Revenue is an important business metric. But for early-stage companies that haven’t achieved product–market fit, gauging success only by revenue can be misleading. It’s nice to see revenue growing in the early days, but it’s even better to see signs that your customers are getting value from your solution.

Companies that focus exclusively on revenue can become myopic about closing a deal. Their primary goal should be to create value for customers by solving their problem superbly. If you nail it, revenue will grow. Early on, metrics that show how much customers are using your platform or how often they’re coming back are more telling than revenue. A paying customer who uses your platform monthly is somewhat engaged, but may not be receiving much value from it. A paying customer who uses it every day is likely receiving tremendous value from it. The former may not stay with you because the platform doesn’t solve their problem well enough. Revenue may look good in the short term but mask a serious long-term problem.

If you’re an early-stage founder, keep an eye on revenue, sure, but keep a closer eye on product–market fit. If you build it (better than anyone else does), they will come (and keep coming).

‍

When I started CCAW, I saw an opportunity to do certain things better. Automotive suppliers and manufacturers were inefficient and had issues turning inventory. Customers had a hard time finding the parts they wanted quickly. The inventory was available and the demand was there. The two just needed to be connected more efficiently. I ran with it. What I didn’t think about was competition. Other people saw a similar opportunity and were trying to capitalize on it.

Efficiency and defined processes allowed us to provide a great experience to our customers and vendors. But that wasn’t enough. It wasn’t the defensible moat we needed to scale the company to the level I envisioned ($100 million or more in revenue). What we were doing could be replicated. Plus, we made some things easier for customers, but we didn’t solve their biggest pain point: installation of the parts.

Moats are important for founders to think about. You don’t need one on day one, but you should be thinking about ways to dig a defensible moat to protect your company against invading competitors and margin erosion.

Today I had a great conversation with an old friend. We talked about working from home, and he pointed out something interesting. He’s mostly working from home, but he feels a need to go to the office some days. Pre-pandemic, he enjoyed working from home occasionally because it was peaceful and he wouldn’t be interrupted. Today, though, his children are doing virtual learning and his home is rarely quiet. He can do without his commute, but he still needs a space where he can focus. Currently, that’s his empty office building. He wishes there was a quiet place he could work closer to home.

I doubt that most companies will go back to requiring employees to be in the office five days a week. It’s clear that people can be productive working remotely. I also doubt that most employees will want to work at home five days a week. Some sort of separation between home and work is helpful for many of us. So where does that leave us? I think we’ll end up with a hybrid situation.

People will go to an office periodically when it makes sense—say, to meet with their team or clients. When people aren’t in the office, they’ll work remotely. Not necessarily from home, though. “Remotely” means outside the office. People will work from their community or neighborhood or somewhere else that works best for their life. I can see local coworking spaces becoming very popular. Large coworking spaces like WeWork will continue, too. And companies will begin contributing to the cost of employees using these spaces.

Historically, people had to go where the work was. Because of technology, that’s becoming unnecessary for more and more people. We’ll see a trend of people working away from the mothership in the communities and neighborhoods where they live. I’m just not sure when.

I connected with a serial entrepreneur this week. He has built successful bootstrapped businesses. Now, he’s planning to raise capital for a new venture. He’s working to get a service in the hands of customers. We talked about next steps and he said he wants to complete an MVP in the next few months and will do a pitch deck when he has time.

Putting together a deck is never fun. In fact, it’s annoying. Even so, it must be taken seriously. A thoughtful, attractive deck is the final product, but the value lies in the process of getting there. Good pitch decks communicate a founder’s vision clearly. They detail the problem, how the founder proposes to solve it, why the founder is qualified to solve it, and a host of other things. It takes time and energy to think through all the pieces and succinctly get them on slides.  

If you’re doing a pitch deck, when you think you’ve got it, share it with other people and ask them to poke holes in it. Then act on their feedback to make the deck better. More time and energy—but immensely valuable. You’ll come out of this process with a clearer vision, more conviction, and more confidence. You’ll have something that you, your team members, investors, and customers can rally around.

