Business RadioX ®

  • Home
  • Business RadioX ® Communities
    • Southeast
      • Alabama
        • Birmingham
      • Florida
        • Orlando
        • Pensacola
        • South Florida
        • Tampa
        • Tallahassee
      • Georgia
        • Atlanta
        • Cherokee
        • Forsyth
        • Greater Perimeter
        • Gwinnett
        • North Fulton
        • North Georgia
        • Northeast Georgia
        • Rome
        • Savannah
      • Louisiana
        • New Orleans
      • North Carolina
        • Charlotte
        • Raleigh
      • Tennessee
        • Chattanooga
        • Nashville
      • Virginia
        • Richmond
    • South Central
      • Arkansas
        • Northwest Arkansas
    • Midwest
      • Illinois
        • Chicago
      • Michigan
        • Detroit
      • Minnesota
        • Minneapolis St. Paul
      • Missouri
        • St. Louis
      • Ohio
        • Cleveland
        • Columbus
        • Dayton
    • Southwest
      • Arizona
        • Phoenix
        • Tucson
        • Valley
      • Texas
        • Austin
        • Dallas
        • Houston
    • West
      • California
        • Bay Area
        • LA
        • Pasadena
      • Colorado
        • Denver
      • Hawaii
        • Oahu
  • FAQs
  • About Us
    • Our Mission
    • Our Audience
    • Why It Works
    • What People Are Saying
    • BRX in the News
  • Resources
    • BRX Pro Tips
    • B2B Marketing: The 4Rs
    • High Velocity Selling Habits
    • Why Most B2B Media Strategies Fail
    • 9 Reasons To Sponsor A Business RadioX ® Show
  • Partner With Us
  • Veteran Business RadioX ®

Search Results for: regions business radio

Decision Vision Episode 137:  Should I Form a Company Advisory Board? – An Interview with Karen Robinson Cope, Mara6

October 7, 2021 by John Ray

Karen Robinson Cope
Decision Vision
Decision Vision Episode 137:  Should I Form a Company Advisory Board? - An Interview with Karen Robinson Cope, Mara6
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Karen Robinson CopeDecision Vision Episode 137:  Should I Form a Company Advisory Board? – An Interview with Karen Robinson Cope, Mara6

What’s the function of an advisory board, and how does it differ from a board of directors? Should you have both, and why? Who should you have on your advisory board? In this conversation with Decision Vision host Mike Blake, Karen Robinson Cope, Managing Director of Mara6, answers these questions and much more. Decision Vision is presented by Brady Ware & Company.

Mara6

Mara6 is an advisory and consulting firm that helps young companies and entrepreneurs identify needs, develop scalable business models and drive innovation, strategy, and revenue.

LinkedIn

Karen Robinson Cope, Managing Director, Mara6

Karen Robinson Cope, Managing Director, Mara6

Karen Robinson Cope is a visionary and inspirational leader who takes ideas and disparate teams and builds great companies. As evidenced by her successes as a CEO of multiple early-stage, fast-growth companies, and numerous boards, she can identify a new market opportunity and then develop a clear strategy to quickly become a market leader. She is a decisive leader who is not afraid to take risks, appropriately utilizing strategic financing partners and developing sound financial metrics to keep new initiatives on track. She has been recognized numerous times over the last twenty years by multiple
organizations for her excellent leadership skills.

In a variety of industries and companies, Karen has joined an existing leadership team where she has developed the vision, rallied the existing team as well as recruited star performers, and executed a bold strategy that resulted in market leadership as well as strong financial performance.

She is exceptionally able to motivate marquis clients to embrace new companies or new business models because of her authenticity, servant leadership, and superior communications skills. In three prior companies where she was CEO or a board member, she was able to successfully build great companies generating tens of millions in revenue, drive new markets and industries and provide shareholder, employee, and customer value.

Karen holds a BS in Political Science and Economics from the University of Redlands. She serves on several Boards of Directors where she is helping to identify new opportunities, drive innovation, and expand businesses globally. In her spare time, she and her husband Rick, also a CEO, like to travel to out-of-the-way places, experience wild adventures, and mentor young entrepreneurs.

LinkedIn

Mike Blake, Brady Ware & Company

Mike Blake, Host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series

Michael Blake is the host of the Decision Vision podcast series and a Director of Brady Ware & Company. Mike specializes in the valuation of intellectual property-driven firms, such as software firms, aerospace firms, and professional services firms, most frequently in the capacity as a transaction advisor, helping clients obtain great outcomes from complex transaction opportunities. He is also a specialist in the appraisal of intellectual properties as stand-alone assets, such as software, trade secrets, and patents.

Mike has been a full-time business appraiser for 13 years with public accounting firms, boutique business appraisal firms, and an owner of his own firm. Prior to that, he spent 8 years in venture capital and investment banking, including transactions in the U.S., Israel, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

Brady Ware & Company

Brady Ware & Company is a regional full-service accounting and advisory firm which helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality. Brady Ware services clients nationally from its offices in Alpharetta, GA; Columbus and Dayton, OH; and Richmond, IN. The firm is growth-minded, committed to the regions in which they operate, and most importantly, they make significant investments in their people and service offerings to meet the changing financial needs of those they are privileged to serve. The firm is dedicated to providing results that make a difference for its clients.

Decision Vision Podcast Series

Decision Vision is a podcast covering topics and issues facing small business owners and connecting them with solutions from leading experts. This series is presented by Brady Ware & Company. If you are a decision-maker for a small business, we’d love to hear from you. Contact us at decisionvision@bradyware.com and make sure to listen to every Thursday to the Decision Vision podcast.

Past episodes of Decision Vision can be found at decisionvisionpodcast.com. Decision Vision is produced and broadcast by the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX®.

Connect with Brady Ware & Company:

Website | LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

TRANSCRIPT

Intro: [00:00:01] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast series focusing on critical business decisions. Brought to you by Brady Ware & Company. Brady Ware is a regional full-service accounting and advisory firm that helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality.

Mike Blake: [00:00:21] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast giving you, the listener, clear vision to make great decisions. In each episode, we discuss the process of decision making on a different topic from the business owners’ or executives’ perspective. We aren’t necessarily telling you what to do, but we can put you in a position to make an informed decision on your own and understand when you might need help along the way.

Mike Blake: [00:00:42] My name is Mike Blake, and I’m your host for today’s program. I am a director at Brady Ware & Company, a full-service accounting firm based in Dayton, Ohio, with offices in Dayton; Columbus, Ohio; Richmond, Indiana; and Alpharetta, Georgia. My practice specializes in providing fact-based strategic and risk management advice to clients that are buying, selling, or growing the value of companies and their intellectual property. Brady Ware is sponsoring this podcast, which is being recorded in Atlanta per social distancing protocols.

Mike Blake: [00:01:11] If you would like to engage with me on social media with my Chart of the Day and other content, I’m on LinkedIn as myself and @unblakeable on Facebook, Twitter, Clubhouse, and Instagram. If you like this podcast, please subscribe on your favorite podcast aggregator and please consider leaving a review of the podcast as well.

Mike Blake: [00:01:29] Our topic today is, Should I form a company advisory board? The Business Development Bank of Canada did a neat study a while ago showing the companies with advisory boards enjoy stronger growth than those without. And you can look that study up on the internet.

Mike Blake: [00:01:44] Interestingly enough, there’s actually not a lot of empirical study that’s been done on the impact of advisory boards, yet there’s a lot of interest in them as well. In addition, I’ve learned over the years that I’ve been doing this, whatever this is, that a lot of people have a misunderstanding of what it is that an advisory board does. But I think it’s something that’s on people’s minds.

Mike Blake: [00:02:15] I know of companies that have never considered advisory boards that are now exploring that question because the world simply, as we all know, has changed so much from what it was nearly two years ago now. That companies need an outside perspective or at least feel that they would benefit from outside perspective to understand how to survive and thrive in this new normal.

Mike Blake: [00:02:42] And so, joining us today is Karen Robinson Cope of Mara6. Mara6 is an advisory and consulting firm that helps young companies and entrepreneurs identify needs, develop scalable business models, and drive innovation strategy and revenue. She especially enjoys driving customer and shareholder value.

Mike Blake: [00:03:00] Karen Robinson Cope is a visionary and inspirational leader who takes ideas and disparate teams and builds great companies. As evidenced by her successes as a CEO of multiple early stage fast growth companies and numerous boards, she can identify a new market opportunity and then develop a clear strategy to quickly become a market leader. She is a decisive leader who is not afraid to take risks, appropriately utilizing strategic financing partners, and developing sound financial metrics to keep new initiatives on track. She’s been recognized numerous times over the last 20 years by multiple organizations for her excellent leadership skills.

Mike Blake: [00:03:38] In three prior companies where she was CEO or board member, Karen was able to successfully build great companies generating tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue, drive new markets and industries, and provide shareholder, employee, and customer value.

Mike Blake: [00:03:52] Karen holds a Bachelor of Science in Political Science and Economics from the University of Redlands. And she serves on several boards of directors where she is helping to identify new opportunities, drive innovation, and expand businesses globally. In her spare time, she and her husband, Rick, also a CEO, like to travel to out-of-the-way places, experience wild adventures, and mentor young entrepreneurs. Karen Robinson Cope, welcome to the Decision Vision podcast.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:04:19] Mike, it’s so good to hear from you.

Mike Blake: [00:04:22] So, before we get started, I have to share with you something that I don’t think that I’ve ever told you, but I’ve told numerous other people, and you need to be let in on it. You actually taught me one of the best lessons I ever learned about valuation. And it was years ago when you and I were sitting on a panel together and somebody asked about valuation. I chimed in and I said something, I don’t know if was smart, dumb, or somewhere in between.

Mike Blake: [00:04:51] But you said something which I’ve never forgotten, and I don’t know if this is your original thought or not, but I attribute it to you happily. And that is that, “You can name any valuation that you want as long as I get to name the terms.” And someday I’m going to do a podcast on that topic exclusively and maybe try to cajole you back in. But I now use that all the time when I teach classes, advise clients, whatever the context, it comes up all the time, and I make sure to give you full attribution for that.

Mike Blake: [00:05:23] So, before I get started, I want to, on this public forum, to thank you for that bit of wisdom because it really has made me a better advisor and better practitioner.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:05:32] Well, I appreciate your kind words. You know, as many years as I’ve been doing this, and you and I have been doing this together for many years, I’m more convinced than ever that terms are so critical. And I’ve had some great successes where the valuation made may have been really great but the terms were not and, vice versa, where the valuation was off the charts and yet the terms weren’t. And I can tell you that it’s all about the T, the terms, the terms, the terms. So, I’m glad you’ve been able to use that because I find it so valuable.

Mike Blake: [00:06:02] Well, it just comes up all the time. And I promise everybody in the audience, actually, we’ll cover the promised topic today. But in particular, as I see unicorns come to market, and one of the things you recognize and I suspect you sense this as well, not all unicorns are created alike. And some unicorns are legit unicorns and some unicorns got there because the founders felt like they wanted or needed that headline number, and they gave away the store in terms of terms so they could go to market with that headline number.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:06:37] You are so correct. And, again, you see this more and more. Quite often, again, it’s very exciting – and, Mike, you and I, I think even met back then – when I was first raising money in my first company and our first valuation was a couple of hundred million and then it got to a billion dollars and we were so excited. And I got to tell you that the terms is what it’s all about. And I’ve seen it again and again. If you don’t fully understand what that cap table looks like in those contractual terms, you can be blown away when you’re thinking about a great exit. And by the time the founders are counting their pennies, it’s only pennies because they’ve given it all away through the term.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:07:15] So, you’re exactly correct. It’s a great topic, and you and I should have that conversation again, definitely over drinks or on a podcast.

Mike Blake: [00:07:22] Maybe both. I mean, we’re not FCC regulated.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:07:26] It sounds like a great idea.

Mike Blake: [00:07:29] All right. So, let’s dive into it because our audience is expecting us to cover advisory boards. And so, let’s start off as I do with most shows, provide us, please, with a definition of what an advisory board is and how is an advisory board different from other kinds of boards, such as a board of directors?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:07:49] What a great question. I get asked this all the time. Let me start by saying, a board of directors, contrary to what you may have read or heard, it’s got a legal and a fiduciary responsibility. It literally is responsible for representing all of the shareholders interest. Compare that to a board of advisors, and a board of advisers has no legal, has no fiduciary. They’re really there to advise. And I think it’s important to recognize, if you’ve got investors that are expecting a return, that it’s important that you legally and from a fiduciary perspective, make sure that you have directors that are representing the interest of all your shareholders.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:08:33] However, if you own the company 100 percent or it’s a tightly controlled company, then a board of advisers may be the appropriate direction for you. And this is another one, I think, Mike, you’ll enjoy this – I like to say that a board of advisors can help you opine. You ask the big questions. They talk about esoteric. They talk about the big picture. They talk about strategy. But when it comes right down to it, all they’re doing is giving advice. Compare that to a board of directors when they literally have a fiduciary and a legal responsibility to ensure that the shareholders interests are protected. So, they’re very different, and I would suggest, have a very different role.

Mike Blake: [00:09:16] So, I’d like to riff on this. I’m going to kind of tear up the script here a little earlier than I normally do, because I think that distinction you just made is really important. Because my observation – and please correct me if you think I’m wrong – is that, because of its nature, a board of directors in many ways is going to have an incentive structure that is fairly defensive in nature.

Mike Blake: [00:09:46] Whereas, a board of advisors might be able to encourage more risk, encourage more of an expansive offensive nature. Because there is no fiduciary responsibility, you can afford to dream a little bit bigger, if you will, and encourage more risk taking. Whereas, perhaps a board of directors, because of that fiduciary responsibility, and nobody ever gets sued for taking too much money, but you sure can be sued if you lose a lot. Is there that kind of dynamic there between the two? Is there that kind of different personality, if you will?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:10:22] Absolutely. And we’ll talk a little bit later about the program that I actually developed is a nonprofit organization to help companies develop board of advisors. I think you said it so well. Think about of a board of advisors, it’s almost like spitballing. You can kind of sit around, brainstorm a little bit. Their job is – I literally mean this word – opine. To think about the big picture, think about what could, what couldn’t, why, why not. It’s not to ensure that you do it. It’s really to get you to thinking about, where the board of directors has a very defined legal set of responsibilities. And part of that is to make sure that you manage risk.

Mike Blake: [00:11:04] So, I think another distinction is kind of the relationship with the founder and the CEO, right? And I think we’re just kind of expanding upon that last part of the discussion, which is, an advisory board might be thought of as a resource, but a board of directors could very easily be simply defined as the boss of the CEO.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:11:26] I think that is so well said and that is exactly correct. When you own your company 100 percent or it’s a tightly controlled company, you might want some advice, but bottom line you’re responsible for those decisions. Conversely, when you have a board of directors, the CEO reports to the board of directors. And they, therefore, in most cases or many cases, have the ability to actually fire the CEO, even if you’re one of the largest shareholders.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:11:53] So, it’s a very different mentality. And you’re correct and I think you said it really well, Mike. One way is to kind of think big and one way is to think of all the things that could go wrong and let’s make sure we manage against them. Very different perspectives.

Mike Blake: [00:12:09] Yeah. And from my vintage, anyway, maybe the best example of a board firing a CEO is Apple’s board firing Steve Jobs.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:12:19] A hundred percent correct.

Mike Blake: [00:12:20] Which he said – by the way, interestingly – he thought that was actually one of the best things that ever happened to him because it made him a much more mature leader when he came back.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:12:29] Absolutely. Because, as you know, once you take on shareholders, it doesn’t really matter what you want. It matters what’s best for all the shareholders. And especially when you have multiple rounds of funding and in each subsequent round, as you said, we talked about earlier in the conversation, there’s different terms for each one of those. And you as a CEO, if you have outside investors, it’s incumbent upon the board to make sure that every one of those shareholder groups and shareholders is being treated fairly.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:13:01] Whereas, if you own your own company, you can make decisions. And with a board of advisors, you can make decisions that are in your best interest that may not be in your employee’s best interests, it may not be in your customer’s best interests. But, again, if you don’t have outside investors and you don’t have that outside board, you have tremendous flexibility. And like Steve said, as a board of directors, I think that it really helped him to, again, not only be a more mature leader, but obviously helped him to, unbelievable, what has happened to Apple over the last 20 plus years. An amazing story. And part of it, I think, was because Steve came back as a much more thoughtful leader.

Mike Blake: [00:13:46] Yeah. And he realized that he had friction and he realized that Apple is no longer sort of his personal playground. And that does force you to think in a different way. And, frankly, that’s what a board of directors is supposed to do, too.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:13:59] Absolutely correct. Whereas, the board of advisors, again, I don’t want to say it encourages the CEO in their worst proclivities, but I think providing advice allows you to really think outside the box and do some what ifs.

Mike Blake: [00:14:14] So, since we’ve identified now that a board of directors and a board of advisors serve two different purposes and really have two different personalities and responsibilities, is it out of the question that a company might have both?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:14:29] Absolutely. And I think that’s a great question. Again, part of it is the legal and the fiduciary responsibilities. Part of it is – and I think you said it’s so well, your question a few moments ago – about risk management. But also think of it as almost like the advisory board is there, as you think about your dreams, how might you be able to do that. Which is, again, a board of directors would take that same topic and say, “Okay. What could go wrong? How do we mitigate against that? How does this improve overall shareholder value?”

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:15:05] The board of advisors almost gives the CEO or the executive team a chance to almost role play or do a trial pitch, if you will, and think about what might happen. Remember, when an executive team or CEO is presenting to the board, they’re literally being evaluated, potentially for compensation, potentially for other opportunities. Whereas, an advisory board is really there to help you dream about that, help you think about it, and bring in that necessary expertise that you might not have in your executive team.

Mike Blake: [00:15:40] So, let’s drill a little bit down to this, because I think in some cases it may seem strange that a CEO, founder, and executive team that maybe one of the reasons they founded the company in the first place was not to have to be answerable to anybody, would suddenly choose to give up, if not their independence, but at least sort of share the wheel, if you will, a little bit or share the sandbox with somebody else. So, what are the benefits that you typically see that advisory boards offer that are attractive to companies?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:16:16] Great question. Again, you and I have both been entrepreneurs and both CEOs and so forth. When you think about it, you’re running so hard, you’re so involved in the business, you’re thinking about, How do I sell? How do I collect? How do I build? How do I deliver? How do I manage my supply chain? You’re so focused on so many things, especially early on in the company’s lifecycle.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:16:43] Typically, what a board of advisers can do is they’ll literally step outside. You almost think you have your own little bubble as you’re the CEO, and you’re the executive team, and you’re running 24 hours, or 28 hours a day nonstop. And I like to say you focus on the urgent, because that’s what you have to do. You have to worry about how am I getting my customer to pay so I can pay my employees? And that’s an urgent issue. Long term, is that an important issue? Probably shouldn’t be. And so, I like to say that an advisory board can help you think about the important, not just the urgent. Does that make sense?

Mike Blake: [00:17:18] Yeah. It does. And it’s something I’ve mentioned on other podcast before, there’s a third dimension to that now – at least that I’ve heard of that I learned through a TED talk a while ago – which is impact. And I think one of the things that a board can do also is help guide an entrepreneur or a team to ensure that whatever time or investment they’re making in X, that X is also not only addressing something important, but also impactful.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:17:50] Absolutely. Great comment.

Mike Blake: [00:17:51] It has not just a long term outlook, but long term and sort of fundamental implications.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:18:00] Absolutely. Great. And that’s a great comment. The other thing – and, again, we think about entrepreneurs as young. And you and I both know that’s not the case. Entrepreneurs can be any age – quite often, especially in an early stage company, they can’t afford to get the best. Potentially, they can’t afford to get the best talent out there. If you’re in a software company, you might be able to get some good software, but you may not be able to get the best person in cybersecurity or the best person at e-commerce.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:18:32] And quite often what an advisory board member can do is bring in that really kernel of information or expertise that you need that you couldn’t afford to get. And what you’ll find, especially in a city like Atlanta – and you and I’ve talked about this before, Mike – successful people really do want to give back. They really do want to help this next generation. They really do want to help entrepreneurs succeed. And I think you’ll be very surprised to see so many successful entrepreneurs or corporate executives that are more than happy to give back, especially in an advisory board role, because they don’t have the legal and the fiduciary responsibilities and the headaches that come with being a board of director.

Mike Blake: [00:19:16] I mean, I think this will be the case, somebody who is going to be listening to this in a couple of weeks when we publish it is sort of taking inventory about maybe themselves, or company, their team. What are some signs that a company might benefit from an advisory board? What are some triggers that might get a wise founder to start thinking in that direction?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:19:42] Great question. So, I think the first one is you’re kind of stuck and you’re trying to figure out what to do next. And, again, one of the things that I will say, and, again, I look at it from both being an advisor as well as a board of directors, but being an adviser, but also coaching companies on this, you’ve got to be a CEO who’s willing to listen and learn.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:20:06] If you’re in a position where you think you know all the answers, if you’re in a position that you don’t think you need any help and you’re just adding a board of advisors to check off a box, wrong answer. For you to get a really good board of advisors, you need to be coachable and you need a position where you say, “Here’s what I need. You know, I’m kind of stuck here. What do I need to do to go to the next level?”

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:20:28] The second thing, I think, is when you’re thinking about going into a new market or kind of changing direction, again, if you’ve got both an advisory board and a board of directors, it’s almost like the advisory board is an opportunity to kind of brainstorm – I call it spitballing – to think about what could happen, and kind of think through the ramifications, and help you to solidify your plan before you actually present it to your employees, your shareholders, et cetera, your board of directors.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:20:57] I think the third thing would be, if there’s some regulatory – and in this world that we live in, there’s so many new regulations coming on, on a regular basis. It’s hard to keep up with them – if you want to understand – again, I’m not talking about replacing your counsel. That is not what we’re talking about. This is not expensive advice that you’re trying to get free. It’s really about that word I use, opine.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:21:21] A very dear friend of mine is the CEO of a very large real estate firm. And she and I were together just a couple of years ago and we were kind of brainstorming about the impact that regulatory could have on her. And, again, her lawyer gave her all the issues. Her lawyer told her, here’s the legal issues that are coming, here’s the regulatory issues, here’s what the law and the regulations says. Our job was to brainstorm about it and say, “Well, what could that mean? What might that mean for agents? What might that mean for contracts? So, does that make sense as a kind of a different approach than your paid advisers will give you?”

Mike Blake: [00:22:04] And, you know, that actually segues nicely into the next question, which is that – in fact, I think this is true because I think I’ve observed it – some founders struggle with the distinction between an advisory board and paid advisers, and what you can expect of one versus the other. And I wonder if you see that too. And if so, can you help the listeners understand where is the distinction? Where do you draw the line where you might be either asking too little or asking something that your professional advisers maybe ought to defer to the advisory board and vice versa?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:22:50] Great question. And I know I’ve said this word now twice, and I promise I won’t say it again, Mike. And my friend, Fran Dramis is the one that told me about this word opine. I just think that really goes right to the heart of what it is an advisory board. Their job, again, is to opine and think about the what ifs. I like to say that a good advisory board is probably going to ask you more questions than give you answers.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:23:20] Again, like my girl friend, we were sitting down and talking about the impact of regulations on real estate. And, again, her lawyer gave her all the specifics. What we did is she and I said, “Well, what if this happened? Okay? What would happen if this happened?” Whereas, a paid adviser’s job is really to get it, roll up their sleeves, and help you get the job done. Again, typically, because there’s a financial transaction that’s occurred, there’s probably more of a tactical or an implementation. Not always, because clearly you can hire a strategic advisory company. But, again, I think the difference is more of thought provoking questioning and an advisor is more of an answering. Does that make sense?

