Frontal assaults

When we picture wars through history, we often picture two armies clashing against each other – i.e. a frontal assault. Frontal assaults rely on raw power and lose effectiveness over time because of their predictability. I remember seeing a stat that said <5% of all wars fought involved frontal assaults.

That makes sense. Force and raw power tend to be most effective when used sparingly.

You see this all the time in interactions between parents and children. Parents who employ the frontal assault strategy may win a few battles – but, inevitably, lose the war. The dominant strategy when faced with war tends to be tact (to look for ways to avoid it if possible) and surprise.

I’ve written about my struggles with tact from time to time here. I tend to impulsively fight fire with fire – a really bad strategy in any confrontation. Luckily, parenting a 2 year old has provided a great training ground to improve my skills.

As with most things in life, making the change is not about shutting down that rush of blood when my lymbic brain senses an imminent confrontation. Instead, it is channeling that rush of blood to work on a tactful response/creating a surprising distraction.

This is no different from the principle of separating reaction from response. But, then again, principles are easier said than done. And, making them second nature requires plenty of tactical experimentation.

Here’s to that.

Sharpies and predictions

The 37 signals/Basecamp team once shared a post about using thick sharpies when sketching early designs. The beauty about sharpies is that they force you to focus on the core elements of what you are trying to build. That’s because you can’t obsess about the details the same way you can with thinner markers.

I find a similar approach to be useful when attempting to make long term predictions or sizing markets. Complex models look good and seem more accurate – but they often end up focusing us on details that don’t matter. Since the point of long term predictions is getting a sense of magnitude, there typically are a handful of drivers that actually move the needle.

So, the fewer the variables and simpler the assumptions, the better the prediction generally is.

Or, put differently, if you’re not able to share your model on a whiteboard using sharpies, there’s likely work to be done.

Life lessons from the 30 year reunion

Deborah Copaken, a writer at the Atlantic, shared a beautiful note about lessons she learnt at her 30 year reunion.

I think the magic of this note is that it inadvertently touches on many contradictions – money matters but it can’t be the main thing, love isn’t everything but it helps a lot, diversity is important even if supporting it means going against yourself, and an appreciate of life often requires an acceptance of death.

In doing so, it reminds us of the importance of making peace with the many opposing forces that come together to make this life.

Here are a few notes from her that resonated deeply.

Every classmate who became a teacher or doctor seemed happy with the choice of career.

They say money can’t buy happiness, but in an online survey of our class just prior to the reunion, those of us with more of it self-reported a higher level of happiness than those with less.

Our strongest desire, in that same pre-reunion class survey—over more sex and more money—was to get more sleep.

Many of our class’s shyest freshmen have now become our alumni class leaders, helping to organize this reunion and others.

Nearly all the alumni said they were embarrassed by their younger selves, particularly by how judgmental they used to be.

No matter what my classmates grew up to be—a congressman, like Jim Himes; a Tony Award–winning director, like Diane Paulus; an astronaut, like Stephanie Wilson—at the end of the day, most of our conversations at the various parties and panel discussions throughout the weekend centered on a desire for love, comfort, intellectual stimulation, decent leaders, a sustainable environment, friendship, and stability.

Those of us who’d experienced the trauma of near death—or who are still facing it—seemed the most elated to be at reunion. “We’re still here!” I said to my friend, who used to run a health company and had a part of the side of his face removed when his cancer, out of nowhere, went haywire. We were giggling, giddy as toddlers, practically bouncing on our toes, unable to stop hugging each other and smiling as we recounted the gruesome particulars of our near misses.

I can hold both of these truths—diversity is good; the roots of diversity in the admissions process were prejudiced against my own people—and not only still be able to function but also to see that sometimes good results can come from less-than-good intentions.

Powerful – thank you for sharing Deborah.

PS: To everyone who came here from Seth’s blog post yesterday, welcome! One of the wonderful side effects of writing here for the last ten years is getting to know you and hearing from you on your reflections. The hope is that you find that often elusive mix of content that has you smiling and nodding occasionally, shaking your head in disagreement every once a while, and enabling you to reflect more often than not. I hope you find that.

Please don’t hesitate to write in by replying to this email (if you subscribed via email)/via rohan at rohanrajiv.com. Hearing from you is always a highlight.

Probiotics and problems

Our approach to dealing with bacteria has evolved from trying to eliminate them to working with probiotics or good bacteria. We’ve learnt that attempts to eliminate/disinfect bacteria aren’t helpful in the long run – they will always exist. So, it is in our interest to make sure we have more good bacteria than bad.

Problems work much the same way. It is natural to pin hope on upcoming changes – a new relationship, a new hire, a new job, or a new place – as the solution to all our problems. But, we never eliminate problems (not necessarily a bad thing). And, any hopes of doing so results in inevitable disappointment.

Instead, every change we make involves trading off one set of problems for another. Thus, a better approach to hope is similar to the probiotic approach – the hope would be to spend more and more of our time solving problems that we consider a) worthwhile and b) fun.