I didn’t raise capital for CCAW, so I thought I didn’t need to create a pitch deck. After many years I did one, and I regret waiting so long. The exercise led to realizations that completely changed the strategy for CCAW and reenergized me. Even if you’re not raising capital, creating a pitch deck and updating it annually is a powerful exercise. It forces you to put fresh eyes on your business and update your vision based on current market conditions. It’s an exercise in strategy that crystalizes what the company is doing and prepares the founder to move it forward.

If you’re a founder or aspire to be, consider creating a pitch deck and getting feedback on it. Doing so could be a game changer, even if you never raise a dime.

Today marks the end of my forty-seventh week of working from home (mostly). Here are my takeaways from week forty-seven:

• Compromise – Getting everything you want all the time sounds good, but achieving something great is usually the result of compromise. This week was a reminder of that.
• Weather – The weather was extreme this week in many parts of the country. I’ve talked to friends and family enduring unimaginable conditions. I hope that everyone who’s affected by all this weirdness will soon be able to feel safe in their homes and return to normalcy (whatever that looks like).
• Relationships – Other people’s help has been instrumental in my journey so far. This week was a reminder that healthy relationships are bidirectional. It made me appreciate my relationships and look for ways to add value to others’ lives.

Week forty-seven was about focus. I worked steadily and was productive. Next week, I hope to replicate that.  

Today I listened to an entrepreneur discuss how to manage a challenging team member. This founder is seasoned and has a great grasp on his business. But even with years of experience, human resource issues still consume lots of his time and energy. A few thoughts on this topic:

• CEO multiplier – By the time a human resource situation gets to the CEO’s desk, it’s usually many times worse than what’s being communicated. It’s probably been a concern longer than people are acknowledging.
• Culture – Is the person a culture fit? Rank them against your core values to find out. If the person isn’t a good fit but your core values don’t indicate that, it may be time to rethink your core values. Getting core values right and incorporating them into the hiring process is preventive maintenance.
• Time and energy – If one person consumes a ton of leadership or management time and energy, that’s a red flag. Every time I racked my brain about what to do with a particular team member, they ended up leaving despite my best efforts.
• Custom roles – It’s usually not a good idea to create a custom role to placate someone. It’s a temporary Band-Aid and a horrible example for the rest of the team.
• Coaching – Listening to a team member describe what they think they need can be a productive conversation. Sometimes it highlights diverging expectations or a mismatch between the professional development the person needs and what the company can offer. But other times it suggests simple changes that can get the relationship back on track.

All companies, regardless of size, contend with human resource problems. It’s an inevitable part of managing people. How you handle these situations is important—it speaks volumes about the company to both outsiders and your own people.

I was asked about my experience using offshore talent today. The use case we discussed was specific, but I think the things I shared could be helpful to others considering something similar:

• Nearshore vs. offshore – I have experience nearshoring in Nicaragua and offshoring in a few countries, including the Philippines and Poland. Both worked well. Nearshore talent may better understand American culture and usually the time zone difference is insignificant. Some of our team members in Nicaragua had lived in the United States for extended periods. For these reasons, nearshoring is good for customer-facing roles like customer service.
• Execution – Outsourcing works only if you have processes and systems already in place. What you do and how you do it need to be well defined. If every operational situation is a one-off exception or figured out on the fly, your operations aren’t consistent and your processes are minimal. This might work for in-office hires who can learn on the job. But it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to train resources in another country how to execute up to your standards. Without processes and systems, you’re setting the team up for failure.
• Education – Talented people are available for nearshore and offshore work. I worked with some intelligent men and women who had advanced degrees. They can usually do whatever you want if you help them succeed with proper training. If you want more-qualified or more highly educated people, just ask. Usually, firms can accommodate this kind of request if you’re willing to compensate these individuals appropriately based on their qualifications.
• Consistency – Most nearshore and offshore workers and firms value consistency. If you can provide steady work, it will go a long way toward earning loyalty. If you plan to dial people up and down constantly, expect turnover and inconsistent execution.
• Hiring – I initially let outsourcing firms do the team selection, but that didn’t go well. We got some people who weren’t well suited to their roles, and turnover was a problem. I eventually let the firms offer up candidates whom we would interview. The caliber of talent the firms offered went up. (I assume they had a better understanding of our standards.) I suggest sticking with your usual hiring process (with modifications) when you outsource. Misfires are time-consuming and costly with outsourcing, just like they are when you hire locally. Take the time to interview candidates and say no to bad fits.