Mike Blake: [00:24:10] Yes, it does. So, what are some things that might be unreasonable to expect of an advisory board? What might be trying to ask too much of them or taking it too far?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:24:23] Great question. And a lot of that goes back to kind of the agreed upon terms, if you will, the compensation. There’s a lot that goes into it. And if I could just digress for a minute. One of the things that’s so important if you’re thinking about advisory board is – two things. The first one is, Why do you want that? And I like to say, write it down. And the reason I say write it down is because it forces you to be very specific.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:24:51] So, an example would be, “I need an advisory board because there’s so much going on with sustainability. I need to better understand how that impacts my business. Therefore, I want to bring in some experts from both ESG. I want to bring in some experts on these various things to help me better understand that.” Go ahead.

Mike Blake: [00:25:13] So, you know, I’m curious if you’ve seen the same thing. I think some entrepreneurs, or managers, executives have been disappointed in the past with some of their experiences with advisory board simply because, I think, they are hoping an advisory board could fill a gap left by a fundamental weakness or hole in the company’s management or in their professional advisers, for that matter. And, consequently, they’re asking people to fill a role where they might hire and fire them. But that’s not the role for an advisory board to fill, is it?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:26:02] And that’s exactly the point, I think, for a couple of reasons. Number one, again, it’s unrealistic. And to be frank, it’s disrespectful to go to someone like you. If I were to go to you and say, “Mike, I really want you to be on my advisory board.” And the first thing I do is say, “Mike, can you do a full blown evaluation for me?” It’s disrespectful. It’s kind of like when you have a party and your neighbor comes over and they’re a dentist and you say, “Hey, what do I need to do with my teeth?” It’s disrespectful.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:26:32] I think that part of it is defining exactly what you’re looking for, but recognizing that the adviser’s role is really to advise. And, again, I’m going to keep going back to this point, ask questions. The advisor’s role is to say, “Have you thought about X? Have you thought about Y?” Not, “Here is the answer to X or here’s the answer to Y.” If you want the answer to that and you want someone to go through – I don’t want to say the heavy lifting – and roll up your sleeves, you need to hire someone for that role.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:27:09] And, again, I’m sure you go to parties and people say, “So, Mike, what do you think my company is worth?” And it’s fun over a cocktail to maybe spitball. But if they say, “No. No. Give me specifically what it’s worth,” that’s disrespectful.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:27:23] And whether you’re an advisor or someone to want that from you, they need to be prepared to pay you for that service. And so, to me, part of it is understanding exactly why you want the advisory board, recognizing that these are probably people. In many cases, your advisors are people you probably couldn’t pay to get on your board. In many cases, when I try to match advisors with companies, they are people, typically the CEO, even if they ever knew them, would never be able to get them on their board.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:27:55] And part of it’s because we have a very specific definition of – what I call – the rules of engagement. And again, to the extent you can define those upfront, agree on those up front, and even go so far to say, “Hey, Mike. I really want you on my advisory board because you’ve seen a lot about how the financial markets react to X, Y, Z. I’m thinking about next steps and I’d love to have your guidance as we kind of think through the questions I should be asking.” To me, that’s a perfect role for an advisory board, which is very different from, “Hey, Mike. I really need you to tell me exactly what my company is worth and what are the three things I need to do to make it more valuable?” Is that distinction kind of clear?

Mike Blake: [00:28:41] Well, it does. I’m also amused at the the image of somebody asking me for advice and what their company might be worth, as I’m literally holding a martini with three olives in my hand. If you really want to make a $20 million decision with me in that state and you’re not even paying me, I don’t know that you really want to go in that direction.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:29:07] That’s a great comment. I hear you.

Mike Blake: [00:29:09] So, let me ask this, 44would it be crazy for a company to even have multiple advisory boards if, maybe, boards that have a specific discipline in which they’re experts and you may just need separate resources?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:29:28] It’s a great question. I don’t know if I have got a very good answer. Let me give you my initial thought of that. On the surface, I say absolutely. Because you see this quite often with health care companies, they might want a technical board, which again helps them with, really, the technical – again, I’m going to go back to questions. It’s very different than like a customer advisory board. Many people have successfully brought in their customers. It’s a chance to hear firsthand what customers think about not so much current product, but about the future product roadmap.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:30:05] And it’s very possible that you could have multiple advisory boards. The thing that I would caution a CEO, especially a younger – and I don’t mean younger in age – but younger in tenure of the company to pull together is to really make an advisory board work, you’ve got to be prepared to spend some time on it. And let me tell you what I mean by that, and I’m not sure you could do that if you have multiple advisory boards. Does that make sense?

Mike Blake: [00:30:32] It does. And let’s go into that because I didn’t want to ask that question. What are the best practices to maximize the value out of the advisory board?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:30:42] I think that’s probably one of the most important questions, if not the most. The first thing is, again, clearly define what you’re looking for, and that includes wanting to solve these couple of issues. And I usually think it’s the big issues that you don’t have time to solve on a day-to-day basis of the company. Figure out the term, how long?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:31:03] I’m going to try to get together once a quarter – I’m not going to try. We’re going to have a meeting once a quarter. Here’s the meeting. Let’s go ahead and get the calendar set up at the first meeting. It’s going to last for two years or your term is for two years. What I’m looking for you, Mike, to bring to the table is I want you to bring X, Y, Z to the table in terms of your thought process. That’s what I’m looking for you to bring. Which, by the way, I’m asking Karen to bring a different set of expertise, if you will.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:31:32] Then, when you put that together, the most important thing is to make sure that you use the time diligently. That involves two things. The first thing it involve is get information to the company directors or the advisers in advance. This nonprofit that I’ve started, we put together a binder which, basically, you have to provide some financial information, some customer information. There’s a set of legal questions. Basically, you put together your planning, if you will. You get that to your advisors in advance and then you say, “These are the things I want to cover. I want to cover these two questions.”

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:32:14] Typically what I like to say is, the things that keep the CEO up late at night especially in your first meeting. What are the things CEO that you really have a hard time sleeping because you were thinking about that? Get that meeting, get the board presentation put together in advance, and run it as if it’s truly a board of directors meeting. And by that, I mean you make sure that you start at a certain time, there’s a formality to it, and then you follow up with action items.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:32:46] And so, that’s important for two reasons. The first reason is, it helps the CEO and the management team learn how to work with the board. Quite often, I use advisory boards as almost an intro before they get a fiduciary board. We teach the discipline, the cadence of that. Again, especially if you own the company or its closely held, it teaches you some accountability. Because even though the board can’t fire you – I don’t know about you, Mike – but when I’ve been in advisory board meetings and somebody asked me a question and I have a bad answer, I feel accountable. So, I think the board of advisors, if you can run it in that way, it teaches tremendous accountability.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:33:30] And then, I think the other thing is, even when your board advisors have left the board and moving on to other things, keep them abreast of what they’ve done and how they’ve helped you. I so appreciate you starting this call today saying, “You know, Karen, something you told me years ago has really stuck with me.” I can’t tell you how good that makes me feel. And you’ll find that your advisors – again, people that you didn’t think you could ever get as an advisor – you can get them and keep them if you are diligent about keeping in track with them. Don’t just call them when you need them. Have that formalized meeting schedule. Follow up with meetings.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:34:13] And even after they’ve gone onto other things, say, “Hey, one of my favorite ones is I was able to get the CIO of the Southern Company, again, a very high position, into a company that was literally $20 million in revenue. This person would have never joined that. To this day, they still speak positively about it because, to this day, the CEO continued to give them updates.”

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:34:36] So, that’s kind of, I think, the right way to structure advisory board. It’s the right way to get the most value from it. And it’s the right way truly – and back to the Steve Jobs comment – it really helps that CEO in the executive team grow, and grow into their next level, it helps them grow to be a better executive. And then, hopefully, at some point they’ll be in a position to give that expertise back to a younger, if you will, CEO or executive team.

Mike Blake: [00:35:06] So, there’s so much to unpack there, and there are two things I do want to unpack. One, the thing you just mentioned, which I hadn’t really thought of, but it makes all the sense in the world now that you articulate it. And that is that there’s a long tail element to an advisory board if done right, particularly if the company is successful. If it’s not, it’s not so great. But there is this unique opportunity to develop relationships that could theoretically help you for the life of your company, even over the life of your career.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:35:42] So well said. And I love the word long tail, that is so correct. And I’ve seen it again and again when you watch these relationships that form. And quite often, if you’re one of the companies that got a huge amount of money at a ridiculous valuation, you may not have the challenges to get that A-plus team. And you and I might know, most entrepreneurs don’t end up with that $100 million out of the gate cash infusion. And so, for them to be able to get great talent, sometimes the best way to get it is an advisory board.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:36:15] And if you go in there and say, “Mike, this is what I need. I would be honored if you would consider to be on my advisory board. I’m only going to ask you to sit in on four meetings a year. I’m going to bring in two or three other great people. And here’s who I’m thinking about bringing in, Mike. I know you like those people. And oh, by the way, I’m only going to ask 25 hours or 30 hours of your time per year because each board meeting is going to be four hours. I’m going to give you four hours to prepare for it.” Wow. Who’s going to say no to that?

Mike Blake: [00:36:44] And that leads into the other part of this that I wanted to unpack, because you said one thing which I’m going to take slight issue with and I think you’re going to agree with it the way I frame it. I actually think an advisory board can fire a CEO because you can just decide, “Look, this person doesn’t have their stuff together. And I’m not making an impact. And I’m going to put my time someplace else.”

Mike Blake: [00:37:09] And I don’t know about you, but there have been a couple of boards that have agreed to be on that I wound up regretting because the founder simply didn’t use us very well. They didn’t give us information in advance. Or the things they said they were going to do between meeting one and meeting two never seem to get done. And, again, if that’s happening and why are we doing this, right? And so, I do think there is a need for a founder or a CEO to be mindful that that advisory board, even if you’re compensating them, they’re not making so much money on that board that they’re going to stick around just for the money.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:37:53] Exactly. Correct.

Mike Blake: [00:37:55] They are going to walk away if you don’t sort of have your stuff together and take that seriously.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:38:00] You’re right. I absolutely agree with you on that one. And, again, especially in a city like Atlanta, which I think is just very friendly, the folks that have been there, done that. I find so many cases are willing to give back. But they’re only willing to give back if, as you said, they’re respected, their time is respected, and the CEO is truly learning and becoming a better CEO because of the advisory board.

Mike Blake: [00:38:31] And I think that takes a certain kind of mindset. You know, in my experience, I’ve walked into a couple of boards where, to me, it became clear the CEO is looking more for validation than they were for guidance. And some people maybe want to do that, that is not my bailiwick to just provide validation for no reason whatsoever for just gratuitous validation. I don’t think you’re really about that either.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:39:00] No, I’m not.

Mike Blake: [00:39:01] I know you can dish out the tough love.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:39:04] You could just put some cool thing on social media and get millions of likes, and that’s the validation you need, 100 percent agree. If you really want to use an advisory board, you’ve got to use them, and you’ve got to respect them. And, again, part of what I think is so good about starting with an advisory board is it really teaches you the process.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:39:25] So, it’s the process of thinking about spending some amount of time. Because if you know you’re going to have your advisory board meeting next Tuesday, then you’re thinking, “Okay. What are the big issues?” It causes you to get outside of the urgent. It causes you to think about the important. It causes you to get prepared. And being prepared for somebody else means you’re prepared for yourself.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:39:48] So, when I think about all the positives, again, I am surprised people don’t use, I’m surprised every company doesn’t use advisory board. Because if you really want to get better and you’re coachable, to me, it makes all the sense in the world.

Mike Blake: [00:40:02] And you think about it, there’s some business models out there or some companies pay quite handsomely to have a board of some kind. For example, these peer advisory boards – and I’m not saying anything against them, by the way. I think in certain cases, they had quite a bit of value. But there are companies that pay $100,000 a year to have a peer advisory board. But in some cases, I wonder if they need to actually do that. If they were a little bit more diligent about their networking or simply willing to make the ask they might be able to have a very competent board advise them for a lot less than they’re paying.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:40:40] That’s a great comment. And, again, I think there’s a great role and a great application for peer advisory. You and I are both visual people, so you’ll get this. I think a peer advisory board is a bunch of little baby sparrows in the nest and the moms trying to feed them all. And they’re all saying, “Feed me. Feed me.” Because everybody wants attention. And it’s difficult. Again, it’s very valuable because you and I are both CEOs, we’re struggling, there’s camaraderie. And for that, I think it’s a brilliant idea.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:41:17] But I think I will go on record to say, a peer advisory group, in my estimation, if you’re trying to really grow as a CEO with an external board, it’s best for the board to be focused on you as opposed to you and all your 10 or 11 or 15 other baby birds that are trying to be set at the same time. It’s not in any way suggesting that CEOs are that way, but you can get the picture of everybody saying, “Feed me. Feed me.” Whereas, if you’ve got your own advisory board, they’re all about, “How can I feed Mike? What can I do to make sure Mike’s healthy?”

Mike Blake: [00:41:55] I like the sound of that. So, I think we made a pretty compelling case for the value of an advisory board. And some of our listeners now are thinking, “Well, how do I start to put this together?” In your mind, what’s a good process for starting to recruit and assemble this advisory board?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:42:21] Great. So, I think first off, the first thing I would do is, again, in your quiet time, in you’re quiet space, what exactly am I trying to accomplish? And you need to get real with yourself, because if you’re fortunate enough to be able to pull together an advisory board that really is top notch executives, people that you really admire, very quickly you’re going to get tired if all it is, is about reaffirm how smart I am or reaffirm how cool I am because I got Mike Blake to join my board. That’s not what is it.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:42:51] Think about, really, what you’re trying to accomplish. Make sure you’re prepared to commit the time. Again, I can give you example after example of companies that I’ve watched that bring on advisory board and I’ve watched just the growth, the progress, and even the CEO themselves. But make sure that you really know what you’re trying to accomplish. Make sure you’re prepared to spend the time for it. And then, based on that, say, “Okay. What then are the skillsets I’m looking for?”

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:43:25] And, again, when I’m being asked to be an adviser, when someone comes to me and says, “Hey, Karen. I need you to be an adviser because I know that you’re pretty open about talking about your failure as a CEO and what you would have done differently. I want to learn from that.” That’s very different example than somebody says, “Hey, Karen. I’ve read about you in the press. I want you to be in my advisory board.” You see, it’s very different.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:43:51] So, when I can come to you and say, “Mike, I would ask you to consider being on my advisory board. I’m trying to accomplish this. I’m looking for X amount of hours per year. And, by the way, the reason I want you, Mike, specifically is because of the experience you’ve had with X, Y or Z.” That’s, to me, a compelling argument. Then, you need to think about, “Okay. How do I compensate them?”

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:44:20] Now, everybody thinks if I’m going to get, you know, a C-Suite executive or successful entrepreneur, I’ll have to pay them a lot of money. But as you said yourself very well, Mike, they don’t need your money. You cannot pay a person enough, someone of that caliber, to make it worth their while. Most times people will give to the advisory boards will be available to be an advisor is because they really want to see the CEO or the company succeed. Maybe they believe in the mission. Maybe they just believe that I want to hang around with other really cool people like Mike, because it’d be fun for Mike and I did together to strategize about this company.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:45:05] So, once you’ve got those and you’ve identified who you want, the skills you’re looking for, what you’re trying to accomplish, then, I think, absolutely either through a third party or reach out to that person and say, “Hey, I’d really love for you to consider to be an advisor. Here’s why? How much money?” Typically, early stage companies, you’re going to pay some equity. And, again, I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t want to go down the the legal issues. But, typically, there’s some warrants or some options that are based on some sort of timing or performance.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:45:42] Sometimes it’s cash, and quite often what I’ll do is say, “Hey, give some money to a certain charity,” and that makes everybody feel good. Sometimes it’s just going to and having a board meeting at a really cool place. And, you know, whether it’s a round of golf, or a sailing adventure, or fishing for the day, whatever it might be, quite often a board member will agree to be an advisor just for that fun experience.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:46:16] But, again, the most important thing, I think, is being very clear with yourself, your executive team, and the board member of the expectations on both sides. And that, of course, includes compensation.

Mike Blake: [00:46:32] Is there an optimum size in your mind for how many members a board might have?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:46:37] That’s a great question. I think it should be an odd number.

Mike Blake: [00:46:43] I agree.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:46:43] And it can’t be no more than, probably, seven at the most. If you’re an early stage company, probably, no more than three. And I think part of that is, again, your purpose in doing this is just to get some vigorous discussion going, some debate going, some strategizing. And I think when it’s too big, especially when you’ve got some high profile people, they kind of want their voice to be heard. And I’m not sure that if you had chief sales officers or CIOs or even established executives that they’re going to want to be in a meeting where there’s six other people that are chirping for their comment. So, I think for a couple of reasons, it’s easier to manage, probably, three to five is what I think is probably the best.

Mike Blake: [00:47:31] And how often do most advisory boards meet in your experience?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:47:37] Well, I think once a quarter. I’ve heard people say once a month. But, again, at some point, it feels like I’m trying to get your expertise free. If I have a meeting every single month, then part of me feels like, “Wait a second, you know, if you want to pay me to do consulting for you, I’m happy to do that.” That’s why I feel once a quarter feels right. I’ve heard some people do it once every six months. But I think once a quarter just feels right to me. Again, a three to four hour meeting with either a dinner or a lunch, maybe an afternoon of golf, or whatever, just feels right. And most executives say, “You know what? I’m prepared to commit that amount of time to a young entrepreneur that I believe in.”

Mike Blake: [00:48:25] I’m talking with Karen Robinson Cope. And the topic is, Should I form a company advisory board? Just a couple more questions before we let you go and help some other companies I know that you’re advising. But one question I have is, let’s say, somebody out there – in fact, it’s a certainty. Somebody in our audience is listening right now and maybe they have an advisory board, but they don’t feel like it’s working that well. It’s not clicking. They’d like to have one, but for whatever reason, they’re just not getting the value out of it. What questions would you ask that person to diagnose kind of what may or may not be wrong or dysfunctional with that advisory board?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:49:10] Great question. And, boy, let me think about that. I think one thing is, if the CEO or the executive team is not seeing the results, then my guess is you probably have some frustrated board members as well. And so, I think that’s a good sign. I would go back to, again, hopefully it’s been written down what the goal of the advisory board is. And I would go back and say, “Let’s talk about this.” Why or why not? Is it the wrong goal? Is it the wrong people? Is it the wrong subtopics we’re talking about?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:49:48] I think going back to the preparation, again, if, in fact, you’re running your advisory board meeting just as if you would a true fiduciary board, at the preparation for the meeting, you’re going to have notes at the meeting, they’re going to follow up. And if the follow up is not occurring, then, again, you need to say why or why not? So, I think those are a couple of things.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:50:12] It’s funny – if I could just take just a moment to digress, Mike -I started something called Council of Board Advisors, which is, again, a 501(c)(3). I was a judge for the Ernst and Young Entrepreneur of the Year for a number of years, and I was surprised because part of the process – and this is, again, the gold standard for entrepreneurial business companies and so forth success. And one of the first ones – every year, literally, get to sit down and talk to the management team. And I was surprised again and again when I’d see these great companies that look so good on paper. But then, you start to drill down and you realize, “Wow. There’s really some cracks underneath this veneer,” if you will.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:51:00] And let me give you an example. One company I remember in particular, they were an entrepreneur, they were a finalist, and we were talking to them. And then, afterwards they said, “Karen, can you help me? I’m having some cash flow problems. I think I just need a short term note. A short term loan would fix this.” Again, not telling them anything, just asking them questions, it was clear. It was not a cash flow issue. They had a strategy issue. They had no customer diversification. I mean, their products became obsolete quickly. So, there was just a number of strategy issues.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:51:33] But this great company on the surface had thought they had a cash flow problem. That got me thinking and I said, “Boy, I don’t even know anything about this industry. But I was able to help this company just asking some questions.” So, I started something called Council of Board Advisors.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:51:48] At the same time, I had a group of my executive friends who, once they sold their company or retired with their big pension, they would go to Florida, because Florida has no taxes and Florida has great weather. And I said, “We need to somehow figure out a way to keep these executives engaged.” They didn’t want to give full time. They did not want to be in a startup company. They didn’t want to be hit up for money all the time. The CEO said, “Boy, I’d like to get some help, but I don’t know what to do.”

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:52:17] So, I put this process together where we get great companies that are coachable, typically 5 million to 150 million, which is a pretty big range. But they were coachable CEOs, profitable companies that were kind of at a stalemate. And I’d match them, talking to them and say, “Hey, what are the things that keep you up at night?” And then, find advisors for them that really fit their needs.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:52:40] And, again, we were able to get one of my favorite advisors, which is one of a well-known executive here in town, who was the president of one of the fastest growing companies in America. He had sold a company. He was tired of playing golf. And he said, “I don’t want to get involved, so I’m doing the business, but I’d sure like to get in and opine.” And it’s just been a great experience. We’ve probably helped – I don’t want to guess how many companies. But that’s what got me so excited about this whole advisory board because it is coming into view. It is becoming more important. And I think people are realizing the real need for it.

Mike Blake: [00:53:14] Karen, I was going to give you an opportunity to mention your nonprofit, so I’m glad you did that. Because it’s important that people know there’s resources out there and what you’re doing. We could have easily had another hour in this conversation, but, unfortunately, our time is running out. There are probably questions we either didn’t cover or might have covered in more depth for somebody. If somebody is listening and has as a question they like to ask you to follow up, can they do so? And if so, what’s the best way for them to contact you?

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:53:43] Well, thank you. Again, I appreciate it. And I always love to talk with you. And I just kind of hit myself because we’ve let too much time pass. But I’d be delighted to help in any way. There’s a number of some good organizations. I actually put my nonprofit under TiE, The IndUS Entrepreneur, which is a great worldwide entrepreneur organization. And we’ve got a very successful program where we work with these great companies.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:54:12] If someone wants to call me, I’m more than happy. krobinson, K-R-O-B-I-N-S-O-N, @mara6. By the way, Mara after the Maasai Mara, and our daughter’s middle name, Alexandra Mara Cope. So, it’s krobinson@mara, M-A-R-A, the number 6.com. And I’m more than happy to opine, give some free advice. And, again, anything I can do to help because I really do believe that the Atlanta community is becoming so fulsome and so exciting. But we clearly need to make sure that we can give guidance to these entrepreneurs and these companies as they go to the next level.

Mike Blake: [00:54:53] Yeah. We need to send the elevator back down. But I think the good news is – at least as long as I’ve been here about 20 years or so – I think Atlanta’s been a town that does that. And, hopefully, for our listeners that are in other areas of the country or the world, really, that can find communities like that as well.

Karen Robinson Cope: [00:55:11] Absolutely.

Mike Blake: [00:55:12] That’s going to wrap it up for today’s program. I’d like to thank Karen Robinson Cope so much for sharing her expertise with us today.

Mike Blake: [00:55:18] We’ll be exploring a new topic each week, so please tune in so that when you’re faced with your next business decision, you have clear vision when making it. If you enjoy these podcasts, please consider leaving a review with your favorite podcast aggregator. It helps people find us that we can help them. If you’d like to engage with me on social media with my Chart of the Day and other content, I’m on LinkedIn as myself and @unblakeable on Facebook, Twitter, Clubhouse, and Instagram. Once again, this is Mike Blake. Our sponsor is Brady Ware & Company. And this has been the Decision Vision podcast.

 

Tagged With: Advisory Board, board of directors, Brady Ware & Company, Decision Vision podcast, Karen Robinson Cope, Mara6, Mike Blake

Mark Mele With Paris Baguette

October 6, 2021 by Jacob Lapera

ParisBaguette
Franchise Marketing Radio
Mark Mele With Paris Baguette
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Brought To You By SeoSamba . . . Comprehensive, High Performing Marketing Solutions For Mature And Emerging Franchise Brands . . . To Supercharge Your Franchise Marketing, Go To seosamba.com.

Mark Mele has achieved the Certified Franchise Executive (CFE) designation from the Institute of Certified Franchise Executives (ICFE) through the International Franchise Association.