Stock market predictions

The markets are down and it is amusing to see stock market predictions come at us left, right, and center. Everyone claims to have an idea of where things are going – but no one has a clue.

All the noise about the markets is fascinating because it is a reminder that this is all noise that we’re going to forget in a few days and weeks. The only folks who should care about daily price gyrations are day traders.

If you’re in the business of creating value, however, there’s good news. In the long run, stock prices follow value.

All this noise is just a reminder for us to focus on the game we’re playing and focus on building value.

The clarity overestimation problem

As speakers, we overestimate how clearly we communicate. And, as listeners, we overestimate how much we understand.

Aside from long term investments in learning to communicate clearly and becoming better listeners (both valuable), it helps to have a short term counter to this asymmetry. And, the best I’ve found is habitually replaying what we think we just heard and requesting listeners to share what they think they took away.

We aren’t going to solve the overestimation habit (we all like to believe we are above average) – so, we might as well get on with solving the resulting issue.

The Amazon Empire And What Better Might Look Like

a16z Board Partner and former Microsoft executive Steven Sinofsky had a great post on Medium (originally a tweet storm) in which he shared an alternative view on Amazon’s journey. Instead of the usual narrative about world domination, he makes the case that this Amazon’s moves are Amazon just becoming a traditional retailing empire – like Sears, WalMart, et al.

For Amazon’s logistics mastery, think of Walmart in the 1980s. For the loyalty driven by Amazon Prime, think of the Sears store credit card. For Amazon Basics, look at house brands of nearly every retailer. And, for Amazon Advertising, look at the channel structure (rebates or discounts for shelf placements) of every retailer.

Again, it is a great post and is right on most counts.

That said, while all of this points to Amazon becoming a retailing behemoth just like those of the past, I think technology available today enables a behemoth of hitherto unprecedented size, scale, and strength.

The obvious counter point to all this would be to look at the past. Walmart’s dominance felt unbeatable – until it wasn’t. But, let me explain why I look at Amazon’s dominance differently.

(1) The online-offline combination at scale is formidable. Anyone who’s taken a class in Supply Chain will tell you that it is impossible to be both broad and efficient on one channel. Online distribution and centralized warehouses are great for expensive products with high demand uncertainty (TVs, diamonds). They suck for steady demand, low value products.

Put simply, Amazon’s online business is very efficient at shipping you books or CDs or even televisions – but is very inefficient at shipping diapers. So, it was only a matter of time before Amazon expanded into physical retail (3000 stores are on the way by 2021).

Omni-channel retailing makes the prospect of a profitable “Everything Store’ very real.

(2) 4 Stars is made possible by the retailer – Go is made possible by the technology giant. Amazon announced a new store called “4 stars” in New York City. The store will feature the most popular products bought by New Yorkers on Amazon. It makes complete sense and is something Amazon is well positioned to pull off. The challenge with physical stores is optimizing sales per sq foot. Here, Amazon will only sell the most popular items. Social proof works.

You can imagine other retailers with massive online footprints (there aren’t many – but you can still imagine it) pulling something like this off.

Amazon Go, however, is about more than that. Go brings together mastery in computer vision and deep learning that has been honed for years thanks to an ecosystem that features projects like Alexa and AWS. There isn’t another retailer on the planet who can pull this off. In fact, I’d wager that there are less than ten companies on the planet that have the talent required to do this. Amazon is part of a very elite group of technology leaders.

(3) In the race to build the OS for the home, Alexa is the one to beat. Amazon has been going after the home for a few years now. After a few failed experiments, the combination of Alexa and Echo have definitely been a home run. But, in typical Amazon fashion, they’ve sought to build on that. Whether it is attempting to get to know your wardrobe via the Echo Show, be your home security vendor via Ring (acquired), and the recent Alexa microwave, Amazon is the clear frontrunner.


Again, the technology chops required to make Alexa work rules out every retailer. We’re thus left with 3 other companies with working (to various degrees) personal assistants – Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Facebook could be added to the list and will likely give it a shot too.

Microsoft is (mostly) focused on the workplace and Apple’s DNA is decidedly not mass market retail. All this brings us to Google and maybe Facebook.

We can begin by ruling out Facebook’s chances. Ads is a problematic business model when you’re creating home devices with personal assistants that listen to people’s most intimate conversations. And, Facebook has repeatedly proved it will use any and all data available (including what you share for security purposes) to target ads. That’s not going to be helpful in their quest for the home.

That, then, brings us to Google. The biggest challenge Google faces is the same as that of Facebook – it is an advertising company. But, luckily for Google and in no part thanks to its many moon shots, it has a brand that stands for more than that – at least relative to Facebook. This is getting undone with the various recent revelations about excessive tracking. That said, I’d posit that they still have hope.

And, that hope is critical because securing a foothold in retail has existential implications for Google’s growth. Steven Sinofsky’s point about Amazon’s ad business being the equivalent of retailers charging for great shelf space indicates why this is so. Since retail searches in the past two decades have generally started on Google, Google has taken home that money. But, as Amazon becomes that default place to begin the retail journey, Google will lose out heavily on future growth.