I hope some of you find these points—which I learned through trial and error—useful. Tons of firms can assist with outsourcing and lots of information is available online. Outsourcing isn’t a silver bullet, but it can be helpful in scaling functions that have defined processes

It was a personal problem that led me to start my company. (Many founders would say the same.) Back in high school, I wasn’t able to find the auto parts I needed. After doing a ton of research, I eventually sourced what I needed. I used my new knowledge to solve the same problem for friends, which led to a side hustle in high school and college.

I was thinking really small then. How can I make some money and help my friends out? After some exposure to bigger thinking in corporate America, I realized it wasn’t just my friends who had this problem—I could solve it for many people. That realization led me to start CCAW, which focused exclusively on automotive parts.

In hindsight, I wish I had thought even bigger about the problem we were solving. We used technology to connect consumers to the auto products they desired. But the same accessibility problem exists in numerous industries. I was so focused on the automotive space that I couldn’t see the forest for the trees. We might have been able to use our technology, with modifications, to solve the broader problem in other industries.

If you’re a founder solving a problem you’ve had yourself, take a second to think about it more broadly. It may not change what you do in the short term, but it could inform what you do long-term. You just might stumble upon an innovative long-term vision and huge market opportunity.

I’m always interested in hearing how founders started out. Today, I talked with someone who recently exited. She had a great origin story.

In the beginning, she had a growing family and couldn’t afford to put her own capital into her idea. And she didn’t know how the investor world worked. She turned to the tools at her disposal. Her idea required physical space to provide instruction. She went to venues that were entering their slow season and negotiated to split revenue from courses in exchange for using their space. No upfront payment required. Using Constant Contact, she began emailing people in his network and offering the service. She built a free professional-looking webpage for registrations.

The registrations and turnout exceeded expectations. The cash from that one event was enough to make a down payment on his own building, and things took off from there. Eventually she scaled the business to over one hundred locations before selling it recently. All with no investors or other external capital.

This is a great story of hustle and making the most of the resources available to you, even if they’re far from ideal. Play the hand you’re dealt and play it well, even if it looks bad, and you can still win the game.

‍

Over the years, I’ve noticed a pattern. Some people thrive in the early days of a start-up. They love being an early team member and turning an idea into reality. The lack of structure, wearing multiple hats, and small team dynamics appeal to them. They love solving hard problems and building something new. They’re aware the business could fail, but they’re comfortable with that risk. As the company scales, roles become more defined, and structure is added to the company, the experience is less enjoyable for these kinds of people, and they may leave.

These people are critical to the start-up ecosystem. They make great team members early on. Some people see their lack of interest in staying with the company as it matures as a negative. I see it differently. They know what environments are ideal for them and they seek out opportunities that align with that. Sure, that means they may stay only a few years, but that’s OK. Their strengths lie in helping the company overcome early obstacles and achieve product–market fit.

As companies grow, their needs change. The skills needed for, say, international expansion are utterly different than those needed to go from an idea to landing the first customer. What’s required of the team evolves as the company pursues bigger goals. Some people will evolve with the company as it matures, and some will pursue other opportunities. Either is OK. The most important thing is to recognize what stage a company is in and get the people best suited to help you make it to the next one.