An accomplished corporate franchise sales and development strategist, his vision and expertise in business performance have driven notable franchise brands such as Century 21 Real Estate Corporation, Country Inns & Suites by Carlson, Retro Fitness, Kumon North America, and Huntington Learning Centers.

Mele has achieved exciting company turnarounds and is recognized for his success in growing franchise brands. His strategic approach to expanding a franchise brand is reflected in his work as Vice President of Franchise Development of Kumon North America, Inc., where his leadership resulted in the opening of over 500 new franchised Kumon learning centers in 4 years.

In addition to Mark Mele’s exceptional track record in franchise development, he is also known for his ability to create and implement positive change in the areas of franchise operations and franchisee support. His franchise achievements have been featured in Entrepreneur Magazine, Inc. Magazine, as well as other business media.

Mele is a member of the International Franchise Association (IFA) and is actively involved in an advisory capacity with start-up franchise companies.

Connect with Mark on LinkedIn and follow Paris Baguette on Facebook and Twitter.

What You’ll Learn In This Episode

  • Leadership experience building and guiding franchise brands

This transcript is machine transcribed by Sonix

TRANSCRIPT

Intro: [00:00:07] Welcome to Franchise Marketing Radio, brought to you by SEO Samba Comprehensive, high performing marketing solutions for mature and emerging franchise brands to supercharge your franchise marketing. Go to SEOSamba.com that’s SEOsamba.com.

Lee Kantor: [00:00:32] Lee Kantor here, another episode of Franchise Marketing Radio, and this is going to be a good one today on the show, we have Mark Mealie with Paris Baguette. Welcome, Mark.

Mark Mele: [00:00:42] Hi Lee, how are you?

Lee Kantor: [00:00:43] I am doing great. I’m excited to catch up with you and learn a little bit about what’s been going on lately with Paris Baguette. For the folks who don’t know, just give them kind of the elevator pitch.

Mark Mele: [00:00:55] Sure. So Paris Baguette is a French inspired bakery. Bakery cafe, we’ve been baking and going back to our roots in baking since 1945. So 70 plus years of baking has given us the know how to manufacture the dough that goes into each and every one of our pastries, our pastries. And the menu includes fresh bread, daily cakes, slices of cake pastry. There’s Chris Sants. Obviously baguettes, so sandwiches I mean a full menu that is really fresh and delicious, made every day, day in and day out. So Boston products and this is the bakery like you have in your head, like when you were a kid, you had a bakery in your neighborhood. This is this is the same kind of bakery. We’re doing things fresh every day there.

Lee Kantor: [00:02:01] Now, talk about kind of your journey in the is kind of how you’ve evolved in the franchising industry, you’ve worked for a number of brands. I believe this is your first food, but you’ve worked with a number of brands in different industries. Talk about how that’s kind of helped you navigate the waters and helping Paris Baguette grow.

Mark Mele: [00:02:24] Wonderful. Absolutely. So leave for me, it’s this is all franchising. This is basic blocking and tackling, right? This is I’ve been in franchise development for thirty five plus years. I go back a while, as you said, several different sectors. A handful of brands over that time span. And for a brick and mortar concept like this, it’s Paris Baguette. That is, it’s really about starting off with the quality franchisees that you bring in. So you’ve got to have quality franchised sales, you’ve got to have quality real estate because they’ve got to have the perfect location and quality design and construction. And then of course, we development will take it from prospective franchisee to ribbon-cutting. That’s that’s the department that I’m in charge of at Paris Baguette. So we’ve got a lot of people on hand to make sure that that franchisee is going to be successful from the day that we say hello to them and approve them as a prospective franchisee to be a new franchisee all the way to the ribbon cutting and then we transition them over to the operations team. So yeah, for me, it’s it’s having a great brand. Being a part of a great brand is is the most important thing to me in my career. If I can speak about my career, and that’s really why I think I chose Paris Spaghetti and why Paris forget chose me. You’ve got to. You’ve got a great brand that wants to expand in the U.S. and I was certainly up for the challenge. And you know, with it’s a global brand with nearly four thousand units and what an exciting time and what an exciting opportunity to be able to to expand this. In the U.S. past a thousand up to a thousand plus more units. It’s very, very exciting.

Lee Kantor: [00:04:31] Now, when you’re looking at a brand to get involved with, you mentioned the operations, you mentioned real estate, you mentioned kind of the selling. Are there a certain kind of red flags for you or green lights for you when you’re kind of analyzing a brand to see what’s the right fit? Because I would imagine in your experience you’ve seen a lot of things that maybe looked OK in some areas, but maybe had some warning signs and then other things maybe look too good to be true. Can you help the person who’s because I think a potential franchisee is almost in your situation? When you chose to work with Paris Baguette, you were vetting it also from probably a lot of the same places. They’re vetting it because you had to believe in the brand and you had to believe that this is something that you can proudly, you know, sell to others.

Mark Mele: [00:05:25] You’ve hit it right on the head. You’re exactly you’re spot on. That’s that’s exactly. And we want prospective franchisees to do just that. Complete your due diligence. Look at the brand, speak to our existing franchisees. What? What does the brand? What’s the perception of the brand globally? What’s the perception of the brand locally here in the states, in each city? Who are the franchisees? Are they profitable? Those types of questions need to be asked. And what does your franchise disclosure document look like? Do you have lawsuits? Do you have this? Yeah, I I spent a lot of time doing due diligence on the brand, and everything came up and very, very positive. And I and I love that because. At the end of the day, you have to be able to have the confidence in the brand and hopefully you can hear it in my voice. I am in a in a year’s time now with the brand very, very optimistic and excited as I was from the first day I joined the company. Even more so because I’m seeing the incredible response that the audience, the prospective franchisees are having for this brand.

Mark Mele: [00:06:38] So we’re we’ve got a huge push on to open a thousand units in 10 years or less. And look, I’ve been in the business for a long time. As I’ve mentioned in you here, you hear this all the time. One brand will say, Yeah, we want to get to four hundred units in X number of years or six hundred units. And it sounds good and it looks good. It’s a nice soundbite, but it’s a heavy lift and you need to put you need to have number one, the brand that is well liked, well perceived. And I think we have that and we have that global presence and I think we can drive the sales and I think we can find the best locations. And I think this, I think it’s going to be explosive and we’re starting to see it already. We’ve executed already year to date almost a hundred franchise agreements, 90 through the third quarter, 90 agreements and very, very proud of that. We’ve got a good, good sales team, good real estate team and a good construction team too. So a lot of a lot of good energy this year.

Lee Kantor: [00:07:42] Now, from a potential franchise standpoint, explain to them why it’s an advantage that Paris Baguette has such a strong global brand already and how that’s going to help them as it expands in the United States.

Mark Mele: [00:07:57] Well, a couple of things. Number one, global presence is in the success of that. Global presence is very, very important from a name recognition standpoint, but also from an operating standpoint when you look at the way that we’ve been able to refine the operations, the brand been around since nineteen eighty eight Paris Baguette. We own and operate other brands as well, some that we’ve created overseas and some that we just bought into where we’re master franchisees of other brands globally too. But Paris Baguette since nineteen eighty eight, has had an opportunity to refine the operational model for doing business here in the States. We started to franchise the brand in two thousand fifteen twenty fifteen, so. But we’ve been operating here corporately since 2005. That gave us a 10 year start to have 40 operating corporate units to be able to say, OK, you know, over the last 10 years, we’ve been able to figure it out and we’ve taken what they’ve operated overseas now since 1988 and refined that model and made it work here in the U.S. and that’s what prospective franchisees want to hear. You guys know how to run the business and we continue to operate. Lee, we continue to operate corporate units here and we will always operate corporate units. I love when franchise stores have units, whether it’s five units, two units or in our case, we still operate over twenty five units.

Mark Mele: [00:09:35] It’s just it gives us that knowledge base and I’ll tell you what else it gives us. It gives us a an operational bench, if you will, for of of human capital, right? When we have strong general managers and district managers, they can be moved up and moved over. They can help franchisees. They could be on the franchise ops team. They can be, you know, it’s just we recruit from internally as well when you have those kind of numbers. So I would think perspective and I know prospective franchisees are especially excited when they hear that, that we still own and operate a number of the units ourselves corporately. So that’s that’s what you want to look for, that operational excellence, that that makes that brand a reality. It’s one thing to have a wonderful break every day inside the cafe, which we do. Our products are just amazing. The cakes are just phenomenal. The pastries are amazing like you’ve never tasted before, but it’s it’s another thing to say wow. Operationally, they they believe in. They know how to operate and they believe what they do. Every day matters. So prospects see that they love it.

Lee Kantor: [00:10:50] Now, how have you seen an evolution of the franchisee have? Is the is the person that’s a franchisee today the same as it was when you started in franchising?

Mark Mele: [00:11:01] Oh, wow, I got to think back now. You know, I think in many respects, there’s still the state they come from the same. They have that bloodline, so to speak. They have that entrepreneurial spirit, right? They they want to do for themselves. They figure why I’m I’m working, whether it’s corporate America working for another company, I can go out and spend that much time if I find the right brand that I’m passionate about, that proven track to run on where you have a franchise system and I can plug myself into that system. But what I work every day and how I work it and how long I work at the success is mind, you know, and there’s there’s something about that. So from that aspect, I would say that has stayed the same. What’s changed is back from when I started in nineteen eighty five in my career to today is there’s many more opportunities, right? You have probably four thousand franchise brands spanning across dozens of different sectors and industries and all different investment levels. You know, in nineteen eighty five, yeah, there were still there were plenty of franchise brands, but not like you see today, it’s it’s pretty amazing. And I think it makes it easier for a prospective franchisee to determine their path. They will look at the brand, the strength of the brand and say, Hey, that brand has been around for, you know, since the eighties or for the nineties. And let’s look at how successful they are, whether it’s success here in the U.S. or abroad or globally, wherever and or are they a startup? Are they brand new? Do they have 10 units? Do I want to be affiliated with the brand that has a smaller number? Maybe that’s a good opportunity for you. I don’t know, but there’s so much to choose from today. And again, you can compare yourself and your skill set to that company and something that you’re passionate about and I think be successful. So the entrepreneurial spirit, I think, is still alive and well there now.

Lee Kantor: [00:13:10] Are you finding that folks involved in franchising as it matures, as an industry are becoming kind of professional franchisees where they’re putting together a portfolio of complementary franchises that have maybe a similar customer base? So that gives them some economies of scale in their marketing, maybe. And that they can, you know, share the that client with multiple franchises that they own.

Mark Mele: [00:13:36] Yeah, you see that all the time, especially, I would say, you know, in the restaurant sector, if you look at some of the trade publications that come out every now and then, with franchisees that have gotten themselves to the point where it’s no longer, you know, a multi-unit franchisee is no longer three or four or five units, some of these multi units are spanning a dozen or more brands, and they own hundreds and hundreds of units. They built themselves up and they have that nucleus set up for for doing the operation. And yeah, they’re so successful today. You know, they do it again and again and again, and they have figured it out. And I think when they plug themselves into a system and utilize that system, you’re right. They can go into other brands, other sector brands that that they can they complement each other. So 100 percent correct. We see that all the time in the franchise industry. You’re spot on

Lee Kantor: [00:14:37] Now. Are you finding for you that franchisee? Is that person or is it still kind of like you said, that executive that wants to go out on their own and, you know, kind of carve their own path?

Mark Mele: [00:14:50] We’re seeing both and fortunately, we’re seeing both. I like I like the we like to have the business background we like if they have the restaurant operations background, we like if they’re existing franchisees in the non competing brand, but still within the restaurant sector, the restaurant industry, we’ve signed franchisees this year that own and operate other fast casual brands, other breakfast food brands, casual theme restaurants we signed. Folks that have their parents had restaurants in the past or and they operate a successful business to outside of the restaurant industry. But but they have that background and they know how to operate businesses successfully. It might be a little bit more difficult for someone, even if they were just in corporate America, saying, Yeah, I want to get out and I think I know enough about accounting that I’ll go in and look for a franchise, something that interests me. We want the business background. So we we kind of want to take the guesswork out of it for ourselves. But but also. Give the franchise a chance to be successful to knowing that they they they have whatever it takes to be successful in their background too. So. So we’ve been fortunate to to look for both and we’ve found both.

Lee Kantor: [00:16:14] Now you said you’re shooting for a thousand in 10 years. Are there areas of the country right now that you’re kind of aiming at or is it the whole country? You know, how do you attack this as a whole or do you detect it in regions?

Mark Mele: [00:16:29] I prefer, you know, if I were starting from scratch, you know, you know, ideally you’d work up and down a handful of states and do concentric development and plant a few seeds here and there by opening up corporate units. But I think what what has been put in front of me when I came aboard, you know, we existed on both the East Coast and the West Coast. We had several units on both coasts that had been there for a very long time. We had some units in in a unit in Texas, units in Atlanta, Philadelphia units in Phenix area. So so we had a few sprinkled in. But the heaviest concentration was on North San Francisco, North California, Northern California with San Francisco and then, of course, Southern California, Los Angeles and then in New York, DMA as well. So right now and in Chicago, two is big for us. We’ve got a number of units there operating for to be exact and seven more coming. But we are absolutely interested in the top 20, 30, 40 cities in the U.S. and, you know, taking what we’ve done and already expanding across the country. We will just make sure that we won’t let one unit set out there by itself, and we have the opportunity to go in corporately and invest in a marketplace. So if we ahead of executing a franchise agreement, say, for example, in Nashville, Tennessee, I’ll be there first. I’ll be in Phenix. First, I’ll be in. For example, we just signed a lease in Winter Park in the Orlando market, so so we have that opportunity. So the short answer is, yeah, we’re expanding across the country and we’re taking a freight train approach a little bit at a time. But you know, being right for the right reasons, a lot of activity happening right now to get to that 1000 units.

Lee Kantor: [00:18:37] Now did the pandemic kind of cause you to adjust maybe the size of unit? Are there now, kind of different options that maybe didn’t exist pre-pandemic regarding size?

Mark Mele: [00:18:51] Not necessarily regarding size. You know, the brand itself when you walk into a Paris baguette, being a bakery, a lot of the menu. Well, the whole menu being the baked goods are all in front of you. They’re out. And as you walk around, you’re you’re you’re walking into the cafe. And whether you’re going to dine in or or place it to go or you’re basically picking up what you want, placing it on a tray. A paper lined tray walking up to the front with all your baked fresh baked goods, and if you’re leaving, they’ll kindly wrap it up for you and put everything in a bag and you’re leaving. And get your beverage and your and you’re out of there. It’s not like you’re walking up to a menu board and ordering a number five or number three to go. You’re experiencing the sights of all this fresh baked goods. You’re smelling it. You’re you just sense. Wow, this is going to be extra special. You’re looking at the refrigerated cases with the cakes and other fresh pastries that are refrigerated and keeping them nice and cool so you can buy a cake and take it home and surprise the family. But that’s that’s what makes it special and during COVID. The one thing we had to do, it’s just because who knew during that time? I remember when it was, Hey, wash your hands, wash your hands.

Mark Mele: [00:20:15] This is how it’s spreading turned into. No, you put a face mask on. That’s how it’s spreading, right? So we were wrapping and we still, to some extent, certain products. Everything has to cool down first. And then we were putting it into plastic into nice, you know, see through clear plastic. So you know, you go in and grab it and put it on your tray, but it’s wrapped. And I think that made everyone feel more comfortable. To an extent it still does today as well. But a lot of our product now is behind the glass cases. You’d open up the case, whether it’s self-serve or we’re handing it to you, it’s it’s on a, you know, it’s wrapped up. You can wrap it once. Once it is, it is put on your tray. But that’s really the only change that’s happened. We’ve used outside delivery services like the rest of the industry had pivoted with DoorDash and some of the others, whether it’s picking up orders that were called in ahead of time or place through our app, those things happen every day. You know, I don’t believe that we’ll be going out and putting in a drive thru anytime soon.

Mark Mele: [00:21:24] I don’t think that’s the Paris baguette experience, but maybe a 10 word for a preorder, something that’s there’s a lot of experimenting that we’re doing on the operations side. So. But you know, we were able to keep the cafes open for the most part, as long as the state would let us open. We were open with our cafes and and I think that did well for the brand. From a customer standpoint, they like the fact that we were choosing to stay open where a lot of brands said, now we’re going to we’re going to shut it down for a little bit here and decide what to do. But yeah, we definitely pivoted during that time, and I think we got stronger for it and got some innovation. And you know, this this year is especially good for us. I think our numbers are way up over 20, of course, 20 20, but 20, 19 as well, which, you know, there was no pandemic in the air at that time. And we’re we’re comping our stores are comping a lot better than twenty nineteen, which tells you people are out and about and it’s just a great product that we have.

Lee Kantor: [00:22:30] Well, Mark, congratulations on all the success. If somebody wants to learn more about Paris Baguette near them or if they’re interested in the franchise opportunity, what’s the website?

Mark Mele: [00:22:40] They can go to Paris Baguette family and fill out the request form, and our franchise development team will reach out to you immediately and get you more information accordingly.

Lee Kantor: [00:22:56] Good stuff! Well, thank you so much for sharing your story, Marc. You’re doing important work. We appreciate you.

Mark Mele: [00:23:00] Well, thank you so much, Leigh. I appreciate being on the show.

Lee Kantor: [00:23:03] All right, this Lee Kantor. We’ll see you next time on Franchise Marketing Radio.

Tagged With: Mark Mele, Paris Baguette

Decision Vision Episode 136: Should I Hire a Finder to Raise Capital? – An Interview with Karen Rands, Kugarand Capital Holdings, LLC

September 30, 2021 by John Ray

Kugarand Capital Holdings
Decision Vision
Decision Vision Episode 136: Should I Hire a Finder to Raise Capital? - An Interview with Karen Rands, Kugarand Capital Holdings, LLC
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Karen Rands

Decision Vision Episode 136:  Should I Hire a Finder to Raise Capital? – An Interview with Karen Rands, Kugarand Capital Holdings, LLC

The task of raising capital for a startup is challenging at best, and outsourcing to a finder is often one avenue founders consider to attract investors. Host Mike Blake is joined by Karen Rands, President of Kugarand Capital Holdings and host of The Compassionate Capitalist Show, to cover how to find and evaluate a finder, regulations, fees, contracts, and much more. Decision Vision is presented by Brady Ware & Company.

Kugarand Capital Holdings, LLC

Karen is the President of Kugarand Capital Holdings where her extended team offers coaching and services to entrepreneurs help companies with capital strategy and investor acquisition through the Launch Funding Network and investors education, screening, due diligence, and syndication services through the National Network of Angel Investors.

Register at the contact page on the website to receive her Compassionate Capitalist Coffee Break mini video tutorials and have an opportunity to schedule a time to chat with Karen directly.

Company website | LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter

Karen Rands, President, Kugarand Capital Holdings, LLC

Karen Rands, the leader of the Compassionate Capitalist Movement, is an authority on creating wealth through investing and building successful businesses that can scale and exit rich.

Karen turned the knowledge she gained from her corporate experience of working with startups and innovation at IBM, and the 12 years she spent managing the Network of Business Angels & Investors, one of the top 50 angel groups in the US at its peak, into the best-selling primer “Inside Secrets to Angel Investing.” Her book and the accompanying resource portal teach savvy investors how to diversify their investment portfolio to include private equity ownership in entrepreneur endeavors.Karen Rands
Karen hosts the popular business podcast: The Compassionate Capitalist Show. The weekly show is available on all the major platforms, with a library of over 240 episodes. Her chats with angel investors, VCs, business industry leaders have been downloaded over 145,000 times.

Karen also speaks to economic development, community, and corporate groups to spread the word about Compassionate Capitalism as a way to strengthen and grow our economy. Economics is a passion for Karen having received her Bachelor’s in Economics & English from Emory University before earning her MBA in Marketing from the University of Florida.

LinkedIn

Mike Blake, Brady Ware & Company

Mike Blake, Host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series

Michael Blake is the host of the Decision Vision podcast series and a Director of Brady Ware & Company. Mike specializes in the valuation of intellectual property-driven firms, such as software firms, aerospace firms, and professional services firms, most frequently in the capacity as a transaction advisor, helping clients obtain great outcomes from complex transaction opportunities. He is also a specialist in the appraisal of intellectual properties as stand-alone assets, such as software, trade secrets, and patents.

Mike has been a full-time business appraiser for 13 years with public accounting firms, boutique business appraisal firms, and an owner of his own firm. Prior to that, he spent 8 years in venture capital and investment banking, including transactions in the U.S., Israel, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

Brady Ware & Company

Brady Ware & Company is a regional full-service accounting and advisory firm which helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality. Brady Ware services clients nationally from its offices in Alpharetta, GA; Columbus and Dayton, OH; and Richmond, IN. The firm is growth-minded, committed to the regions in which they operate, and most importantly, they make significant investments in their people and service offerings to meet the changing financial needs of those they are privileged to serve. The firm is dedicated to providing results that make a difference for its clients.

Decision Vision Podcast Series

Decision Vision is a podcast covering topics and issues facing small business owners and connecting them with solutions from leading experts. This series is presented by Brady Ware & Company. If you are a decision-maker for a small business, we’d love to hear from you. Contact us at decisionvision@bradyware.com and make sure to listen to every Thursday to the Decision Vision podcast.

Past episodes of Decision Vision can be found at decisionvisionpodcast.com. Decision Vision is produced and broadcast by the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX®.

Connect with Brady Ware & Company:

Website | LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

TRANSCRIPT

Intro: [00:00:02] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast series focusing on critical business decisions. Brought to you by Brady Ware & Company. Brady Ware is a regional full-service accounting and advisory firm that helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality.

Mike Blake: [00:00:36] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast giving you, the listener, clear vision to make great decisions. In each episode, we discuss the process of decision making on a different topic for the business owners’ or executives’ perspective. We aren’t necessarily telling you what to do, but we can put you in a position to make an informed decision on your own and understand when you might need help along the way.

Mike Blake: [00:00:58] My name is Mike Blake, and I’m your host for today’s program. I’m a director at Brady Ware & Company, a full-service accounting firm based in Dayton, Ohio, with offices in Dayton; Columbus, Ohio; Richmond, Indiana; and Alpharetta, Georgia. My practice specializes in providing fact-based strategic and risk management advice to clients that are buying, selling, or growing the value of companies and intellectual property. Brady Ware is sponsoring this podcast, which is being recorded in Atlanta per social distancing protocols.

Mike Blake: [00:01:26] If you like to engage with me on social media with My Chart of the Day and other content, I am on LinkedIn as myself and @unblakeable on Facebook, Twitter, Clubhouse, and Instagram. If you like this podcast, please subscribe on your favorite podcast aggregator and please consider leaving a review of the podcast as well.

Mike Blake: [00:01:44] Our topic today is, Should I hire a finder to raise money? And according to Carta, it takes about two years on average to secure funding for a startup. And according to the corporate finances to the chances of being funded by a bulge bracket venture capital fund, are less than one percent, and that’s probably being generous.

Mike Blake: [00:02:04] So, I’ve been around the startup world a little bit. And our guest who’s coming on today has really been around the startup world a lot, more than I have. And, you know, raising money for a startup is not easy and it’s not fun. Raising money for a startup means a lot of rejection, means a lot of unsolicited advice, some of which is good, some of which isn’t very good. And, you know, I think for many startups CEOs, it’s probably the part of the job that most of them like the least.

Mike Blake: [00:02:41] And, therefore, it’s not unexpected that one might anticipate that it would be tempting to outsource that task to somebody, and that somebody is typically called a finder. And we’re going to talk about specifically what a finder is. But if you’re in the startup world, you already know what a finder is. If you’re not in the startup world, but will be at some point, this conversation is going to come up, I promise, because a finder can perform, not just a very important, but actually an existentially important service for a startup. But the choice is not without its pitfalls.