So, unless Google does what all successful retailers do and builds a successful house brand (Google Shopping), it is going to lose a massive portion of the e-commerce pie. If Google is to succeed in this, I believe Google will need to draw a strong and visible separation between its ad monetization and Google Home. If people perceive a strong connection, they will not buy.

I stress “perceive” because Amazon has a rapidly growing ad business too. Customers, however, think of Amazon as a retailer first. And, perception matters.

(4) The internet has created global (i.e. world minus China) winner take all effects – especially for platforms. The internet has enabled global domination by a few corporations at an unprecedented scale. Steven Sinofsky’s post points to Walmart’s scale in the 80s and 90s. But, I’d argue that Amazon is different because it is both a retailer and a platform of retailers (Fulfillment by Amazon).

It means Amazon’s domination is not limited to its ambitions as a retailer. Just as Facebook is the global internet’s (again, global = world minus China) default town square, Amazon is the default market with merchants from all across town. That’s something Walmart or any major retailer in the past never had.

I think that is also why the narratives around retail and ridesharing seem to be running parallel. Just as we’re seeing massive global ridesharing networks consolidate into two opposing forces (Uber, Softbank, Didi, Grab vs. Lyft, Go-Jek, Waymo), retail pits Amazon versus Walmart, Google, and JD.com. The stakes are much higher compared to the 1980s and 90s.

(5) Amazon’s momentum can likely only be stopped by two forces – the government and itself. In sum, I think Steven Sinofsky is right in saying that a lot of what Amazon is doing isn’t as disruptive as is often portrayed. But, I do think equating Amazon to every other retail empire doesn’t do it justice. Its mastery of omni-channel retailing, access to cutting edge technologists who are building for Alexa and AWS, and its formidable platform chops make it really hard to beat.

As a result, I believe there are only two possible ways Amazon’s expansion will be stopped – regulation or poor strategy/execution on its part. As long as Jeff Bezos is around, my guess is that we’re effectively left with government/regulation as the only realistic option.

(6) I’m hopeful Amazon will help build out a better global retail empire. While they’re at it, I’m hopeful team Bezos will help build a better global retail empire in the coming decades. There’s benefits to massive consolidation and I’m hoping some of these benefits will be used for good.

3 areas where I’d love to see Amazon innovate –
1. Ethical global supply chains. We live in a world where everyone owns a smartphone – however, only a tiny minority of which are ethically built. Amazon’s heft means it can make ethical standards mandatory for its 3rd party retailers as well as its own supply chain. Amazon’s internal recruiting famously has “bar raisers” – folks who form part of the interview panel to ensure they’re raising standards. I’m hopeful they’ll raise the bar on supply chains too.

2. The Amazon recycling program. What if Amazon created  program to recycle its famous cardboard boxes?

What if, for example, this program recycled both boxes and goods purchased on Amazon?

3. More sustainable products. Building on the above two points, what if Amazon pushed for more sustainable products by making more of them available on Prime?

At Amazon’s scale, every step made toward sustainability will be a giant leap forward.

I’m well aware Amazon’s past record in these areas hasn’t been great. Their treatment of their warehouse employees has come under fire in the past. Better often makes margins worse and it is, after all, still day 1 at Amazon.

However, I’m hopeful there’ll come a time when Team Bezos reconciles the fact that it is also year 20 at Amazon. While they’ve (admirably) retained their scrappiness, they’re also among the most powerful corporations on the planet.

And, if responsibility is proportional to power, they certainly have a whole lot of it.

Dealing with the one star review

You took initiative. You asked a question no one was asking, suggested you’d do something that you thought mattered, or shipped something. Many in your target audience came right back and told you they were glad you were attempting it. But, one (and there’s always one) gave you a one star review for the attempt.

They told you they didn’t want it and that they weren’t supportive of what you were trying to do.

Now, when we go home that night, we’re most likely going to find ourselves obsessed with that one person who gave us the one star review. Why did they say what they did? If the review was anonymous – who was this person?

The best tip I’ve received for dealing with one star reviews is a post from Seth that said a one star review is simply someone saying – It is not for them.

We may be able to address some of their reservations with better storytelling. But, most likely, the best response is to take a deep breath, say “thanks for letting me know,” and continue shipping for those who care.

MVR

I love asking folks who’ve done well in their careers for their “standard” career advice. It is always fascinating to hear about the principles they believe matter most in career success. I heard a piece of advice recently I call MVR (similar to MVP) – Most Valuable Report.

This piece of career advice was – “Develop an understanding of what your manager is evaluated on, what she/he most needs help on, and become their most valuable direct report.”

I loved this piece of advice as I thought it was both practical (versus, say, “follow your passion”) and powerful in its implications. Everyone has managers – if you don’t report to anyone, you likely have to deal with a board, shareholders, or powerful customers.

Managing that relationship well is among the highest value things we do