
connection requests. Having learned a thing or two from master
super-connector and self-described "connection slut" Christian Mayaud,
<http://www.sacredcowdung.com/archives/2005/05/confession_i_am.html>,
I have now posted my "connection invitations only" email address on my
LinkedIn profile: LinkToJoe[at]Gmail.Com. I, like Christian, am an
"SPP".

Obviously, the problem with using your *real* email address is that
you can get clobbered with LinkedIn requests (or other spam) that
bypass the request cycle and could negatively impact your time
management . Connection invitations ahow up in
your LinkedIn "Action Items" area anyway, so you really don't need the
email address, other than to give LinkedIn a place to verify/confirm
that it is one of your incoming email addresses. Gmail is perfect for
this since it provides a good search capability, spam filter, and ease
of use.

Thanks to Vincent for offering his Gmail invites. Here's a good use
for them. (I have 49 invites I can offer for that purpose too, just ask.)

We'll talk later about the wisdom, er... or foolishness, of putting
your email address in your LinkedIn profile.

Joe Bartling
https://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=62910

Rejecting LinkedIn Invitations May Bring Unintended Consequences

2005-05-19T08:15:00.000-04:00

Rejecting a LinkedIn invitation, even politely, can have unintended
consequences.

In my free report, "How to Double Your Income in Six Months Using
LinkedIn", (shameless plug: see MLPF message #2400), I say this:

"I’ve heard of people wanting to build a certain “type” of network. The problem is, you don’t know who your friends know, so you can’t prejudge how your network will turn out by selectively inviting just a few people. And since most of the important things in life are as a result of “weak” social ties, according to Granovetter, it makes no sense to limit the size and scope of your network."

This applies to rejecting invitations as well as "not inviting
people".

The problem with rejecting invitations is that it can have unintended
consequences, such as creating negative BUZZ about you... Look at
what it has done here! No matter how well-intentioned or even
well-documented policy about your rejection is, it has the potential
of being taken personally by the recipient. We're all human, and many
of us actually have *feelings*... And negative BUZZ is not what you
want in a professional social network.

If you feel the need to reject someone, it may be better to let the
invitation expire without action, or even better, just click on the
"Decide Later" button, which will stop LinkedIn nags about the
invitation until it does expire.

If you don't have something positive to say, don't say it at all.

Joe Bartling
https://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=62910