Mike Blake: [00:03:20] And joining us today in this conversation is Karen Rands, who is President of Kugarand Capital Holdings. Karen’s extended team offers coaching and services to entrepreneurs to help companies with capital strategy and investor acquisition through the Launch Funding Network in investors education, screening due diligence, and syndication services through the National Network of Angel Investors. Karen Rands is the leader of the Compassionate Capitalist Movement, is an authority on creating wealth through investing and building successful businesses that can scale and exit rich.

Mike Blake: [00:03:52] Karen turned the knowledge she gained from her corporate experience of working with startups and innovation at IBM and the 12 year she spent managing the Network of Business Angels and Investors, one of the top 50 angel groups in the U.S. at its peak, into the best selling primer Inside Secrets to Angel Investing. Her book and the accompanying resource panel teaches savvy investors how to diversify their investment portfolio to include private equity ownership into entrepreneur endeavors.

Mike Blake: [00:04:21] Karen hosts the popular business podcast, The Compassionate Capitalist Show. The weekly show is available on all the major platforms with a library of over 240 episodes. Her chats with angel investors, venture capitalists, business industry leaders have been downloaded over 145,000 times. Karen also speaks to economic development community and corporate groups to spread the word about compassionate capitalism as a way to strengthen and grow our economy.

Mike Blake: [00:04:50] Economics is a passion for Karen, having received her Bachelor’s in Economics and English from Emory University before earning her MBA in Marketing from University of Florida. Karen Rands, welcome to the Decision Vision podcast.

Karen Rands: [00:05:03] Thank you, Mike. Great to be here.

Mike Blake: [00:05:05] And I’m going to try to not study here. I don’t know what the heck is wrong with me. I probably need another sip of my Earl Grey tea, but we will [inaudible]. So, Karen, again, thanks for coming on the show. I think our listeners are going to get a lot out of this. And and I want to start, for those in our audience who maybe don’t know exactly what we’re talking about so they have a shot of hanging into the conversation, what is a capital or a money finder?

Karen Rands: [00:05:31] So, typically, the finder will offer to locate investors for a company in exchange for a success fee, and that’s the commission based on what they’re able to raise. They’re most often not registered with the SEC, and that’s where it becomes a problem. But finders are also used for angel investors in startups and raising capital, but also could be a part of reverse mergers and also with merger acquisitions, trying to find people to buy a company or fund an acquisition of a company.

Mike Blake: [00:06:07] And why do companies find it attractive to work with a money finder?

Karen Rands: [00:06:12] Okay. Well, you know, the common perception, particularly with startups, is that finders are a cheap way to find capital. Because, you know, actually, if you’re only paying for a success, then it doesn’t actually cost the entrepreneur anything, right? The traditional type of finder that’s in this context, they don’t have the same types of retainers and fees like broker dealers, and the percentage that they charge on the money they raise is a lot less than a licensed broker dealer.

Karen Rands: [00:06:39] They also have the idea that multiple finders working on their deal because, since they have no skin in the game for that entrepreneur, why not have a bunch of people trying to find its capital. But the risk in this is this false sense of expectation that those finders are actually doing the work. But what can happen on the investor side, particularly in a community like Atlanta where we live in, if there’s a lot of finders working it, it might pass an investor’s desk a couple of times or they see it someplace. And they start to think, “Well, what’s wrong with this deal? This deal must stink because so many people are shopping it.” So, you know, that’s always the way that you should consider it. There’s a different way to approach it and we’ll get into talking about, but most often it doesn’t work out near as well as entrepreneurs think it will.

Mike Blake: [00:07:30] Yes. I want to pause on both those points you raised because I think they’re both interesting. And one of them, frankly, I hadn’t thought of. The first point being that, you know, it can be tempting to wish your problems away because you hire a consultant, right? And that was a lesson that my first full time boss, John Noel, taught me was never let a consultant wish your problems away. And it’s easy to let a finder wish your problems away, right? I mean, you know the deal. Raising capital is not hard and it is not typically self-esteem building either.

Karen Rands: [00:08:05] Right. Yeah. It’s very hard. And you got to have Teflon in order to deal with all the nodes and rejection that you get in the process. Exactly.

Mike Blake: [00:08:15] Right. So, I mean, it’s tempting to say, “Well, who needs it? And you’re going to take this off my plate. Yes, please. And thank you.” Now, the other part I hadn’t thought about, but I think makes perfect sense – I love you to elaborate on it, if you can – is that if you do have multiple finders in the market – and I agree with you, that’s a strategy you should do – if everybody’s on contingency, it’s all about from the finder standpoint, which is the deal that’s closest to getting close and therefore my fee. So, you want to have it out there.

Mike Blake: [00:08:49] And we both know the deals that are circulating in the marketplace and we both know instances of “those entrepreneurs who seem like they’ve been raising money for 19 years and they’re still a startup”. And there’s that deal staleness. But I hadn’t thought of the fact that finders can actually create that as well if you have the same deal coming from different angles.

Karen Rands: [00:09:12] Yeah. Right. Right. Because, you know, sometimes what ends up happening, to your point about the paid advice, if a company goes through an incubator and accelerator and they get some information, and through that process of doing that, because of the mentors, the kind of finder you want is the person that loves your deal, is mentoring you on the deal, and is happy to share it with other people because they like your deal. They like you and they’re considering investing themselves in it. So, that’s not the finder that we’re talking about.

Karen Rands: [00:09:47] The finder that we’re talking about is, oftentimes – and I, myself, have been in this position back when I was running the angel group and working with screening deals and working with entrepreneurs and investors – is that you tell them that they have to do X, Y, and Z to be investable. They might have to pivot. They might have to do more research on their marketplace, their go-to market, how they’re going to scale. They might have something fundamentally wrong, but they don’t want to hear that.

Karen Rands: [00:10:14] So, it’s much easier to go to a finder that says, “Hey, I can raise you that capital. I know these guys. I’ll put it together at lunch or at dinner or this or that. Give me five grand or pay for the big hoo ha this stuff and five percent.” And then, when that finder doesn’t raise the capital, they get to blame the finder. And the finder is just doing a side gig because, come on, if you’re not really paying them, you’re not paying the 5,000 and you’re just doing the percentage of, well, how are they paying their bills? It’s not their core thing. And they will work with the ones that are paying them.

Karen Rands: [00:10:50] And you just become the one, if I come across an investor that didn’t like the deal that I’m getting paid for and they’re in your industry, then I might introduce you because I’m not leaving everything on the table. I might get a little something, something.

Mike Blake: [00:11:02] So, that brings up so many points here. We could probably make a whole podcast just out of that last two minutes. But one thing you bring up that I think is important – and correct me if I’m wrong – my impression of the finder market is that it’s very informal. We both know it’s unregulated or quasi-regulated by the SEC, and we’ll get to that in a little while, I think. But there isn’t, like, some storefront that says finders are us.

Karen Rands: [00:11:34] No.

Mike Blake: [00:11:34] If you do a Google search, you’re not going to find, like, capital finder generally. It’s often somebody that’s doing something else kind of for their living, isn’t it?

Karen Rands: [00:11:44] Yes.

Mike Blake: [00:11:45] It could be an attorney. It could be an accountant. It could be somebody else. Or, like you said, somebody that is genuinely interested in the deal, but they want to be paid for helping to close out the round. And so, how does that change the dynamic of the relationship as opposed to most service providers where you kind of own them after you pay the fee. I perform a service as a consultant. My client, to a certain extent, owns me rightfully so. That relationship with a finder is going to be a little different, isn’t it?

Karen Rands: [00:12:19] Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Because there’s really no skin in the game on the entrepreneur side. The only skin in the game is on the finder’s side because they’re the one that’s doing all the work. And for finders that have kind of played in that space, because I’ll come across young people that haven’t been burned by any of this stuff and they think, “Oh, I know people. I was a participant in X, Y, Z incubator. I met these investors. Now, I’m going to turn around and go and help you connect it, and you’re going to give me a percentage.” And so, they have a little bit of skin in the game.

Karen Rands: [00:13:00] But if they don’t get a hit in the first half-a-dozen conversations, then they will just not keep working on it. They’re looking for a low hanging fruit. And you don’t know that they’re not working on it because they think, “Well, maybe this guy will get back to me,” or maybe whatever kind of a thing. And so, you get a false sense of stuff getting done as an entrepreneur that don’t get done.

Mike Blake: [00:13:26] You know, that’s interesting. It approaches that sort of a different angle. Something I say a lot, whereas, in a way, a deal pitch is like a joke. If the person doesn’t get it right away, no amount of explaining after that makes the joke funny. It just never happens, right? Nobody says, “Now, I get it” and just hyperventilating. I mean, they may laugh politely, so a golf applies kind of thing or people will laugh, but they’re not really laughing.

Mike Blake: [00:13:47] And deals are kind of the same way, right? And I guess from a finder’s perspective, when a finder takes that on, they probably have in mind some small group of a handful of people they think would have an interest if it’s all knows. They’re not going to make it their life’s mission, like Indiana Jones to the jungle, to find those investors. Because that’s just not their thing.

Karen Rands: [00:14:17] Right. You know, the exception is if they have to have a vested interest. Somehow there’s got to be a vested interest. And I guess we’ll get into that and how that works.

Mike Blake: [00:14:27] Now, I think a lot of people, initially, if they don’t understand the finder market, they’re often turned on to or find themselves – what we would call – broker dealers of some kind, business brokers, investment bankers, and so forth. They don’t generally like to take on fundraising deals, which is a reason I think that finders have the niche that they do. Is that also your experience? And if so, why do you think that is?

Karen Rands: [00:14:55] Okay. So, this one is one to unpack because broker dealers have historically been the only people that were licensed to be able to raise capital for projects, deals, whatever. And there’s a bunch of licenses. It’s not just one license. But they not only have the ability to find investors but handle the transaction, structure the transaction, and the exchange of capital money for the stock. They can do all of that stuff.

Karen Rands: [00:15:31] And so, sometimes when a finder or a person acts as a finder and they’re not licensed, there’s this term that they were acting as a broker dealer, or acting as an investment banker that is licensed, or acting as a business broker when they really weren’t. And so, because they weren’t licensed to do that, so they can’t act as something that they should be licensed for. That’s illegal. And that’s where you get into who goes to jail and who pays fines and those kind of things when things like this blow up, which oftentimes they don’t because it’s not really something that the SEC is chasing after.

Karen Rands: [00:16:07] So, you know, it really happens when the company doesn’t perform the way the investor expected it to perform and they file a complaint with the broker dealer. The FINRA – which is a quasi not quite a government agency bureaucracy that I’m not a big fan of because I think they’ve done more harm to the financial markets than they’ve done to protect investors – they then go in and investigate, so the broker dealer is held accountable for all of that stuff.

Karen Rands: [00:16:39] And there’s a couple of different things that broker dealers are beholden to. One is what they call, it’s basically a fair – I forget the exact terms, but it’s like a fair disposition. So, that means that they have to make that opportunity available to all of their clients and all of their dealers. So, the deal has to be big in order to get spread out, particularly if you’re dealing with a giant company like Ameritrade or Raymond James or something like that, that a wire houses. Even a small, independent broker dealer who probably has a thousand clients that they manage money for. And so, they have to make it available. It has to be fair and equitable. So, if it’s not big enough to make available to everybody, then it’s not worth doing.

Karen Rands: [00:17:36] And the fees associated with that, they usually will have between $5,000 to 10,000 a month plus fees to do their offering documents, plus big percentages. They’re allowed to charge up to 15 percent. So, if a company is needing to raise capital, a startup that raises a million, 2 million, 3 million, maybe another series A round of 5 million or something like that, that’s all still small for broker dealers. So, broker dealers just won’t really touch it.

Karen Rands: [00:18:02] And because of the regulatory investigation environment of FINRA, it’s really easy if a deal goes south and they take on the responsibility of that due diligence and an investor, “Oh. You put it into my mom’s stuff.” The son says, “She should never have invested in that deal.” Then, they can say, “Well, it was too risky for that particular investor.” And, therefore, it’s a violation of their broker dealer, there’s another rule for that.

Karen Rands: [00:18:32] And then, one of the things that an independent broker dealer or independent financial planner that just has their license hanging with somebody, there’s this fear, uncertainty, and doubt, the FUD, that comes along with what FINRA can do and not do. There’s real rules.

Karen Rands: [00:18:52] And then, there’s this idea – they call it – selling away. So, where that financial planner that has clients that might want to be angel investors gets into a bind is that even if they’re not taking a commission on that transaction – unlike real estate, because a broker dealer doesn’t do buy and sell real estate – they can disclose that they helped this investor do a commercial investment in real estate that’s part of their portfolio, and it’s not considered selling away.

Karen Rands: [00:19:24] But if they help this person do an angel investment deal put 50 grand into some startup, then it might be considered selling away because technically the broker dealer could have – even though they wouldn’t have – handled that transaction. And that independent can lose their license. And so, they steer away from it. So, there’s really no way for companies to really go to the people in the financial services sector to get that. And that’s one of the big reasons why the Jobs Act was passed bipartisanly.

Mike Blake: [00:19:59] So, you touched upon this – this is a great segue into the next question, which is that, there are risks to hiring a finder and they go beyond simply sort of the stale deal syndrome, don’t they? I mean, there are instances where a finder deal could potentially blow up if things aren’t done correctly, right?

Karen Rands: [00:20:21] Right. Absolutely. So, the SEC has these rules that, as I mentioned, if a deal has milestones and they expect and say they went through a regular or private placement memorandum, which is the document that entrepreneurs prepare to disclose the risks of their offering. And in that, it doesn’t fully disclose, let’s say. And that investor thinks that they asked all the questions, but they don’t ask all the questions.

Karen Rands: [00:20:51] And they think that this company is going to get that big deal with Microsoft. And, therefore, they’re going to make all of those projections. And in reality, they never actually had a real deal with Microsoft. They just had a conversation at a trade show, let’s say. And so, they don’t get that deal, the deal fails or the deal stumbles. And they don’t raise the next round of capital or they don’t do their stuff and they don’t fully reach the objectives.

Karen Rands: [00:21:17] And that investor can sue because they can say, “That was fraud. They said they were going to get this deal. They didn’t get this deal.” And then, under those terms, when the SEC investigates, they’ll say, “Oh, that person did commit fraud. They didn’t fully disclose the risks of that investment.” Or they used their money in a wrong way, or they used a finder that wasn’t licensed.

Karen Rands: [00:21:43] And when the SEC finds out that they used a finder, they might also find this out when that company goes to sell to a public company and the public company has to do the disclosure, or they go to go public and the SEC is looking at all their stuff and they find that. In any of those circumstances, the deal can go south and the investors have the right of rescission – they call it – where they can get all their money back that they put into the company at whatever they put it in. They don’t make any money on that.

Karen Rands: [00:22:11] But that is a recipe for the company to go out of business because they have to pay back this money that they don’t have that they spent. And that founder or that executive office that did that has the potential to go to jail, too, depending on how serious the nondisclosure are or the fraud is. And they get labeled a bad actor. And so, a bad actor is one of those things that is now in all of the Jobs Act offerings, is that, you cannot have a bad actor in that company that owns more than ten percent of the company and that kind of stuff.

Karen Rands: [00:22:46] And so, those are all kinds of things that is all new language to people that are investing in some of these companies. But that’s what happens. So, the finder usually gets a slap on the wrist unless they’ve been doing it a lot and a lot. And I got some horror stories of people that have defrauded people all over in Georgia but never got held accountable because of the fragmentation of security laws when it comes down to a state level. But then, also, the big thing is that it really hurts the company when they use finders and it gets found out.

Mike Blake: [00:23:15] So, when typically do companies use finders? In your mind, do they typically find them at the pre-seed level, or the seed level, or when they get into more institutional capital? What stage of the company’s development do they typically engage with finders?

Karen Rands: [00:23:36] It’s usually when they don’t know how to go raise with friends and family round, or when they’re raising their first seed round outside of a friends and family round. So, it’s still really early on. Because once you have real investors in your deal, because you raise money from an angel investor group and stuff like that, if you maintain good communications with those people, those investors have a vested interest to help you find other capital. Because, otherwise, their investment doesn’t grow the way they expect it to grow.

Karen Rands: [00:24:06] And so, it’s really before there are real serious accredited angel investors involved in a deal. And that an entrepreneur doesn’t know where to go, and they’ve not been able to qualify to get to an angel investor group, for lots and lots of different reasons. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the deal is not meritable. It could just be the industry that that local angel investor invests in, and they’re not in that same industry. So, they get desperate to try to find investors. And then, they’ll go and they’ll ask people and they’ll say, “Hey, I need you to go help me find investors and I’ll pay you a commission.” I mean, that’s the conversation. And they really ask that.

Karen Rands: [00:24:45] The difference is that somebody that’s professional, such as myself, that knows investors, that knows how to structure what makes an entrepreneur investable, we’re professionals. And just like a lawyer or an accountant is professional, they rarely will go file patents and do all that stuff hoping that Wednesday you’ll raise capital and then be able to pay me. They don’t do that work thinking that they might get paid in the future. They do the work for the work they’re doing right now.

Mike Blake: [00:25:15] So, we talked about some of the pitfalls here. How do you mitigate those risks? I mean, the risks are obviously out there. You still want to use a finder. I mean, do you just have to sort of accept those risks? Or are there things you can do to lessen the probability that those things will happen to you?

Karen Rands: [00:25:33] So, part of it is really validating doing your own due diligence on a finder, if you’re going to be serious. Now, first of all, you’re not going to want to do it on 100 percent commission, we already covered that. You’re not going to want to have a whole bunch of people shopping your deal, we covered that. So, what you want to do is find somebody that really has relationships with funding sources, whether they’re angel investors, private equity funds, family offices, VCs, whatever it is. They’ve got relationships with people and know how to talk the talk of investors.

Karen Rands: [00:26:06] And the second thing is that you want to compensate them for the work that they’re doing. You need to put a contract in place. And the best way to avoid the pitfalls of what the SEC might do is to be able to give them some kind of equity ownership in the company, give them a title in the company, have some kind of compensation plan, that’s based, or come up with a fixed fee, “This is what it’s worth if you raise this amount of money” so it’s not a percentage. And then, you pay them for the work they’re doing and they’re reporting to you just like a consultant does, just like anybody else does.

Karen Rands: [00:26:40] They have a Google Doc spreadsheet where they’re listing the investors that they’re talking to, the status, the meetings, and all that stuff. And that unlicensed person isn’t acting like a broker dealer. So, they’re not selling the deal. They’re making the introduction. The founder has to sell the deal. The founder has to create the documents that one of the things that that person might be, that investor acquirer, the investor introducer rather than a finder, is, they know what kind of documents those investors are expecting to see to market the deal.

Karen Rands: [00:27:16] So, the entrepreneur has created it under the guidance of this person. And then, that person takes that document. And the document sells the company to have a conversation with the founder. Or to go to a due diligence portal. So, all that information and directing it back to the entrepreneur. And that person that’s helping you will validate their level of being accredited or validate their level of interest. And then, give them access to this portal to do due diligence and keep driving, overcome the objections of the company. But, really, it’s ultimately up to the founder, that entrepreneur.

Karen Rands: [00:28:01] But the entrepreneur should have people that are in their board, people that are in their company that all have a vested interest in the success of the company. So, in that situation, everybody in the company is acting as a finder. Because everybody in the company is trying to find the capital to help the company go to that next level. And somebody you might bring on is a board of advisor, because you want to hire them. They’re a top gun in an industry that’s really going to open up doors for other capital. So, what you want to tell that person to do is say, “Look, I’m going to hire you for 100 grand -” or whatever that is “- plus stock. But you’ve got to go find an investor that’s going to put a hundred grand in this company to pay your salary.”

Mike Blake: [00:28:45] Actually, before I go on, there’s one comment I want to make because I think that’s really important. I think it’s really smart. People are surprised when I tell sometimes my clients that, “You’re actually better off, I think, paying somebody like a finder, a retainer, or at least a modest retainer in addition to their finder’s fee.” And they say why? And my answer to that is, “Well, because if you fire them, you want it to hurt them, basically.” If you fire somebody that’s on 100 percent contingency, it really doesn’t matter. And, again, whichever deal is at the top of the pile, they’re going to serve a little nibble on the line. That’s what the finder is going to go after, right?

Mike Blake: [00:29:31] But that retainer gives you a little bit of skin in the game. If I’m that finder, if I want to keep that gravy train going to keep paying some of the bills in addition to that bonus I get at the end in terms of raising capital, then I need to be doing something every month to show that I’m earning that money. And I think that you do get and are entitled to more sustained, focused effort on your deal if you do pay a retainer.

Karen Rands: [00:29:59] Yeah. It’s shared risk. It’s a shared risk model. That company is risking some capital, some of their cash flow, or something for that. And the finder is risking not getting the money that it’s really worth for their time, and knowledge, and resources, if they don’t perform, if they’re not able to do that. And it becomes a really shared value model because you want that entrepreneur to fully disclose.

Karen Rands: [00:30:28] Because if you bring a real investor to the table and the deal gets blown because of something silly, or stupid, or something that wasn’t disclosed, then all that work that that finder did is for naught because the founder couldn’t close it, it’s a term structure, all kinds of stuff, your documents, everything about it becomes more of a win-win and a collaborative approach to finding the capital.

Karen Rands: [00:30:55] Because the SEC is really clear on what finders should not be doing. And that’s the stuff that gets in trouble when you have them do that stuff purely on commission and acting at stuff. And somebody that isn’t familiar with those rules can jeopardize the company in the long run.

Mike Blake: [00:31:13] Yeah. And those things include, for example, don’t talk about valuation, right? Don’t go around with a securities price because that’ll make something look like an offering, for sure.

Karen Rands: [00:31:24] Yeah. I mean, you can share the offerings, because that’s through due diligence. You know, you’re doing the introduction and once they’re qualified that they have an interest and they have the ability to invest, then you give them the offering memorandum that the lawyer developed or somebody else developed for that company to do.

Mike Blake: [00:31:46] So, we’ve talked about finder compensation, and it’s probably an unfair question but I’m going to ask it anyway because I think you can handle it. And that unfair question is, when you’ve encountered, or maybe worked with finders, or maybe you’ve been a finder yourself at some point in the past, what sort of fee should I expect to pay? You know, typically if it’s a percentage of the deal, what percentage of the deal is going to that finder typically?

Karen Rands: [00:32:14] So, the formula that they usually use is called a Lehman Formula – I’m not even exactly sure how you spell that.

Mike Blake: [00:32:24] Lehman Scale.

Karen Rands: [00:32:24] Lehman. Lehman. There you go. So, it’s typically the same sort of thing that says it’s five percent on the first million, four percent on the next one to two million, three percent on the next two to three, and two percent on everything above that.

Mike Blake: [00:32:38] Okay. And you find that’s fairly consistent in the marketplace?

Karen Rands: [00:32:42] Yeah. Because most finders don’t raise more than a million dollars. And so, they’re going for the five percent. And most entrepreneurs that are hiring a finder, they balk at a large amount. So, sometimes a finder, some of the quasi-angel groups that let companies pitch for a a success fee, they will have a straight up five percent kind of a thing.

Mike Blake: [00:33:11] You know, that’s interesting. I just haven’t followed that market enough, so I wasn’t aware. But what’s interesting is that, that’s actually cheaper than paying a broker dealer to sell an existing business, right? They’ll charge between eight to ten percent for a business with a value of about a million dollars. So, interesting. I would argue that being a finder isn’t actually harder but the fee is lower, so I’m surprised to hear that.

Karen Rands: [00:33:39] And the other thing about it is that, if that entrepreneur chooses not to pay the finder, there’s really no recourse. Because technically the finder, if they were operating as a broker dealer and trying to sell the deal, not under some of the ways that we couched it before, then they’re going to go to court and try to get their money. Particularly if there’s not a real contract of here’s a services that were being offered and why I’m being compensated other than finding capital, then they don’t really have it.

Karen Rands: [00:34:16] And then, they also have to judge if their fee was going to be like, say, they were going to collect, you know, $5,000. Well, is it worth going and hiring a lawyer to try to go get that? So, it’s a risky world for finders out there if they don’t have the right structure or they’re trying to really fly underneath the radar of what’s legal and not legal and in the gray area.

Mike Blake: [00:34:40] Yeah. And that brings up my next question, actually, which on the surface sounds weird, but given what you just described, I think it’s very apt. Are finder’s agreements typically in writing?

Karen Rands: [00:34:55] Yes. Yeah.

Mike Blake: [00:34:57] They are. Okay.

Karen Rands: [00:34:57] I mean, there’s some. Like, if you’re doing this to test the waters, then you’ll say, “I’ll put an agreement in place with you when I find this investor that wants to invest.” And you have a verbal agreement on the fees and stuff like that. And then, you’re really involved. But like in the case of, you know, if you’ve worked with them and you did do investments and it’s 60 days or 90 days is the minimum engagement for an exclusive on that. And an entrepreneur is willing to do an exclusive because they’re going to have this committed focus and compensation on these three months with that person that’s going to acquire investors for them.

Karen Rands: [00:35:46] At the end of that, you want to have something that’s a non- circumvent because deals take time. So, if somebody you invested that you introduced them to in month two, invest month six, you still want to get paid because it happened as a result of that, even if you weren’t getting paid in month four or five and six. And so, that’s where that nonpayment comes because they might continue to work with them.

Karen Rands: [00:36:09] And if you’re not staying in touch with both the investor and the entrepreneur – because the investor doesn’t know. The investor, you know, isn’t expecting that. And investors don’t like to pay finder’s fees. And that becomes a big problem on the investor side if a finder doesn’t disclose, that’s one of the no-no’s at the SEC. If you don’t disclose that you’re collecting a fee for that introduction, then that’s a no-no.

Mike Blake: [00:36:32] So, I’m glad you brought that up. That segues right into another question I want to make sure to ask, which was, my experience is that, at least angel investors don’t love finders, don’t love paying finder’s fees. You know, you have lot more experience, much broader experience, than I do. How do investors react to finder’s fees? You do have to disclose them, as is often the case in finance. You can do almost anything you want as long as you disclose it. How do investors react to this?

Karen Rands: [00:37:08] I mean, because it’s their money, and so it’s not disclosed as a use of funds and it’s five percent of their money. Then, that’s a big chunk out of that pie chart of whatever they said, you know, is their thing. Or they’ve got it on there, say, even when they do their performance. A line item, consulting fees – you know what I mean? If it’s not in there as a use of funds, then they are in effect. It’s no different than – well, it’s a little different, but it’s almost like buying a sailboat with the money. Five percent of their money because I feel like I’m going to take a tiki vacation or something, right?

Karen Rands: [00:37:42] And so, they don’t like it. Now, if that person is bringing value to the company, like we described where they’re helping them create their documents, they’re helping them figure out what their go-to market strategy is going to be, what their capital needs are going to be over time based on their cash flow, validating the cash flow, they’re doing all that stuff and helping find capital, they have no problem paying the fees. Because it made the deal more investable and it’s helping them get that deal scalable so that the investment that they put in is most likely to produce a return on investment.

Mike Blake: [00:38:22] So, we’ve talked about kind of the regulation around this, and under the best of circumstances, financial regulation is Byzantine around finders. It’s borderline maddening. But I guess the SEC has proposed a limited exemption for finders starting last year. Where is that? Is that still under consideration? And are you familiar with this limited exemption? And if so, can you comment on what might be the impact on capital finding if it is in fact enacted?

Karen Rands: [00:38:55] So, I think it’d be terrific. I think there’s still rules, they’re still gathering info on that. They usually take a while to do that. They took a long time on the Jobs Act to work all that stuff out. And I think in some states, they’ve gone ahead and said that people can work with finders in those state, particularly on intrastate exemptions, which is one of the offerings with the Jobs Act.

Karen Rands: [00:39:26] And most lawyers and accountants and those kind of people, because they’re licensed in a different area, they may do introductions, but they don’t take any compensation because it would jeopardize their license and their field of choice. But they have relationships. And people, for whatever reason, because they’ve been around in these areas. They’ve been somebody that has mentored folks because they’re successful business person and they’ve mentored this. Or they exited out of a deal and they have a bunch of investors that they had originally raised money for and all of that stuff.

Karen Rands: [00:40:09] So, I think it would really help to open up Rolodexes for people to register as a finder. So, you would be able to know who those people are, and probably at a state level. And then, you know, it would remove that additional barrier between companies and potential investors, and it becomes a two-way street for those investor people to find deals that they may not get through their limited funnel of how they they get access to deals now based on that. So, I think it is really good and I’m hoping it gets official here soon. If it hasn’t already. I haven’t heard that it is, and I think I would have heard, but I also haven’t gone out searching to see if I could legally become a finder in such a way.

Mike Blake: [00:40:57] Yeah. I don’t think it has. I had a false start. There’s one law firm that posted some sort of blog that implied that it was. But since I couldn’t verify with a second source, I did some more digging and it was just either I’m just going to give them the benefit of the doubt to say it was a badly written blog. I think it’s all out there.

Karen Rands: [00:41:17] So, like, I know Florida, their financial commissioner – I forget the official title – he is trying to rewrite legislation down there because of these limits that their interstate has. And for your listeners, an interstate exemption is when a company in a state can generally solicit to investors within that state, accredited and unaccredited. Usually, every state has their specific rules. But the SEC modified the Reg D504 exemption to allow companies to raise up to $5 million in their state. And that works really well for established businesses that want to franchise or want to do this stuff and reach out to people that may not be traditional angel investors.

Karen Rands: [00:41:58] And the way sometimes it’s written, because legislators don’t often understand business, they may have put rules in place that really cause more of a barrier than it. And one of the things is, like, requirements of certain financials, and requirements of certain history, and requirements of certain people in the business. And so, he’s trying to fix that and then also enable people to use finders, because that way it’s a low cost way without going through a broker dealer to get access to capitals on people’s Rolodex’s legally.

Mike Blake: [00:42:38] I’m talking with Karen Rands. And the topic is, Should I use a finder to raise capital? Let me pull a 180 here. Who shouldn’t use a finder? Who’s not a good candidate to use a finder or work with a finder?

Karen Rands: [00:42:52] Yeah. I really think it is the people that do. So, there’s this thing that happens a lot of times with entrepreneurs where they’ll go, “Those investors, they just don’t get it.” And the problem is, is that the reason why the investors don’t get it is because that entrepreneur doesn’t know how to communicate their unique value proposition. Or they have real gaps that an experienced investor sees as a red flag that’s going to not have that company be successful.

Karen Rands: [00:43:31] And if the attitude of the founder is, “I know everything. So, it’s just these stupid investors that don’t get it, I’m going to go get a finder to find me the the investors that do get it.” And the investors that do get it are ending up going to be people that don’t have that same knowledge and level and skill of those sophisticated investors that know to avoid that deal. So, those are the ones that then, when it goes south, are going to be the ones most impatient about getting their money back and most likely to cause a legal action against that company.

Karen Rands: [00:44:06] So, it all kind of centers around if a company is struggling to raise capital, then there’s something that they’re not doing right within their business, or the way that they’re approaching their capital, the way they’re not doing a license. Because you get general solicit investors. You could be your own finder and find investors just by advertising legally that you’re raising capital. And so, you need a finder if you do that, but that costs money, too. So, it’s people that are trying to avoid paying money for the knowledge and the experience and the effort it takes to raise capital. And it doesn’t usually work out that way in the long run very well.

Mike Blake: [00:44:48] So, not all of these stories end well, right? You may retain one or more finders who are ultimately not successful in raising capital. How easy or hard is it to terminate the relationship with that finder?

Karen Rands: [00:45:06] Well, if you don’t have an agreement, there’s nothing. Nothing gets done. There’s no skin on either side, so it really doesn’t matter. You can just forget them. If you have a contract, then there’s usually terms. There should be terms in the contract of how you would in that contract based on non-performance. And then, if the finder is savvy, they’ll have a provision for a non-circumvent on the ones that they did find it in there. And you just would go through the procedure, that might be a 30 day cure period or something like that.

Karen Rands: [00:45:49] You might need to unravel to reach out to the investors that they talked to, to make sure that finder doesn’t say something bad about you. You know, that would be a good thing to do to make sure you now established that relationship because you’re not going to be able to depend on that finder from following up with them. And so, that’s a big thing that you need to make sure you’ve got the relationship.

Karen Rands: [00:46:11] I mean, the entrepreneurs that make mistakes are the ones that are naive about the process of raising capital, the time and materials and effort it takes to do that. And they’re trying to outsource that. Or they don’t have the skills to talk to investors. So, you could hire a coach to help you with that stuff. I mean, I offer programming and I have offered programs for that. You know, you can learn how to raise capital and talk about your business. That’s the beauty of these incubators and accelerators. And there’s a gazillion of them. There’s like over 35 of them in Atlanta. So, you could go get help on learning how to raise capital and find investors yourself.

Karen Rands: [00:46:52] And then, just accept that it’s going to take time, like you said, two years. It’s going to take time to do that. So, do what you have to do. It’s really difficult sometimes to build a business and find capital. That’s why it becomes something that all of your team can work on as part of their assignments and be in the company vested in the company, finding capital, but not operating as an unlicensed finder.

Mike Blake: [00:47:19] You mentioned all the accelerators. Now, we go back long enough where there’s basically one accelerator in town. And it’s like the new state bird of Georgia, right? It’s the business accelerator, basically. This isn’t criticism by the way. It’s awesome.

Karen Rands: [00:47:35] Well, they’re not all created equal. So, you got to, also, as an entrepreneur, do a little due diligence to make sure that they’ve got the right skillset and community that’s right for your business.

Mike Blake: [00:47:48] So, a couple more questions before we let you go. I know you’re busy. I want to be respectful of your time. But can finders be used to find capital other than seed capital? Are finders ever used to find debt or SBA lending or a purchase order financing anything of that less conventional financing form?

Karen Rands: [00:48:10] Yes. They are. So, it’s interesting about that, because I actually asked the SEC about finders through VCs. And they came back in a noncommittal sort of way that VCs are [inaudible]. But, you know, it’s all capital that regulated by FINRA rules. Well, broker dealers are the only ones. VCs are not regulated by broker dealers. And there is no investor interest. Like, there’s no harm to investors because the investors that invest the VC funds, you’re not finding investors for the VC. You’re finding a VC for the company. So, the only thing that the SEC and FINRA care about are those investors and what they put their money in.

Karen Rands: [00:49:05] So, technically, you can use a finder to go find VCs and VCs oftentimes will have a core group of people they trust to source deals that they’ve worked with. They might have been entrepreneurs and residents. They might be companies that they previously invested in. Or they got to know professional as a result of that particular company that they had invested in so they have a relationship with them. And they will pay a fee to that person that brought them the deal. And they have an agreement on that.

Karen Rands: [00:49:40] So, finders can go to VCs, also SBA. You can go find loans for entrepreneurs because, again, it’s not investor capital. It’s not regulated by the SEC. You could go to family offices. You can go to private equity funds. You can go to all of those other types of capital and find capital for an entrepreneur and it not be subject to SEC regulations.

Mike Blake: [00:50:09] I’m glad I made time to ask that question, because I didn’t know any of that, so that’s awesome. Karen, we’re out of time and I’m sure there are questions that either our listeners wish we had gone into more depth with or questions we didn’t ask at all and they wish we had asked. If somebody wants to contact you to talk more about this, can they do so? And what’s the best way to do that?

Karen Rands: [00:50:31] Well, a best way to have a live conversation like this would be to go to my website, karenrands.co, I think it’s in your show notes. And on the contact page, fill out and you say I’m an entrepreneur, I’m an investor, whatever. And it will send you a confirmation email with a link to my calendar. And you can set up a half-hour call. If you want to just ask a question, you can hit me up on Twitter, @karen_rands. Everything’s Karen Rands. On Facebook, the best way would be @TheKarenRands. That’s my public business profile. And you can just put in a comment there or send me a message.

Karen Rands: [00:51:06] And I’m happy to have a conversation or a dialogue with anybody that has questions about this topic or any other topic when it comes to raising capital, or doing due diligence for trying to validate a deal because you don’t have time, you’re not part of an angel group, and you want to validate a deal, any of those kind of things. I’m all about the compassionate capitalism of getting more companies funded, more people educated, and how to do that so our economy becomes bulletproof.

Mike Blake: [00:51:33] Well, that’s going to wrap it up for today’s program, I’d like to thank Karen Rands so much for sharing her expertise with us.

Mike Blake: [00:51:40] We will be exploring a new topic each week, so please tune in so that when you’re faced with your next business decision, you have clear vision when making it. If you enjoy these podcasts, please consider leaving a review with your favorite podcast aggregator. It helps people find us that we can help them. If you like to engage with me on social media with My Chart of the Day and other content, I’m on LinkedIn as myself and @unblakeable on Facebook, Twitter, Clubhouse, and Instagram. Once again, this is Mike Blake. Our sponsor is Brady Ware & Company. And this has been the Decision Vision podcast.

 

 

Tagged With: Angel Investing, Brady Ware & Company, Decision Vision, finders, Inside Secrets to Angel Investing, investors, Karen Rands, Kugarand Capital Holdings, Mike Blake, obtaining investors, raising capital

Kevin Greiner with Gas South and Stan Hall with Gas South District

September 23, 2021 by Mike

Gwinnett Business Radio
Gwinnett Business Radio
Kevin Greiner with Gas South and Stan Hall with Gas South District
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Stan Hall and Kevin Greiner

Kevin Greiner/Gas South

Gas South is driven by a simple mission: Be A Fuel For Good. It’s not just a slogan on their website or conference room walls. It’s their core belief that how they treat people is what’s most important. It’s the way their CEO Kevin Greiner knows every employee by name. It’s customer service folks who go the extra mile. It’s the volunteer time their employees cheerfully contribute and the 5% of profits they give to support local children in need.

As the company grows, so does their impact. Since 2006, Gas South has grown steadily to become not only the largest natural gas provider in Georgia, but also the largest in the Southeastern U.S. They now serve more than 425,000 customers across six states. They’ve formed Alliance Partnerships with local governments and utilities across metro Atlanta, helping customers save on their natural gas. Keeping their “5% back” promise, they’ve also given back more than $7.5M to local causes (and counting).

Stan Hall/Gas South District

The Gas South District is a 118-acre campus just minutes outside of Atlanta that can accommodate a variety of events from concerts, performances, meetings, trade shows, conventions, banquets, and celebrations. The multipurpose campus includes an amazing 13,000-seat arena (Gas South Arena), a 708-seat theater (Gas South Theater), 23 versatile meeting rooms, a 50,000-square-foot exhibit hall space, and a 21,600-square-foot grand ballroom (Gas South Convention Center).

The campus, operated by the Gwinnett Convention and Visitors Bureau, distinguishes itself by hosting a diverse range of events, including the ECHL’s Atlanta Gladiators, NLL’s Georgia Swarm, Carrie Underwood, Justin Timberlake, Menopause the Musical, JapanFest, Romeo Santos, Red Hot Chili Peppers, George Strait, Eric Clapton, NCAA Women’s Gymnastics Championships, Disney On Ice, U2, Paul McCartney, Orange Conference, Beyoncé and more.

CLICK HERE to watch the video of this show. 

Gwinnett Business Radio is presented by

Tagged With: business podcast, business radio, Business RadioX, Gas South, gas south district, gwinnett business, gwinnett business podcast, Gwinnett Business Radio, Gwinnett Business RadioX, gwinnett businesses, gwinnett online radio, gwinnett radiox, Kevin Greiner, online radio, podcast, Radiox, regions bank, small businesses, sonesta gwinnett place, Stan Hall, steven julian, subaru, subaru of gwinnett, subaru radio studio

Decision Vision Episode 135: Should I Create an Email Newsletter? – An Interview with Michael Katz, Blue Penguin Development

September 23, 2021 by John Ray

Miichael Katz
Decision Vision
Decision Vision Episode 135: Should I Create an Email Newsletter? - An Interview with Michael Katz, Blue Penguin Development
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Miichael Katz

Decision Vision Episode 135:  Should I Create an Email Newsletter? – An Interview with Michael Katz, Blue Penguin Development

Do you need an email newsletter? How long should it be? What should you write about? Although written off quite a few times, email is still not dead. Mike Blake’s guest Michael Katz, email newsletter authority with Blue Penguin Development, discusses the strategy of email newsletters, how to make them effective, how to make the most of the content, and much more. Decision Vision is presented by Brady Ware & Company.

Michael Katz, Chief Penguin, Blue Penguin Development

Michael Katz, Chief Penguin, Blue Penguin Development

Blue Penguin Development Inc is a marketing and advertising company based out of Hopkinton, Massachusetts.

An award-winning humorist and former corporate marketer, Blue Penguin founder and Chief Penguin, Michael Katz, specializes in helping professional service firms and solos talk and write about their work in a way that is clear and compelling.

Since launching Blue Penguin in 2000, Michael has been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Business Week Online, Bloomberg TV, Forbes.com, Inc.com, USA Today, and other national and local media.

He is the author of four books and over the past 20 years has published more than 500 issues of “The Likeable Expert Gazette,” a twice-monthly email newsletter and podcast with 6,000 passionate subscribers in over 40 countries around the world.

Michael has an MBA from Boston University and a BA in Psychology from McGill University in Montreal. He is a past winner of the New England Press Association award for “Best Humor Columnist.”

Company website | LinkedIn

Mike Blake, Brady Ware & Company

Mike Blake, Host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series

Michael Blake is the host of the Decision Vision podcast series and a Director of Brady Ware & Company. Mike specializes in the valuation of intellectual property-driven firms, such as software firms, aerospace firms, and professional services firms, most frequently in the capacity as a transaction advisor, helping clients obtain great outcomes from complex transaction opportunities. He is also a specialist in the appraisal of intellectual properties as stand-alone assets, such as software, trade secrets, and patents.

Mike has been a full-time business appraiser for 13 years with public accounting firms, boutique business appraisal firms, and an owner of his own firm. Prior to that, he spent 8 years in venture capital and investment banking, including transactions in the U.S., Israel, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

Brady Ware & Company

Brady Ware & Company is a regional full-service accounting and advisory firm which helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality. Brady Ware services clients nationally from its offices in Alpharetta, GA; Columbus and Dayton, OH; and Richmond, IN. The firm is growth-minded, committed to the regions in which they operate, and most importantly, they make significant investments in their people and service offerings to meet the changing financial needs of those they are privileged to serve. The firm is dedicated to providing results that make a difference for its clients.

Decision Vision Podcast Series

Decision Vision is a podcast covering topics and issues facing small business owners and connecting them with solutions from leading experts. This series is presented by Brady Ware & Company. If you are a decision-maker for a small business, we’d love to hear from you. Contact us at decisionvision@bradyware.com and make sure to listen to every Thursday to the Decision Vision podcast.

Past episodes of Decision Vision can be found at decisionvisionpodcast.com. Decision Vision is produced and broadcast by the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX®.

Connect with Brady Ware & Company:

Website | LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

TRANSCRIPT

Intro: [00:00:02] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast series focusing on critical business decisions. Brought to you by Brady Ware & Company. Brady Ware is a regional full-service accounting and advisory firm that helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality.

Mike Blake: [00:00:21] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast giving you, the listener, clear vision to make great decisions. In each episode, we discuss the process of decision making on a different topic from the business owners’ or executives’ perspective. We aren’t necessarily telling you what to do, but we can put you in a position to make an informed decision on your own and understand when you might need help along the way.

Mike Blake: [00:00:42] My name is Mike Blake, and I’m your host for today’s program. I’m a director at Brady Ware & Company, a full-service accounting firm based in Dayton, Ohio, with offices in Dayton; Columbus, Ohio; Richmond, Indiana; and Alpharetta, Georgia. My practice specializes in providing fact-based, strategic, and risk management advice to clients that are buying, selling, or growing the value of companies and intellectual property. Brady Ware is sponsoring this podcast, which is being recorded in Atlanta per social distancing protocols.

Mike Blake: [00:01:09] If you like to engage with me on social media with my Chart of the Day and other content, I’m on LinkedIn as myself and @unblakeable on Facebook, Twitter, Clubhouse, and Instagram. If you like this podcast, please subscribe on your favorite podcast aggregator and please consider leaving a review of the podcast as well.

Mike Blake: [00:01:27] Our topic today is, Should I create an email newsletter? And in doing this topic, I almost think like what’s old is new again, back to the future, retro, however you want to call it. Email newsletters, I think, have been declared dead more times than your typical cat or Rasputin, take either one.

Mike Blake: [00:01:52] First, it was spam blockers. And the next was social media. Of course, social media was going to obviate the need for email newsletters. And then, of course, everybody told us, if we don’t send people things in the analogue world and handwrite them, then nobody’s ever going to read it. And the list goes on and on.

Mike Blake: [00:02:12] And to coin a phrase from, about, five years ago, “And yet they persist”. And I think they persist for very good reason, is that, they’ve taken all kind of all comers. And in spite of that, in spite of many attempts and ongoing attempts to disrupt that world, email newsletters continue to thrive. And perhaps the best indicator of that is the fact that Atlanta’s own homegrown startup Mailchimp was just bought by Intuit for $12 billion. Mailchimp basically exists to help people and companies publish email newsletters.

Mike Blake: [00:02:53] Now, why does a tax company want a newsletter company? I’m not sure. I was going to say I’m not in that business. But I guess working for a CPA firm, I technically am, but I’m not. And I don’t even do my own taxes although I’m a CPA. And I don’t understand the strategic rationale for that deal or the price that they paid. But, you know, good for Ben Chesnut and his team, they’ve worked hard on that company for a very long time. They certainly deserve to see the fruits of that labor. And that’s a big feather in the cap for those of us who believe in the Atlanta startup ecosystem as I do.

Mike Blake: [00:03:33] And so, you know, I think that this is a topic that requires and I think many of us will benefit from this discussion. And helping us with this is is Michael Katz, who’s an award-winning humorist and former corporate marketer and Founder and Chief Penguin of Blue Penguin. And he specializes in helping professional services firms and solos talk and write about their work in a way that is clear and compelling.

Mike Blake: [00:04:01] Since launching Blue Penguin in 2000, Michael has been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, BusinessWeek Online, Bloomberg TV, Forbes.com, Inc.com, USA Today, and other national and local media. And you can tell that he had nothing to do with my introductory comments. He is the author of four books. And over the past 20 years has published more than 500 issues of The Likeable Expert Gazette, a twice monthly email newsletter and podcast with 6,000 passionate subscribers in over 40 countries around the world.

Mike Blake: [00:04:33] Michael has an MBA from Boston University – I grew up in Boston. A B.A. in Psychology from McGill University in Montreal – home of my favorite actor and yours, William Shatner, or at least birthplace. He is a past winner of the New England Press Association Award for Best Humor Columnists. Michael, welcome to the program.

Michael Katz: [00:04:52] Great to be here. Thanks for having me.

Mike Blake: [00:04:55] So, you know, there’s so many ways to communicate in the written word now with our intended audiences. And I actually think it is helpful, it may sound like the most inane question in the world, but I do think that the definitions have been blurred and it is important. In your mind what makes a newsletter a newsletter? And what separates it from other forms of written – I’m going to say – mass communication. I probably cringe at saying that, but it is sort of a one-to-many kind of communication model. What makes a newsletter a newsletter?

Michael Katz: [00:05:31] Well, I think it is pretty blurry. I mean, I always think of it, it’s just a glorified email sent to more than one person. Maybe the email that Target sends to you telling you you’ve got 30 percent off and the email that your accounting firm sends with useful information, they’re both technically newsletters and people pretty much use them interchangeably. So, you know, the definition really hasn’t gotten any clearer over the years. It sort of depends what business you’re in, but I think it applies when you send it by email to a number of people and generally not personalized beyond, you know, dear name.

Mike Blake: [00:06:12] You know, it’s interesting, even I would not have thought of the Target virtual flyer being a newsletter. But I guess it is, right? And that definition between advertisement, newsletter, blog post, something else, I think, has been blurred. And I guess I’ll follow up with this question, is that distinction even meaningful?

Michael Katz: [00:06:41] I think the distinction is, is this a thing that lands in your inbox or is it somewhere else, social media, video, all that? So, you know, I think as you were saying, Mike, earlier, it’s written and it shows up in your email. And so, that then becomes the question. So, is that still valuable or not? But I think all those things, I suppose, are the same species, email and newsletter.

Mike Blake: [00:07:05] Okay. So, those of us who are listening to this podcast, they may well be hearing newsletter and wondering, “Oh, my gosh. Do I have to basically now become a professional writer? I didn’t like writing five page essays in school. And, now, I got to do something every week or maybe more than that.” Is there an ideal length in your mind for a newsletter? Can newsletters be short? Do they need to be long form? They need be very long form? What’s best practices in determining just how much content goes into a newsletter?

Michael Katz: [00:07:41] Yeah. I always say one word is perfect. However, you have to get over two bars at least, again, in the world that I live in. So, again, I’m not doing the Target 30 percent off. I work exclusively with small professional service firms, financial planners, consultants, recruiters, coaches. So, these are all people who are selling themselves or their small firm, essentially. And so, those kind of newsletters are information-based. They’re not about an event. They’re not click to buy kinds of things, like click here and buy it. They’re really about – and we’ll talk more about it – getting in front of a group of people. So, yes, shorter is better because I can get your stuff sooner.

Michael Katz: [00:08:26] However, two things. One is, you have to tell me something that I will read it and have learned something. So, I’m always saying, you’re looking for me to read it and go, “Oh, there’s something I just learned about accounting, legal, management, consulting, whatever.” The second thing is, I think you want your newsletter to be long enough that you include some of your personal voice story experience. Because if it’s just information, well, I can get information by Googling it.

Michael Katz: [00:08:56] So, if you can say something that includes something useful and enough story – which I know we’ll talk about – then I think that’s good. I would say that for most people then, you’re talking 500 to 800 words to get that in there. But even among my own clients, there’s variations there.

Mike Blake: [00:09:18] So, how do you decide what goes in? And I’ll preface this with kind of my experience with this podcast, and you’ve done a lot more of these things than I have, so God bless you, I don’t know how you do it. But the question I’m asked most frequently is, how do you decide on the topics and how do you kind of keep it fresh? And my answer to them is, “Well, for me, I just keep a running note in every note. And every time something pops in my head, I write it down. And then, if I’m really stuck, I’m not afraid to revisit something if I think somebody else can bring a different voice to the same topic.” How do you decide what goes into your newsletter?

Michael Katz: [00:10:06] So, my point of view is, I’m trying to help my readers not need to hire me, which sounds counterintuitive. But what I mean is that – and this is true for any profession that I’m working with – help them learn not to need you. So, if you took a very simple example, suppose you’re a carpenter. Your newsletter should be about how to use a hammer, how to buy wood, how to climb a ladder. It’s very simple stuff. And, yes, if I got and received and retained a thousand newsletters like that, I suppose I would know as much as my carpenter.

Michael Katz: [00:10:42] But the truth is, you’ll never give away your business with those 500 or 700 word tidbits. But it has to be useful so that I read it like everybody thinks about what do I say to promote my business. Which is fine, that’s why we’re doing it. But your readers don’t care about your business. They are only going to read it, and stay with you, and tell other people about it if they find it useful.

Michael Katz: [00:11:06] So, that’s the sort of basis of it always, you have to match up to the audience that presumably would hire you by giving them something that will make them live their lives better or do their jobs better instead of running out of information. I mean, I’ve written 500 newsletters. I have, like, 30 ideas. So, it’s funny, I mean, I don’t republish them. And, by the way, that’s where stories come in.

Michael Katz: [00:11:30] But I’ll address a similar topic with a slightly different angle or something. Nobody says, “Wait a second. Four years ago in April, you said the same thing.” It’s sort of like, you know, if you have a personal trainer at the gym, the guys told you a thousand times to keep your back straight when you do pushups. You don’t say, “Wait a second. You already told me that.” So, people need repetition anyway. That’s fine.

Michael Katz: [00:11:56] The other thing is, even your most loyal readers will probably read every other one, so it’s fine. You’re trying to be out in front of a particular population over and over again with useful information and some personality because, again, your goal is that they refer you or maybe they hire you. So, it’s sort of easier than you think. I always say, if you know enough to be in a profession, you’ll never run out of content. My longest running client, an attorney, we’ve been doing a newsletter for 18 years and still publishing.

Mike Blake: [00:12:29] You know, you bring up that topic of what’s the likelihood that somebody’s going to remember a topic? I guess that’s right. In fact, I would love it if somebody has actually listened to this podcast with enough intentionality and frequency that they could spot any kind of repetitive material. And, frankly, I think I might actually buy a steak dinner if you sort of organically did that. Because I don’t think I have the kind of following like somebody, a dragon con, who shows up and questions one of the actors like, “In episode 192, how do the physics work when the spaceship went from galaxy to galaxy?” I don’t think I have that kind of following.

Mike Blake: [00:13:09] So, it probably is okay to kind of recycle stuff. And if you put a slant on it, so much the better. But you’re right, the portion of the population that’s going to have encyclopedic recall of all of your newsletters is a pretty small one. And if they are, you’ve probably already got them hooked anyway.

Michael Katz: [00:13:27] Right. I agree.

Mike Blake: [00:13:29] So, I’m going to go off script a little bit because your narrative brings to mind what I think is a really innocent question. And that is, can you recall the most memorable newsletter you either received or published? Either one you’re really proud of, or one you helped somebody publish because I know that’s what you do, or one that you received that maybe you said, “I really got something great out of that newsletter that I still use. I got it ten years ago. I still use that today.”

Michael Katz: [00:14:01] That’s a good question. And my answer is no, but here’s why. Because the value of a newsletter is a cumulative event. It’s like if I said to you, “Can you remember the best work you ever had?” You’re like, “How do I know?” Like, “Oh, yeah. It was like a Tuesday five years ago.” It’s the same thing. And I often have to talk people down from this, even people who are thinking of hiring me to say, “Look. It’s not a Super Bowl ad. You’re not going to publish a newsletter and have your phone ringing off the hook.”

Michael Katz: [00:14:34] And I do always use the exercise metaphor, that, exercising five times, you may as well not do it at all. But without question, if you exercise regularly for six months, you’ll get results. The same thing, it’s an ongoing event where people start to know you. They start to remember what you’re writing about. And then, one day, somebody needs what you’re selling. So, one important thing about a newsletter in its regularity is, it takes timing out of the equation.

Michael Katz: [00:15:04] So, the problem with advertising is you have to keep doing it. Because if you see a car ad today and you just bought a car last week, you have zero interest. Or if you’re planning to buy it in a year, zero interest. So, the reason that car people, for example, have to advertise constantly is because there’s always a slice of the population that’s ready to buy a car. So, they waste a ton of money on everyone else who isn’t.

Michael Katz: [00:15:26] Well, the newsletter, and particularly if you’re a small professional service firm, you don’t have advertising money, this is putting you in front of people over and over again. And so, one day they’re tired of their financial planner, their accountant doesn’t return their phone calls, whatever. They say, “Do you know anybody who could help me with this?” The newsletter acts as that constant prompt in front of them. So, visibility is a big part of what’s going on.

Mike Blake: [00:15:53] I think that’s really smart. And I actually kind of want to pause a little bit on that, because I’ve talked to many people, for example, in the podcast – I don’t have a newsletter. I eventually have to come out with one, but I don’t have one yet. But I think with the podcast it’s the same – I’m frequently asked, “How much business have you gotten out of it?” And my answer is, “Frankly, I have no earthly idea.” Because nobody is going to listen to my podcast and then pick up the phone and say, “Hey, I need you to do an appraisal of my company.” It’s just not going to happen. And podcasts, in particular, really don’t work that way.

Mike Blake: [00:16:32] But it’s the cumulative reminding people that you’re out there, that you have this expertise, you have that service so that it’s much more likely that that need is going to meet availability. And so, it’s about impact. It’s not so much about it’s important and it’s urgent. But there’s a third dimension out there about impact. And when you do a newsletter consistently, I think there’s a very similar philosophical ingredient to it or foundation to it that it’s not about the newsletter that you published today. It’s the aggregate of newsletters that you have published and continue to publish over an extended length of time.

Michael Katz: [00:17:13] Right. In fact, I’d even say, the person who calls you because they heard one podcast is suspect. That’s not a good client. That’s like, “What can I say to a woman in a bar to get her to marry me?” Nothing. Anyone who would say yes is bad. You want someone who’s listened to your podcast for a year. Because, first of all, you’ve screened out all the people who would actually hate you if they hired you. Because they’re like, “I like this guy.” And the people who don’t, go away.

Michael Katz: [00:17:46] Because my entire business is based on my own newsletter. No one ever gets in touch with me who isn’t kind of pre-qualified. So, it’s very effective in that way. And the best clients are the ones who’ve been listening for a while and finally say, “Hey, we’re ready to hire you.” I mean, it’s the easiest sales call you’ll ever get, an inbound call like that.

Mike Blake: [00:18:08] So, as I said in my introduction, newsletters, they’ve been declared dead a lot. And they’re still here and you’re still here. You don’t look dead to me. You don’t sound dead. So, why have they survived? Why do they continue to thrive? And I think they thrive, see if you agree with me. Why do they continue to thrive where there’s so much competition now for our attention?

Michael Katz: [00:18:38] Yeah. Well, you’re right. I mean, it’s so interesting how much it’s changed. So, I started doing newsletters in 2001. And the biggest objection I received from potential clients was that not enough of their clients and customers had email. And, like, blogs came out. That was going to kill it. Then, it was the whole spam thing. I mean, it’s amazing to think that Congress got together and passed a CAN-SPAM Act. That spam was so bad that there was a law passed about it. And then, social media came.

Michael Katz: [00:19:14] And I have to say about, maybe, whatever it was, ten years ago when social media sort of started, I was concerned. Like, you know, I don’t want to be so selling this thing that’s like a dinosaur. And so, paying very close attention what’s the next thing, looking around. And I think a couple of things. One is, nobody is in charge of email.

Michael Katz: [00:19:37] So, the problem with social media – and there have even been some very high profile examples – they can kick you off if they want. They run the whole thing. Like, nobody knows what the algorithm on LinkedIn is or Facebook to get you in front of different people. It’s a secret. So, you could be very popular on LinkedIn, and tomorrow they change the algorithm, and now it drops.

Michael Katz: [00:19:59] So, you don’t own the real estate if you build a business on any of the social media platforms. There’s somebody in between you and the recipient. Email is a completely distributed system. Nobody is in charge of email. So, the only people who decide whether my newsletter is read and opened are the people on the list. So, that’s very powerful.

Michael Katz: [00:20:21] Secondly, it shows up in your inbox. So, it’s funny, sometimes if I’m talking to you a live group, I’ll say, “Okay. Raise your hand if you’ve checked LinkedIn today.” And you get, like, half the group. “Raise your hand if you’ve checked email.” Everybody. So, as much as email is dead, it’s sort of like the day you can sign up for a social media account without an email address, I believe it’s dead. It still is the default in our life. It’s not even do you have email anymore. There’s things you can’t do. I can’t make a doctor’s appointment anymore without an email address. So, even though I’ve been wondering will it die, it still continues to be very compelling.

Michael Katz: [00:21:05] And, again, because my newsletter will sit in your inbox until you delete it, I think that’s also more powerful than a post on LinkedIn, which in the time we’ve been talking, if somebody posted, it’s already gone. You know, it’s pushed down. So, it’s funny, it’s like skinny ties – for no good reason, but if you wait long enough, I guess – I don’t know if something will replace it. But I’ve never found anything that says effective in all the ways we’ve been talking about is email, so still a lot.

Mike Blake: [00:21:39] Yeah. That’s a really interesting description. I hadn’t thought of either of those things. But it’s right to me. Social media, we don’t own the real estate. We don’t control who sees our thing, who sees our content. And we try to read the tea leaves in terms of what’s going to to gather the most, first of all, visibility, and then engagement, which is entirely a different animal. But then, this notion that, in a way, email has become like broadcast television. The way that you described it, I think that’s so smart.

Mike Blake: [00:22:26] And I guess it resonates to me because several years ago we cut the cord. No cable T.V. But we still do subscribe to the Netflix, Hulu. I have no idea if we’re saving money. We’re probably not, if I’m totally honest about it. But one of the the reason we still do that is because you can’t just sort of turn on Netflix and a program appears. You have to be with the modern television model. You have to be intentional about what you want to watch. Unless you do cable and then you can do that. That’s what we want to do.

Mike Blake: [00:23:02] Email is kind of the same thing, right? It’s so ingrained. Like you said, you cannot make a doctor’s appointment, you can’t do almost anything you want to do in life. The phone book has been replaced by email in some regard. And so, if you’re a functional adult in the society, you are actively managing and looking at an email account. And that’s the way in to everybody is through that channel. And I had not thought about that until you raised that before. That’s really interesting and that’s really important.

Michael Katz: [00:23:33] I think it does somewhat depend on the population, too. So, you know, everyone I work with is – I don’t know – 40 or older. Whereas, you know, I have a 22 year old son, I have to text him to tell him to check his email, even though he has an email account. It is possible if you’re talking to that audience – and who knows the sort of next generation that it moves on – at least for now, you know, my people are the middle aged and older, we’re still very much tied to email.

Mike Blake: [00:24:06] Yeah. I’m with you. I’m on the older side of Gen X myself. So, email is going to be my primary conduit. And I have a teenager and I kind of do the same thing. But what he’s finding is that texting amongst themselves and his friends is fine. But for the really important stuff, he misses a lot if he doesn’t check email. For what it’s worth for now, you and I are still controlling the world. In 20 years, it maybe different, but we still rule the world with an iron fist.

Mike Blake: [00:24:39] So, let me switch gears here, and it’s a little bit more the how. So, there are services out there, as you know, where you can send out a newsletter that’s basically canned content. Somebody writes it for you and then you put your name on it, you say that it’s yours. What do you think of those? Is there any value to those in your mind? Is there a value case to a certain kind of customer? Are they really valuable? What’s your view there?

Michael Katz: [00:25:08] I think there’s value there. I mean, again, because the option of not doing that is you’re invisible. So, even if I never open your email, but you show up once a month or whenever, and I, for whatever reason, don’t unsubscribe, at least I know you’re alive. So, that’s better than nothing.

Michael Katz: [00:25:33] There’s a few things missing, though. The problem is, you know, back in the day when it was print emails, and the insurance industry was famous for this, where you could get your photo and your contact information onto something they mailed. Well, back then, it was valuable to have someone give you some information about buying insurance, for example. Today, I can get any piece of information I want on anything in a minute with Google. So, if all you’re sending me is canned information, number one, it’s not unusual in any way. And number two, it’s not even your point of view.

Michael Katz: [00:26:10] So, this sort of funny thing going on, people sign up for your newsletter because they want the information. But what I’m trying to do is get them to know who I am or who my clients are. Because if you’re selling a professional service, the problem is the people who are your prospects and even your clients cannot tell how good you are relative to the other options.

Michael Katz: [00:26:31] It’s like you don’t have the slightest idea how medically capable your own doctor is. You don’t even know where he or she went to medical school. You’re like, “I don’t know.” And if I said, “Do you like your doctor?” So, again, I often will say to an audience, “Raise your hand if you like your doctor.” You get a lot of hands going up. “Keep your hand up if you know where your doctor went to medical school.” Nobody. So, why do you like your doctor then, or your accountant, or your auto mechanic? “I like the way they talk to me. I like their point of view. I like their personality.”

Michael Katz: [00:26:59] It has nothing to do with their capability. Yes, you have to be capable. But everybody who’s worth worrying about is capable. In fact, if you’re in an industry like yours, Mike, that’s where certification is required, CPA, medical school, you know, whatever. It’s actually harder to distinguish yourself because I know as long as I hire a CPA, I got somebody who’s over the bar. So, the differentiator is not capability. Again, you have to be good enough. It’s all this soft, squishy, non-professional business stuff.

Michael Katz: [00:27:35] And so, to me, what a newsletter ought to be is story and personality wrapped around useful information. Because over time, people get to know you. What’s funny is when I write a newsletter, let’s say, for myself, I’ll write about my family just took a trip to Colorado. Nine out of ten of the comments I get relates to someone else who went to Colorado. It’s not about the business thing. If I only wrote a newsletter and just told you about a family trip, you don’t subscribe.

Michael Katz: [00:28:05] But when I wrap this around the useful information, the soft stuff is what they notice. And, ultimately, I think that’s why you hire me versus somebody else or don’t hire me because you don’t like me. But again, I’m happy about that. You’re better off if we wouldn’t get along to go elsewhere.

Michael Katz: [00:28:24] So, it’s a really weird thing, but it’s extremely powerful because that’s really how word of mouth works anyway. People just passing other people around. And the newsletter done this way is just a very scalable way to do this, you know, to network, essentially.

Mike Blake: [00:28:43] And, you know, that’s interesting how you bring the individual voice into that, and I agree with that. And you’re right, it is in the accounting industry very challenging for people to separate themselves. And you ought to be really careful and say I’m the best accountant in the world. That’s a hard position to sustain or quantify. But you can always make yourself different. But you can’t make yourself different unless you’re actually communicating with somebody that they can see how you’re different. And I don’t think it’s all that effective to just say, “Well, I’m different.” You have to lead people to their own conclusion that you’re different by acting differently.

Mike Blake: [00:29:30] So, I want to get to creating a content in a second, but I do want to cover another model for newsletters, which is not a canned service per se, but maybe a newsletter that’s based on curating somebody else’s content. Like, you’re a big reader and you’re doing a service for your readers who don’t have as much time to read and gather information as much as you do. So, you’re going to kind of aggregate information on behalf of somebody else. In your mind, how effective is that kind of newsletter content strategy?

Michael Katz: [00:30:05] So, I think of it as a long a continuum. So, all the way to one side is, I never publish anything. As far as you know, I’m dead. Next step is, here’s a newsletter where it’s got my picture on it and my contact information, but it’s totally candid and I had nothing to do with it. But way better than nothing. I mean, because, I think half the game is showing up.

Michael Katz: [00:30:25] The curated one is one step further because, now, at least you’ve had input into what you decided is important. The downside is, you’re hosting other experts, essentially. So, I don’t know anything about how you think. I don’t know anything about your voice, your story, your personality. I just know, “Okay. He or she said these things matter.” What I want to get to is one step beyond that, which is, this is my point of view.

Michael Katz: [00:30:48] Again, if you’ve been a CPA for 20 years, you know a lot of stuff. And the other thing is people will think, “Oh, so I have to write something that’s never been said before in the world of accounting? I mean, we all have one or two things, maybe, and that’s it.” You got to remember your audience. If I’m a reader of your newsletter, I don’t know anything about accounting. I don’t want to know a lot about accounting. I just want a little insight that goes, “Blah, blah, blah. Here’s what you need to do.” It’s accounting 101. It’s embarrassingly simple.

Michael Katz: [00:31:21] Again, in that carpentry example, how to buy wood. Another carpenter would be like, “Well, no kidding.” But to me, as a homeowner, I don’t know. So, super simple. A little nugget that makes me go, “Oh. Okay. I just learned something. I’ll come back next month.” And, again, if you include that with some personal story, which, by the way, the only unique thing you have in terms of information is your story. Like, nobody can tell the story I told about going to Colorado with my family. I’m the only one on Earth who can do it. Anyone could have told the insight – whatever it was, I don’t really remember – that came with it.

Michael Katz: [00:31:56] So, it’s the more custom, I think, the better. Because, again, you’re trying to not just be known as an accountant. You’re trying to be known as that guy, Mike, that I like. And maybe one day I will hire him because I’m kind of sick of our accounting for whatever reason.

Mike Blake: [00:32:12] So, when I think of newsletters – this probably reveals my age. Again, I’m a Gen Xer. That’s the way it is – I think of newsletters that have maybe three or four articles in them and they have sort of a professional publishing format and so forth. Is that best practices now? Does a newsletter have to talk about three or four different things to kind of be worthy of the name? Or can you send out a newsletter that, in effect, is one message?

Michael Katz: [00:32:46] So, now, we’re getting into stuff where it’s like I don’t think there’s a must be this way or must be that way. As long as you satisfy useful information wrapped inside personality, I think you’re there. Because the other question is, should I make them click to read it or should I put the whole thing in the email? Pluses and minuses on both sides. It’s funny how in the same breath people will say, “Nobody has time to read anything. Should I have five articles?”

Michael Katz: [00:33:15] I mean, I wasn’t kidding when I said one word is the best. Because although I don’t think length equals quality, there’s reality that if your newsletter is too long, I think people stockpile them, which kind of adds up to never read them.

Michael Katz: [00:33:30] I have a friend/client, the only person I’ve ever met who can satisfy the useful information and personality in 300 words. I don’t know how he does it. But his newsletter is so short that when it arrives, I read it right away because I know it’s going to be short.

Michael Katz: [00:33:47] So, I think it’s okay to have the several stories. But, again, my goal isn’t to be a publisher. It’s to generate business. So, I just want to make sure I tick the box of useful and story. And so, I’m inclined towards the main article. There’ll be some tidbits like, “Hey, you know, we just won this award.” Or, you know, again, with my clients, that might be another section. Or I have someone who does, like, a book of the month that she reads, she’s an attorney. But there’s that one main article, and I find that works pretty well and it gets read as a result.

Mike Blake: [00:34:27] So, you talked about – and I agree – that it’s important for a newsletter, if possible, to reveal as much of the voice of the creator of the newsletter as possible. What do you do if you’re not a particularly good writer? Some people are good at math, some people are good at writing, some people want to be good at writing, and others couldn’t care less. Are newsletter just sort of closed off to you? Or is it a massively hard slog if you just don’t fancy yourself as a writer?

Michael Katz: [00:35:04] Okay. So, I’m going to use another exercise analogy.

Mike Blake: [00:35:09] Please.

Michael Katz: [00:35:09] So, like, ten years ago, I had knee surgery. I had my ACL replaced. And afterwards the physical therapist said, “Okay. You’ve got to go to the gym and get on an elliptical machine because you can’t run for a while.” And I never used an elliptical machine but I did belong to a gym. So, I go in there and I looked, and there’s, like, four different kinds of elliptical machines.

Michael Katz: [00:35:31] And so, I go up to the front desk and there’s the guy, and it’s huge muscle guy with just tiny little T-shirt reading a muscle magazine. He doesn’t even look up at me. And I go, “Hey. Which of these elliptical machines is the best one?” And he said what I believe is, like, the most wisdom I’ve ever heard, without looking up, he goes, “Whichever one you’ll stay on the longest.” The reason we have multiple machines is because some people like this one and some people like that one. The point of exercise is more of it too.

Michael Katz: [00:36:05] It’s sort of the same thing that you’re trying to do something you don’t hate. So, I can talk all day about why newsletters are great. But if you’re going to do it yourself without help and you hate writing, you’re not going to do it. So, find something else. Maybe you’re a good talker and so podcasts is better for you. Maybe you’re good on camera and video or social media, whatever. You have to pick marketing tactics that you, at least, can tolerate – the same thing, some people hate running, some people like swimming – or you’ll never do it.

Michael Katz: [00:36:41] Because the rest is really sort of nuance. Is a podcast better than a newsletter? I don’t know. The point is, keep showing up. Keep doing it. I don’t think you have to be a great writer, though, as long as you’re willing to do it. It’s funny, I’ve had so many people over the years say, “I’m a terrible writer.” No one has ever said to me, “I can’t talk to other people. What do I do?” It’s sort of the same thing. This isn’t like you’ve got to be Stephen King here.

Michael Katz: [00:37:08] In fact, I spent a lot of time unteaching people to stop writing like they’re writing marketing. Like, they get into this mode of it’s either a super formal or it’s like, “Hey, dude. Let’s kill it,” and the guy is, like, 60. I think your newsletter – because, again, it is an email – it’s inherently informal. So, your newsletter, I think, should sound like you speaking, as close as that as you can get. And since most people can speak coherently, if you do that, you’re good. Now, you may need an editor because you don’t want it to look unprofessional with punctuation or misused words, but that’s okay.

Michael Katz: [00:37:52] Most of my clients, the arrangement is some people I interviewed them and they never touched a keyboard, that’s fine. But I have other people where after we’ve figured out all this voice and, you know, it’s the design and the Mailchimp set up and all that, every month we talk about, “Okay. What’s the topic going to be?” We’ve already identified a bunch of areas. We go back and forth on, “Well, yeah, I think that sounds like three topics. What if you did this one?”

Michael Katz: [00:38:19] They write the first draft badly. I always say, “I don’t need you to write it well. I just need the raw material. Give me enough information that I can do it.” I don’t do any research. And, by the way, neither do they. Because, again, you don’t need to do accounting research. You could talk forever. And then, I fix it. So, I’m essentially a writer.

Michael Katz: [00:38:40] But as long as they just give me the blah, I then take it and fix it. But, again, whereas there’s other professionals I know who do the whole thing themselves. So, you can do it. But you’ve got to do it. It’s like you can’t go to the gym twice. You’ve got to keep going.

Mike Blake: [00:38:57] Has the advent of mobile devices changed at all how you do, or how you create, or think about newsletters as a medium?

Michael Katz: [00:39:05] Yeah. I mean, you know, when it starts to become a thing – I don’t know – five or six years ago, we had to get rid of the newsletters with the side column, which was sort of the standard, because it has to look good on a phone. And then, there’s this term responsive, meaning your newsletter response to whatever device it’s on. So, the same newsletter will work on a computer or a tablet or a phone. And, you know, the Mailchimps of the world have made that automatic, so you don’t have to worry about it.

Michael Katz: [00:39:35] But half of the world, at least, is opening email on a phone. I don’t know what percent will actually read it there. But you have to make sure you know the font is big enough, that you don’t have graphics that don’t work on a phone, so you just test it. But it’s not a problem, but you certainly have to account for it.

Mike Blake: [00:39:56] So, I want to switch gears here. An important driver of success in a newsletter, I would imagine, is having an audience to send it to. And it seems to me that building an email list – well, I’m getting ahead of myself. I’m sure there are listeners who are listening to this right now that think, “You know what? Newsletter sounds great. I don’t know who I’m going to send it to.” Is there a special order of operations? Or how do you come up with a mailing list? Or are there tips? Do you think about building a mailing list really quickly? And then, how you do that? Any content? I mean, is the newsletter only a game, I guess, for somebody that already has a big mailing list?

Michael Katz: [00:40:46] No. Because, again, I’m working with professional service providers. No. None of those people have mailing lists. But you’re mailing lists are the people you know. I define people you know as, if you call them up, you wouldn’t have to introduce yourself. So, it’s not everybody you went to college with. It’s not the membership list of your professional organization. That’s spam. But it’s the humans on Earth you know. I find like the average middle aged person knows, like, 400 or 500 people. They always say, “Oh, I only know 50”. But now we sit down, it’s your college roommate, it’s your brother-in- law, it’s former clients. We’ll talk about what’s the value of your brother-in-law here?

Michael Katz: [00:41:26] So, people make two mistakes. One is, they just get every email they can get and now they’re seen as a spammer. Don’t do that. The other is they think, “Who might hire me? They only have, like, 15 people.” It’s a word of mouth game. So, the way I get hired as a marketing consultant, yes, sometimes it’s a potential client. But more often than not, you know, four out of five, it’s somebody else. My brother-in-law who reads my newsletter and finally knows what I do for a living after how many years, and a friend.

Michael Katz: [00:41:58] If you think about how word of mouth works, it’s two people sitting in Starbucks and somebody goes, “I’m just so sick of my accountant. He never calls me back, blah, blah, blah.” And then, the other guy goes, “Look at this guy’s newsletter, call him.” What’s funny is when people refer professionals like that, they don’t even necessarily know how the professional works, what they charge, how good they are. If I said, “I need a guitar teacher,” your brain goes, “Who do I know? Call this guy.”

Michael Katz: [00:42:27] So, if you take those 500 people, your brother-in-law, your college roommate, colleagues, more business people, and you’re in front of them every month, talking, whatever it is you do, what happens is they refer you. So, when I start a newsletter with a new client, I’m like, “Give me those people. Again, only people you know.” The first time you publish, out of 500, 50 of those people are going to unsubscribe. And, yes, you’ll get one person maybe.

Michael Katz: [00:42:51] Although, it doesn’t even happen anymore, who’s angry that they’re on the list. It happened ten years ago and when everybody was like, “Spam. Don’t spam me.” Now, for whatever reason, like when was the last time you heard somebody complain about spam? It’s not even a thing anymore. But, now, you’re off and running with your 450 people. And, yes, it’s good to add people because it’s a leaky bucket. Every month, people move or whatever. But you don’t need to, like, aggressively grow your list. In fact, I don’t know a way to do that that isn’t spam.

Michael Katz: [00:43:19] But I practice what I call aggressive opt in. When I meet somebody, I go, “Hey, can I do my list?” And we connect. So, I’m adding onesies, twosies all the time. You will get some people who wandered over to your website and sign up. But not a lot if you’re the average professional person. So, you have to kind of work it intentionally. But what’s amazing is, you only need, like, 500 people you know. Yes, if you’re selling products, you need 50,000 people. If you’re selling professional services, I mean, if I get 20 new clients a year, it’s all I can handle.

Michael Katz: [00:43:54] So, the numbers are small. And, again, it works very well for this population, which is different than if your target needs to do all kinds of stuff like this. It’s really not a list size thing. It’s a quality thing. Quality of the list.

Mike Blake: [00:44:09] Is there an optimal frequency for publishing newsletters?

Michael Katz: [00:44:12] Everyday. I think, again, for a professional service newsletter – once again, just to say – it varies. If you owned a bar, it’s probably once a week on a Thursday afternoon. But in my world, almost everybody I work with, it’s once a month. So, it’s only 12 times a year. And I say only, because it has to be manageable. I publish my newsletter every two weeks, which I think is perfect in terms of effectiveness. But most people can’t sustain that because they have real jobs. Once a month is a nice rhythm to that. It gives you time to get it ready, publish it, and then get some breathing room for a couple of weeks and start again.

Michael Katz: [00:44:57] It’s funny, like, 18 years ago, I would say to people, “Once a month, and your troubles are over.” Now, I say, “The least you can do it, I think, is once a month because there’s so many other things out there that you’ll be invisible if you back up to the default, which is quarterly.” I don’t think that’s enough anymore. But it’s more than enough – well, it’s enough. I mean, again, all my clients do it that way, mostly. And they all regularly, because people share their success stories, like, “Hey, I just got a new client. They read some of my newsletter.” You know, it happens all the time. So, it’s a good pace.

Mike Blake: [00:45:30] So, we’ve talked a little bit about, in effect, a long tail of newsletters and how you measure performance. But it also seems to me that one of the benefits of newsletters is that, unlike podcasts, for example, there’s a lot of data out there that can give you insight in terms of who’s opening it and who’s reading it, that sort of thing. Are those metrics that you follow? Do they matter to you? And if so, what do you really pay attention to? What do you use? And maybe what’s overhyped too?

Michael Katz: [00:46:02] Well, I think newsletter data is overhyped, because the only thing you can measure is opens and clicks and bounces. So, because that’s the only thing you can measure, that’s what we measure. But the truth is, if I’m not selling sneakers or something, what’s the difference how many clicks there were? It doesn’t matter. What matters is, has anyone ever said, “I called you because of your newsletter”? And I’d say even there, yes, you get these direct connects, which are great. I love when a client tells me that or I get that. My favorite call is somebody goes, “Hi. We’ve been reading your newsletter for two years and want to talk to you.” That’s a client coming up right there.

Michael Katz: [00:46:47] But people like to measure stuff. The thing is, with opens is, first of all, it’s inaccurate in many ways. And, by the way, Apple just made a change to their privacy policy. So, every Apple device is going to look like it opened your newsletter, so everybody is going to become even more irrelevant. But we’re not in a click to buy world. We’re in a relationship building world. So, it’s almost like if you went to a networking event and measured how many hands you shook, it kind of relates to did you make your way around the room. But it’s not really what you’re measuring.

Michael Katz: [00:47:21] So, although I do provide data to my clients, and people ask about it often or usually before they hire me, I’m not even sure they even look at it after they’re up and running. There’s a certain leap of faith, though, because it’s relationship building. It’s hard to connect A to B.

Michael Katz: [00:47:40] Part of the reason I work only with small firms now – I used to work with big companies – is because I got tired of having to defend it. Because if you’re the marketing guy in a big company – because I used to be – you got to defend everything you spent to the CFO. If you owned the business, I don’t need to explain to you the value of relationship building. So, I’d much rather work with someone who goes, “Yeah, I get it.”

Mike Blake: [00:48:03] So, we’re talking with Michael Katz. And the topic is, Should I create an email newsletter? Does the time of day that you send an email newsletter out matter?

Michael Katz: [00:48:19] Not anymore. I mean, back in the day when we all closed our computers at 5:00 on Friday and didn’t look at them until Monday morning, I think so. But it’s very much a 7 by 24 thing now. I try and avoid the times people are in heavy delete mode. So, even though it’s 7/24, people do sleep. So, you wouldn’t want to send a newsletter overnight.

Michael Katz: [00:48:40] Like, my wife wakes up, reaches for her phone, and starts deleting. She’s trying to clear the day so when she gets in front of her desk, she’s got less stuff. You don’t want to be in that pile because the bar is higher. I also avoid Mondays, because even though, yes, it’s 7/24, we do sort of slow down.

Michael Katz: [00:48:57] So, to me, a newsletter, any time between, like, 9:00 in the morning or 8:00 in the morning, I try to do in the morning rather than in the afternoon. But I have no data for that. And then, you know, Tuesday through Friday, again, for a business newsletter. But I have never found a difference in any measurable way that says, you know, middle of the week, middle of the day is better. But this kind of stuff, I don’t think matters.

Mike Blake: [00:49:26] One piece of advice you hear pretty frequently when engaging in digital marketing is to reuse that content if you can. If you’ve got a newsletter article, make it into a YouTube video, podcast, whatever, do you – no pun intended – subscribe to that theory? Or do you think that content needs to be more kind of siloed?

Michael Katz: [00:49:49] I totally agree. In fact, the best thing that happened to email newsletters is social media. I mean, when I first started doing a newsletter, you’d send the thing out and then it evaporated, it was email. So, if you subscribed to my newsletter 30 seconds after I sent it out, not only did you not get that one, you didn’t get any of the other ones because it was in the days before WordPress, where you could easily put the thing on your website. So, initially ,it was just email, send it, gone.

Michael Katz: [00:50:18] Then, the blog is invented. Now, you could send it, but also post it on your website, same content, though. But the nice thing is it now lives on your website, Google likes it, people can check it out after the fact. So, that was the state of the world for another five or six years.

Michael Katz: [00:50:34] Now, in social media, for example, with my newsletter. I put it on my website before I send it, now it’s a blog. Then, I send it, then I record it, now it’s a podcast. I don’t interview people like you’re doing, I just record it. But there’s a lot of sight impaired people, people who prefer to listen. What do I care? It adds 30 minutes to the process. So, now, I have a podcast. It’s on my website. It’s on iTunes. Then, I take it and I chop up little pieces of it.

Michael Katz: [00:50:59] And for the next year, I cycle it through my social media – which, for me, is almost entirely LinkedIn – with all my other newsletters. And then, it expires in a year. It’s just a little bit of a segment of it, an image, and I link it back to the thing on my website. So, I’m getting people who missed the first one. I mean, even your best readers, you know, if you’re open rate is north of 35 percent, you’re doing well. So, that means two out of three people don’t read each one at best. So, they see it on social media. I published a book, it was just 29 slightly changed newsletters.

Michael Katz: [00:51:38] So, it’s great. The hard part is writing it once. Then, how many different ways can you just spray this around over and over again? And, yes, I suppose – as I was joking earlier – there are some people who are like, “Hey, wait a second. I read this before.” But most people don’t. And this way you get way more mileage for your hard work of writing it once.

Mike Blake: [00:52:01] Michael, this has been a great conversation. We’re running out of time and I want to be respectful of yours. There are probably questions that we didn’t cover that somebody would have asked or didn’t go as deeply as somebody would have liked. If someone wants to contact you for more information about this topic, can they do so? And if so, what’s the best way to do that?

Michael Katz: [00:52:19] My website is just michaelkatz.com, and they can subscribe to my newsletter or contact me there.

Mike Blake: [00:52:27] Well, great. That’s going to wrap it up for today’s program. I’d like to thank Michael Katz so much for sharing his expertise with us.

Mike Blake: [00:52:35] We’ll be exploring a new topic each week, so please tune in so that when you’re faced with your next business decision, you have clear vision when making it. If you enjoy these podcasts, please consider leaving a review with your favorite podcast aggregator. It helps people find us that we can help them. If you’d like to engage with me on social media, with my Chart of the Day and other content, I’m on, LinkedIn as myself and @unblakeable on Facebook, Twitter, Clubhouse, and Instagram. Once again, this is Mike Blake. Our sponsor is Brady Ware & Company. And this has been the Decision Vision podcast.

 

Tagged With: Blue Penguin Development, Brady Ware & Company, Decision Vision podcast, email marketing, email newsletter, marketing, Michael Katz, Mike Blake, professional services marketing

Decision Vision Episode 134: Should I Sell to a SPAC? – An Interview with David Panton, Navigation Capital Partners

September 16, 2021 by John Ray

SPAC
Decision Vision
Decision Vision Episode 134: Should I Sell to a SPAC? - An Interview with David Panton, Navigation Capital Partners
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

SPAC

Decision Vision Episode 134: Should I Sell to a SPAC? – An Interview with David Panton, Navigation Capital Partners

In 2020, roughly half of all companies which went public did so through a SPAC, or a Special Purpose Acquisition Company. How does a SPAC work, and what are the pros and cons of going public through a SPAC as opposed to the traditional IPO route? How risky are SPACs? David Panton, whose firm invests exclusively in SPACs, joined Decision Vision host Mike Blake to answer these questions and much more. Decision Vision is presented by Brady Ware & Company.

Navigation Capital Partners

Navigation Capital Partners (NCP) is an Atlanta-based private equity firm focused exclusively on investing in a diverse portfolio of Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs). The principals of NCP formerly founded and managed Mellon Ventures, the private equity investment partnership of Mellon Financial Corporation. With the backing of Goldman Sachs Private Equity Opportunities Fund LP, NCP acquired the private equity portfolio of Mellon Ventures in December 2006.

In 2019, NCP launched its SPAC Operations Group which builds on the NCP legacy of transforming relatively small, high-growth companies into medium-sized ones and selling them to larger private equity firms to take them to the next level. In the 15 years since its inception, NCP has invested $399 million in 51 portfolio companies, including nine SPACs.

Company website | LinkedIn | Twitter

David Panton, Managing Partner, Navigation Capital Partners

David Panton, Managing Partner, Navigation Capital Partners

David Panton is a Managing Partner of Navigation Capital’s SPAC Operations Group, which makes equity investments in Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs).

David is also a co-founder of Navigation Capital Partners LP, an Atlanta-based private equity firm that has made growth and buyout investments in middle-market operating companies. In partnership with Goldman Sachs, its portfolio has included investments in 40+ operating companies representing equity investments (including co-investments) of approximately $800 million.

David is also the Chairman of Panton Equity Partners, a private family office, which he founded in 2012, and is an Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Finance at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. David has served as a Board Member on over 15 companies, including Brand Bank (sold to Renasant Bank), Track Utilities (sold to CIVC Partners), SecureWorks (sold to Dell Technologies), and Exeter Finance (sold to Blackstone).

David is a co-founder and former Chief Strategy Officer of American Virtual Cloud Technologies (Nasdaq: AVCT), which previously raised $310 million in July 2017 as Pensare Acquisition Corp., and completed an acquisition of Computex Technology Solutions in April 2020. AVCT is a portfolio company of SPAC Opportunity Partners LP.

Between 2003 and 2006, David was a Vice President at Mellon Ventures (now Navigation Capital Partners), a $1.4 billion private equity firm, where he focused on growth capital and buyout investments. Previously, he co-founded and served as Managing Director of Caribbean Equity Partners, a private equity firm focused on investments in the Caribbean and Latin America. Prior to that, he was an Associate at Morgan Stanley in New York City, where he focused on mergers and acquisitions in Latin America and the Caribbean.

David also served as CEO of CMP Industries, a publicly traded company in Kingston, Jamaica, and is a former Senator in the Upper House of Parliament in Jamaica. David was named by Buyouts Magazine as “One of Eight Buyout Pros Under 40 to Watch” in 2009 and by the Atlanta Business Chronicle as one of the “40 Under 40” Rising Stars in 2011. He is a member of the Atlanta Chapter of the Young Presidents Organization (YPO) and is a former member of the Atlanta Group of Tiger 21 and Leadership Atlanta (Class of 2012). He is Chairman of the Jamaican-American Chamber of Commerce of Atlanta, a former member of the Board of the Michael C. Carlos Museum of the Arts, and is a former Trustee of Holy Innocents’ Episcopal School in Atlanta, GA.

David holds a Master Professional Director Certification from the American College of Corporate Directors. David received a Doctorate in Management Studies from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, a J.D. (with honors) from Harvard Law School, where he was elected President of the Harvard Law Review, and an A.B. (with high honors) in Public Policy from Princeton University.

Born and raised in Jamaica, he resides in Atlanta, GA.

LinkedIn

Mike Blake, Brady Ware & Company

Mike Blake, Host of the “Decision Vision” podcast series

Michael Blake is the host of the Decision Vision podcast series and a Director of Brady Ware & Company. Mike specializes in the valuation of intellectual property-driven firms, such as software firms, aerospace firms, and professional services firms, most frequently in the capacity as a transaction advisor, helping clients obtain great outcomes from complex transaction opportunities. He is also a specialist in the appraisal of intellectual properties as stand-alone assets, such as software, trade secrets, and patents.

Mike has been a full-time business appraiser for 13 years with public accounting firms, boutique business appraisal firms, and an owner of his own firm. Prior to that, he spent 8 years in venture capital and investment banking, including transactions in the U.S., Israel, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

Brady Ware & Company

Brady Ware & Company is a regional full-service accounting and advisory firm which helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality. Brady Ware services clients nationally from its offices in Alpharetta, GA; Columbus and Dayton, OH; and Richmond, IN. The firm is growth-minded, committed to the regions in which they operate, and most importantly, they make significant investments in their people and service offerings to meet the changing financial needs of those they are privileged to serve. The firm is dedicated to providing results that make a difference for its clients.

Decision Vision Podcast Series

Decision Vision is a podcast covering topics and issues facing small business owners and connecting them with solutions from leading experts. This series is presented by Brady Ware & Company. If you are a decision-maker for a small business, we’d love to hear from you. Contact us at decisionvision@bradyware.com and make sure to listen to every Thursday to the Decision Vision podcast.

Past episodes of Decision Vision can be found at decisionvisionpodcast.com. Decision Vision is produced and broadcast by the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX®.

Connect with Brady Ware & Company:

Website | LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

TRANSCRIPT

Intro: [00:00:01] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast series focusing on critical business decisions. Brought to you by Brady Ware & Company. Brady Ware is a regional full-service accounting and advisory firm that helps businesses and entrepreneurs make visions a reality.

Mike Blake: [00:00:22] Welcome to Decision Vision, a podcast giving you, the listener, clear vision to make great decisions. In each episode, we discuss the process of decision making on a different topic from the business owners’ or executives’ perspective. We aren’t necessarily telling you what to do, but we can put you in a position to make an informed decision on your own and understand when you might need help along the way.

Mike Blake: [00:00:43] My name is Mike Blake, and I’m your host for today’s program. I’m a director at Brady Ware & Company, a full -service accounting firm based in Dayton, Ohio, with offices in Dayton; Columbus, Ohio; Richmond, Indiana; and Alpharetta, Georgia. Brady Ware is sponsoring this podcast, which is being recorded in Atlanta per social distancing protocols. If you like to engage with me on social media with my Chart of the Day and other content, I’m on LinkedIn as myself and at @unblakeable on Facebook, Twitter, Clubhouse, and Instagram. If you like this podcast, please subscribe on your favorite podcast aggregator, and please consider leaving a review of the podcast as well.

Mike Blake: [00:01:23] And before we start on that note, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all of you who are listening to the program and are clearly telling other people about this program so that we can, frankly, help other people. I was delighted to learn last week that we have passed 27 million cumulative downloads of this program since launching it 30 months ago. And we’ve also actually passed a very important milestone a while ago, we’re at 40,000 downloads for each new episode within the 30 days of publishing a new episode, which puts us firmly in the top one percent of all business related podcasts.

Mike Blake: [00:02:03] And I cannot thank you enough, not just for downloading, but clearly you’re listening, clearly you’re telling other people that they would benefit from listening to this program. And this is why I do it. You know, we don’t have commercials on this. I’m not monetizing this in any way. This is just a way that we, as the Decision Vision team, give back and try to share some wisdom, and some advice, and counsel, maybe even some infotainment along the way to help you become better or more confident in the decisions that you’re making. And so, I just like to take a moment to thank you for all your support of the program, and I hope that we’ll justify your support in the future.

Mike Blake: [00:02:45] I’d like to thank Brady Ware, who has given me the time and resources to do this podcast. I could not do it without them. I could not do it without Business RadioX. And, of course, we couldn’t do it without all of our guests. Because if I were doing this podcast by myself, it would be two episodes, probably the intro and then the final episode, because I don’t know enough to carry a show on my own. So, without the guests who donate their time and expertise throughout the program, this really wouldn’t be much of a program at all.

Mike Blake: [00:03:14] So, without further ado, I’ll introduce today’s topic, which is, Should I sell or form to a Special Purpose Acquisition Company or SPAC? And you may be familiar with SPACs or you may not, it really depends on how tied you are with the financial markets. And we don’t do a lot of hardcore finance on the program. But every once in a while we do because there will be something that comes up that, I think, warrants us covering it. If nothing else that you’re aware of what that financial vehicle, that financial decision is out there, and you may find yourself with that decision.

Mike Blake: [00:03:52] And so, our guest will come on and tell us exactly what a SPAC is. But if you found that you’ve been hearing about them a lot, it’s not by accident. You know, a SPAC is, in effect, a poor person’s IPO. Some people say a rich person’s IPO. But our guest will talk about that. But in 2016, there are about 20 SPACs, Special Purpose Acquisition Companies, that were formed in 2016. And in 2020, there are over 400, with an average size of $300 million in capital raised per transaction.

Mike Blake: [00:04:24] That’s a big deal, right? Four hundred times $200 million will be $12 billion of capital. That’s a lot of capital out there. And that’s why you’re hearing a lot about it. And even if you’re not necessarily going to be taking a company into an exit, into a public liquidity event or quasi public liquidity event, you probably still want to know what a SPAC is. And you may find yourself in the position of asking yourself, “Is this something that we could do with our company?” And finding out whether or not that’s a realistic or desirable path is what we’re all about here on the Decision Vision program, is to help you understand what it is and what kind of decision might you have to make, and what is a good framework in which you might make that decision.

Mike Blake: [00:05:08] So, joining me today is our guest, David Panton, who is a Cofounder of Navigation Capital Partners LP. They’re long standing, one of the premier investment banking, private equity, and merchant banking houses in Atlanta. They’ve been around since I’ve been in Atlanta, which is at least 20 years. And they’ve made growth and buyout investments in middle market and operating companies. In partnership with Goldman Sachs, their portfolio has included investments in over 40 operating companies representing equity investments of approximately $800 million.

Mike Blake: [00:05:39] David is a managing partner of Navigation Capital SPAC Operations Group, which makes equity investments in the special purpose acquisition companies. In 2019, Navigation Capital Partners or NCP launched their SPAC Operations Group, which builds on their legacy of transforming relatively small, high growth companies in the medium sized ones and selling them to larger private equity firms to take them to the next level. In the 15 years since its inception, NCP has invested $399 million dollars in 51 portfolio companies, including nine SPACs. And for more information, you can visit navigationcapital.com.

Mike Blake: [00:06:18] In addition to his professional roles, David is a former senator in the Upper House of the Parliament in Jamaica. He was named by Buyouts Magazine as one of the Eight Buyout Pros of Under 40 to Watch in 2009 and by the Atlanta Business Chronicle as one of its 40 Under 40 Rising Stars in 2011. He is a member of the Atlanta Chapter of the Young Presidents’ Organization and is a former member of the Atlanta Group TIGER 21 and Leadership Atlanta Class of 2012. The second best class ever, second only to the Class of 2014. And if you’re in the Leadership Atlanta Group – he’s laughing – you know exactly what that means.

Mike Blake: [00:06:53] David received a Doctorate in Management Studies from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar; a JD with Honors from Harvard Law School, where he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review; and an AB with High Honors in Public Policy from Princeton University. David, welcome to the program.

David Panton: [00:07:09] Thank you so much, Mike. Great to be here.

Mike Blake: [00:07:11] So, David, SPAC is a fairly technical concept. And in some ways, I think kind of a subtle one. So, I’d like to ease our audience in a little bit. Can you describe what a SPAC is?

David Panton: [00:07:25] Sure. So, let’s start with the acronym SPAC, it stands for Special Purpose Acquisition Company. And that describes in broad part, so let’s just break it down. Well, let’s start with the company part. So, the first is it’s a company. So, it’s not any newfangled instrument. It’s not an NFT. It’s not bitcoin. It’s just a company. And it’s a company that is publicly traded.

David Panton: [00:07:55] So, typically, you will have a sponsor for a SPAC, Special Purpose Acquisition Company. They will form a company. That company will be taken public. And through the traditional process, known as the IPO process, Initial Public Offering. So, a sponsor pay for the costs of taking a company public. The company is now public. But unlike traditional public companies which have operations, SPAC has one asset, and that asset is cash. So, it raises capital. As you said, the average amount raised in SPAC so far this year is around 300 million.

David Panton: [00:08:35] And by the way, let me just correct you on the math there. You mentioned 400 SPACs, 300 million. It’s not 12 billion. It’s 120 billion.

Mike Blake: [00:08:43] I knew it. I thought it was off by a zero and I couldn’t do a lot of talking in the microphone. So, thank you for bailing me out there.

David Panton: [00:08:49] So, there is 120 billion raised in SPAC. So, these are public offerings by these companies, which raise so far this year $120 billion. So, they have one asset which is cash. Then, the SPAC sponsor has a certain time period, which is usually 24 months, but it could be 18 months, it could be 12 months, in which to find an operating company. So, think of a SPAC as a blank check company, it’s what it’s known as, or a special purpose vehicle with cash, whose objective is to find an operating company that can acquire or merge into within a certain period of time, typically 24 months or two years.

David Panton: [00:09:31] At the end of that two year period, if the sponsor has not found a company, then this is a very unique element of SPAC, which really doesn’t exist in any other investment category that I know of. The sponsors have to give the money that was invested by the investors in the IPO back to the investors. That’s known as a redemption. So, there’s a redemption rite that investors in SPAC IPOs have.

David Panton: [00:09:57] When the company is found, the sponsors have to go back to the investors and get it approved by the investors in the SPAC IPO or whoever the shareholders are in the company at that time. And when that is done, if the shareholders approve the deal – and the good news is that happens almost all of the time – then the operating company, which is now merged into the SPAC becomes the new publicly traded company.

David Panton: [00:10:24] So, the last thing I’ll say on this is that, effectively what a SPAC is, is a company with cash with a certain time period in which to merge with an operating company, typically a private company, that makes that private company public. So, it’s a mechanism of doing effectively a reverse merger of a private company into the public SPAC that was raised. And then, after that, that company is straight way public company.

David Panton: [00:10:55] So, Hostess, as an example – we’ve all seen Hostess Twinkies – was a company owned by a private equity firm. Someone set up a SPAC, another firm called Gores. That SPAC approached Hostess and said, “Hostess, we want to effectively take you public.” They negotiated a transaction, and Hostess did a reverse merger into the special purpose acquisition company. They changed the name to Hostess. And today, Hostess is just a publicly traded company. It was a mechanism for Hostess to go public.

Mike Blake: [00:11:27] I knew some of the Hostess story. I guess they must have been effectively bought out of bankruptcy to get into a SPAC?

David Panton: [00:11:35] So, I want to be clear on that. In fact, I don’t think a single SPAC has bought a company out of bankruptcy. So, I don’t want people to think that this is just a mechanism to buy companies out of bankruptcy. In fact, SPACs are not good for that. Hostess did go through a bankruptcy. They were bought by a private equity firm, actually two private equity firms. Those private equity firms are growing the company, and they were trying to exit from their investment. And a SPAC approached them and said, “Why don’t you merge your now rehabilitated company and growing company with less debt into a public vehicle?” And that’s what they did. And it’s actually even a very good investment.

David Panton: [00:12:15] Burger King, by the way, was also a SPAC. It didn’t go through a bankruptcy. Just a good company owned by a private equity firm. It was seeking a mechanism to exit or, actually, to facilitate liquidity.

David Panton: [00:12:28] And one important thing – and I think this may be important for your listeners who are all entrepreneurs, executives – the vast majority of SPACs, the shareholders of the company, the private company, become the majority shareholders of the public company. So, it really is largely a mechanism if you are the owners of a private company and want to go public, it’s just a mechanism of going public.

David Panton: [00:12:54] So, you have options if you’re a private owner. You could sell to private equity. You could go public in the traditional IPO process. Or if you want to exit, you could use a SPAC route. So, think of it as a mechanism if you’re the owner of a company of taking your company public, but through a SPAC, not through the traditional IPO process.

Mike Blake: [00:13:18] So, the way you described it is interesting. Let me come back to you. First of all, I guess one of the object lessons, any time you think of a Twinkie now you can think of a SPAC. It’s, “I’m eating Twinkies. Remember a SPAC is making that possible.”

David Panton: [00:13:29] Or if you’re eating a Whopper, that was a SPAC.

Mike Blake: [00:13:32] Or a Whopper. Exactly. You know, Whopper. Exactly. But the fact that the owners of the company themselves are providing the capital, is it fair to say in a way this is a mechanism for a company to kind of take itself public as opposed to making an offering to external shareholders and hoping that they buy?

David Panton: [00:13:53] Yes and no. And I do want to clarify one thing that you said. You said the owners of the company are providing capital. The SPAC is providing the capital. So, if you were an owner of a company, why would you choose a SPAC over a traditional IPO? Maybe that’s one way of thinking about it. And there are reasons why some companies go public through SPACs and there are reasons why they go through the traditional process.

David Panton: [00:14:18] Last year, in 2020, half of the IPOs in America or more than half were SPAC IPO. So, half of the cases, owners of companies chose the SPAC process over the traditional IPO process. And there are pros and cons of each, and let’s just go through them quickly.

David Panton: [00:14:35] The biggest advantage of a SPAC, number one, you actually are merging into an entity which, typically, has a board and has individuals in place who typically know that industry. So, most SPACs are industry focused. And there isn’t just an advantage, especially if you’re a smaller company that’s growing, and just having a strategic partner, and a board of directors or people who can add value to you.

David Panton: [00:14:59] That doesn’t apply in a traditional IPO. If you’re doing a traditional IPO, you’re just going public. I mean, you could add people to your board, but you don’t really have a strategic partner. That’s one advantage of a SPAC.

David Panton: [00:15:10] The second advantage is you have built in capital. And that capital is typically the capital that was raised in the IPO. Now, there’s a risk that that capital can go away. So, that’s a negative of a SPAC, which is the capital may be there or it may not be there. But the SPAC market has effectively created a way to ensure that the capital is there. And that mechanism is something known as a PIPE. So, when you think of SPACs – I know there’s lots of acronyms – Special Purpose Acquisition Companies, don’t think of SPAC without a PIPE. SPAC is on the front end, PIPE on the back end.

David Panton: [00:15:44] What does a PIPE stand for? PIPE stands for Private Investment in a Public Entity. And all that is, is a private placement at the time that the SPAC has identified a target company with which it wants to merge. And then, they go to investors, typically long term fundamental investors, in public companies to say, “Listen, why don’t you participate in this company and give us additional capital?” Or if not new capital, a backstop against the redemptions from the capital that was raised in the initial IPO.

David Panton: [00:16:16] And so, that gives some certainty because that capital is fully committed capital that the company which is going public through this SPAC process will actually have capital that’s needed. So, it is a mechanism for the owners of the company to either take some cash off the table because they want to get some cash and/or to have new cash going into the company on the balance sheet, which is more likely in most recent SPACs and most of the SPAC transactions that have occurred this year. So, it provides capital.

David Panton: [00:16:51] And then, the third advantage is certainty, more certainty than an IPO. In an IPO, you may or may not go public. It may or may not work. In a SPAC transaction, you’re negotiating a merger. And once you’ve negotiated that merger, and especially if you put a PIPE in place, there’s a very, very high likelihood the deal is going to get done. In the IPO market, it may happen, it may not happen.

David Panton: [00:17:18] And one of the reasons actually that SPACs boomed last year is that the IPO market, because of what happened with COVID, et cetera, sort of declined. The market was jittery. But because SPACs have committed capital or have a pool of capital available to them and they do these mergers, it made it easier for SPAC transactions to get done.

David Panton: [00:17:42] And then, the final advantage, I would say, about a SPAC IPO versus a traditional IPO – and there are several others, but these are the primary ones. I mean, speed is another reason. You can probably do a SPAC IPO in a much shorter time than the traditional IPO – the last one I would focus on is the ability to set the valuation of the company.

David Panton: [00:18:10] And what I mean by that is, you’ve probably seen that when other companies have gone public, you’ve seen that they go public and save $10 a share. And then, you hear that there was a big pop and it went from 10 to 20, or 30, or 40. And that sounds great for the investor, but it’s actually terrible for the owners of the company. Because if they could have gone public at 40, then they should have gone public at 40.

Mike Blake: [00:18:33] The last 30 bucks a share on the table.

David Panton: [00:18:35] They left 30 bucks a share on the table. And that is a huge, huge issue. In a SPAC transaction, you basically value it at, say, 40 or 30 or whatever the number is, and that’s the price. It’s very, very rare that you see this big pop. So, you’re able to maximize the valuation of a company in a SPAC transaction because it’s a negotiated transaction with another party and a merger as opposed to just going to the market.

David Panton: [00:19:01] And, you know, listen, I work with investment banks. I love investment banks. I don’t want to say anything negative about investment banks. But investment banks are in the business of making money and they’re in the business of helping their friends. And the investment banks were the underwriters of IPOs and SPACs. So, we work with investment banks all the time.

David Panton: [00:19:19] They have, historically, gone and given IPO allocations to their friends and institutional investors that they like and said, “Hey, we’ll get you in at a certain price.” They’ll typically negotiate the price that’s relatively low because everyone wants the price to go up. And, therefore, the investors do very well. But the actual owners of the company, typically, leave a lot of money on the table in a traditional IPO, and SPAC IPOs avoid that. And that amount, by the way, billions and billions of dollars, so it’s not an insignificant consideration.

Mike Blake: [00:19:54] Yeah. I’ve been in the investment banking business and I know exactly what you’re talking about. I don’t disagree with it. I could easily divert the podcast that way, but maybe we’ll have you back on, we’ll talk about that in another episode.

David Panton: [00:20:06] That’s a different story.

Mike Blake: [00:20:08] But, you know, you brought something up that I want to make sure that I covered, which is, we’re hearing a lot about SPACs now, but they’ve actually been around for quite some time. They’re actually not a new vehicle. They’re just new to a lot of people. And granted, COVID has, perhaps as so many things, given a lot of momentum to things that are already taking place. But why have SPACs suddenly become so popular in the last few years?

David Panton: [00:20:36] Well, that’s a great question. My view – and this is just my view – is that it really came down to one transaction. And that one transaction was a SPAC raised by two of the legends in the SPAC world, a guy named Jeff Sagansky and Harry Sloan. And they raised the SPAC called Diamond Eagle Acquisition Corp. Almost every SPAC has the name acquisition corp. at the end. They raised it in May of 2019, and they raised $400 million. Their underwriter was Goldman Sachs, where Goldman Sachs helped raise $400 million from a large number of institutional shareholders.

David Panton: [00:21:16] The investors in Diamond Eagle, who invested the $400 million received units. Those units – which is one of the differences between a traditional IPO and a SPAC IPO. You’ll see units rather than just shares – include a bundle of securities, which includes typically one share. And then, very importantly, they received a warrant or a-half-a-warrant or a-third-of-a-warrant. That warrant is another security like a share, which gives them a right to buy shares in the future.

Mike Blake: [00:21:51] It’s an option effectively.

David Panton: [00:21:52] It’s an option. That’s exactly right. So, an option to participate if the price goes up in the future. And, typically, almost all SPACs go public at $10 per share. And the options are typically priced at 11.50. So, that’s what’s known as the strike price of the option. So, if the stock goes up to 11.50, then the warrant/option is valuable. And if the price goes down, it doesn’t have value.

David Panton: [00:22:16] But because there’s potential value, these options/warrants trade. They trade separately from the shares. There’s an option market. You can buy these options. A lot of hedge funds invest in these options. And they have a value, and they’re typically around $0.50. So, $0.50 on a $10 investments by the investors in the IPO works out to be a five percent return. It’s pretty good, actually, especially in a market where interest rates are relatively low. And you still have the shares if the price goes up.

David Panton: [00:22:48] And, by the way, the vast majority of investors – which you should know and your listeners should know – in SPAC IPOs are hedge funds because this is a financial instrument. It’s not an operating company. And hedge funds love financial instruments.

Mike Blake: [00:23:05] Yes, they do.

David Panton: [00:23:07] Downside protection and upside potential. So, the investor is invested in Diamond Eagle. Majority of the investors were, in fact, hedge funds. They gave $400 million to Diamond Eagle. And within a very short period of time, they identified not one, but two companies that they could put together to take public. The two companies, one of them you would know probably fairly well, the other one you probably wouldn’t know. The one you would know is called DraftKings, and DraftKings is an online gaming company.

Mike Blake: [00:23:42] Daily fantasy sports.

David Panton: [00:23:44] Exactly right. Fantasy sports, et cetera. And as you know, many states are decriminalizing online gaming. It used to be illegal, now less so. And there was a Supreme Court case which has made it almost impossible to ban online gaming. They’re a huge, huge business. Unprofitable business, by the way, but fast growing. It wasn’t that large. We’re talking about 300 million in revenues. They wanted to put it together with another company. And the name of that company is called SBTech, which actually was an Israeli company, which provided the technology platform for gaming, not just for DraftKings, but for other companies as well.

David Panton: [00:24:25] The combined two companies had about 400 million in revenues, maybe a little less. And were valued at $3 billion, a very high multiple of revenues. They’re both unprofitable. But the reason they have that valuation is because of the growth rate. They announced the deal in December of 2019. And the price didn’t move much from $10. As most announcements, price moves a little bit but not much. They then went onto the market and went out to long term investors and said, “You should invest in DraftKings.” And a lot of people were interested in it.

David Panton: [00:25:04] And they had an analyst day, which very few companies have done and then they did something. And one huge difference between SPACs and a traditional IPO – I should have said this earlier actually – is that in a SPAC IPO, you are able to provide forward looking projections, which you cannot do in a traditional IPO. So, in the case of DraftKings, even though the company was unprofitable today, they could say, “We are planning to grow the company to a billion dollars of EBITDA in the future.” And that’s what they said. Now, if you did that in a traditional IPO, the SEC would say, “No, no, no. You can’t do that. You can’t say what you’re going to do in the future.

Mike Blake: [00:25:46] Which is bizarre, by the way.

David Panton: [00:25:48] It’s little bit bizarre.

Mike Blake: [00:25:50] It’s bizarre they’re not likely to do that, by the way. But go ahead.

David Panton: [00:25:52] You know, you’re right, it is a little bit bizarre and it really is just a result of a loophole, right? And the loophole is that, a SPAC is really a merger, not an IPO. And if you’re doing a merger, you have to show the numbers that you are basing the merger on to all the investors. So, you’re right, it is a little bit unusual.

David Panton: [00:26:12] So, anyway, they put these projections and the deal closed in April of 2020. Now, understand, in January 2020, there was no huge upswing in SPACs. It didn’t happen in February. It didn’t happen in March. It didn’t happen in April. When DraftKings was announced and closed, the deal closed in April – so it was announced in December of 2019, closed in April of 2020 – the stock price doubled from $10 to $20. It was the first time that a SPAC at close had doubled in price. It never happened before because of that certainty issue I spoke about.

David Panton: [00:26:49] So, all the investors who had invested less than a year before, who had warrants, saw that the value of their investment, $10, was worth almost $30 because of the warrant. So, the price went from 10 to 20, so the shares were worth two times. And then, you add the warrants, they were worth close to $10 dollars. That’s another $10, almost $30. So, in less than a year, investors in a public security made three times their money.

David Panton: [00:27:14] And if it had not done well, they would have gotten their money back plus a return. And a lot of investors woke up to the fact that, hold on a second, there is an instrument out there where you can make three times your money in less than a year with basically no or very little downside risk. Where do we get into this game?

David Panton: [00:27:36] And in May and then in June, you saw an uptick, a number of people getting into the space. And so, you saw a very significant growth. And so, we went from in 2019 only about 14 billion raised, to 2020 over 80 billion or close to 80. And then, in 2021, this year, in the first quarter we did over 100 billion and we’re now at 120. Now, I should point out this was too much money, too fast, too soon.

David Panton: [00:28:09] And there’s been a significant correction over the past few months. And so, the amount of new offerings in SPACs has diminished quite significantly. Last week, there were about six. So, the number has come down, but they’re still, as you pointed out, over 400 SPACs that have gone public this year that have raised over $120 billion. And so, lots of SPACs are out there. But I think it’s because of DraftKings, ultimately, where people saw that value.

Mike Blake: [00:28:39] So, you know, what you’re describing, I think, probably has a lot of people interested in a SPAC. They’re learning about it. They’re learning about the benefits. If I’m in a company right now, I own the company or I’m in the C-suite, I’m a CFO, how can I tell if my company is a good or viable SPAC candidate or not?

David Panton: [00:29:02] Now, that’s a great question. And I do want to be clear because most of what I’ve said is very positive. Like, the SBTech, actually, the majority owner today is a billionaire who just joined the Forbes list. The stock has gone significantly, I don’t know where it is today, but it went as high as $60 from $10.

Mike Blake: [00:29:23] I promise I’ll give you a chance to talk about risk. I have that question coming up. So, don’t worry.

David Panton: [00:29:27] Okay. We’ll talk about it. All right. So, the question is, how do you know whether you’re viable? Here is the best way to think about viability. The best way to think about viability, first issue is size. The reality is not everyone should be a public company. Small companies should not be public.

David Panton: [00:29:41] So, unfortunately, I’m sure a lot of your listeners who are entrepreneurs or executives in companies that are below a certain amount of revenue are unlikely to be good targets for a public company. You need a certain size, and that size typically is around $100 million of revenues or more. And the higher the better. Some people would argue that even a 100 million is too small. You need 200 million. You need 500 million. You need a billion.

David Panton: [00:30:09] Now, I do want to caveat that with one thing, which is that, there were many companies that have emerged into SPACs that had zero revenue at all. And why did that happen? And how did that happen? It happened because of the second reason after size, which is size of industry, what’s known as TAM. There are lots of acronyms in the SPAC world, so SPAC and PIPE, the next one is TAM. TAM stands for Total Addressable Market size.

David Panton: [00:30:40] So, there are certain industries which are very large and growing. Like, for example, the electric vehicle industry. We all know that at some point in the future, the vast majority of cars are going to be electric cars. That’s one of the reasons Tesla has a valuation that it does, which is staggering. It’s like bigger than all the major car companies, because they’re in the right industry, which is huge.

David Panton: [00:31:03] And there are EV companies, for example, that went public because people figured at some point they will grow. So, even though they don’t have the size to be, this is a bet on the future. And remember, I said that SPACs can show projections into the future, which traditional IPOs can’t. If you can show in five years or six years, you’re going to be a billion dollar company then people are willing to pay for that value today. So, the second is TAM.

David Panton: [00:31:28] The third is growth. You’ve got to show a high growth rate. So, if you’re in a traditional state industry, not such a great thing. You know, you want to be in an industry which is growing or your company within that industry is growing.

David Panton: [00:31:41] The fourth is margins. You want to show that you have attractive margins. And by margins, I mean gross profit margins and EBITDA margins, Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization, which is the most common metric that public companies trade on. Although many of these companies trade on revenues because they don’t have EBITDA.

David Panton: [00:32:01] So, if you’re thinking about going public, do you have a size either today in terms of revenues or visibility into revenues? If you’re in a large TAM, large Total Addressable Market, that you have growth historically or you think will happen in the future. And you have pretty decent margins today or you expect to have decent margins in the future. Those are the main elements sort of threshold questions.

David Panton: [00:32:27] And then, if you meet those threshold questions, you think you have the size and the growth rate to be attractive to public company investors because that’s what you need to have, then the most important variable is, do you have the numbers? Because you have to actually have the financial system in a SPAC. You have to do what’s known as – here’s another acronym. This is the longest one – PCAOB audit.

David Panton: [00:32:55] So, every private company that merges into a SPAC has to have, typically, two and oftentimes three years of PCAOB audits. What does PCAOB stand for? Well, you’re an auditor so you probably know or you’re in the space. It stands for Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. So, after the 2008 issues, the government set up, basically, a public-private partnership which is an oversight organization, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which provides certain metrics on how accounting firms should audit publicly traded companies. And there are certain things that they have to do or cannot do. They have to be independent, et cetera. And they have to have certain financial systems in place in a company. And not all companies can meet the PCAOB requirements.

David Panton: [00:33:51] So, the final thing I’d say, you know, for especially the CFOs who are listening, is you’ve got to make sure that your systems are strong and your reporting system, the financial system, so that when you do an audit, which is required, that you can meet the PCAOB standards.

Mike Blake: [00:34:10] And generally speaking, PCAOB means that it’s going to be a national accounting firm. It’s not going to be your local two person CPA shop. And it’s going to be expensive and it’s going to be involved. Like, even my firm, we have 150 people, we don’t do PCAOB audits. It’s just a different skill set. It requires a different, different scale of personnel in order to do that competently.

David Panton: [00:34:33] That’s right. You’re absolutely right. It’s more expensive and there are only a few people who do it. And it’s a long difficult process.

Mike Blake: [00:34:42] So, I hinted on this a second, but I do want to give you a chance because I know you don’t want to oversell SPACs. What are the risks? Where can SPACs go wrong? Maybe you know of some cases where they have gone wrong and why?

David Panton: [00:34:57] Yeah. So, you know, the biggest negative of SPACs – and SPACs have critics. There are many people who don’t like SPACs – the biggest sort of criticism is related to what is known as the sponsor promote. So, people who invest in SPACs – and we invest in SPACs – we receive a very lucrative promote. And that promote is, typically, 25 percent of the amount of money raised. So, if you do a $100 million dollar IPO, you get 25 million in stock. And if you add the 25 million in stock to the 100 million, then that becomes 25 of 125, so it’s now 20 percent. So, it’s 25 percent pre-money, 20 percent post-money, so 20 percent fully diluted.

David Panton: [00:35:53] And that’s a very [inaudible] dilution to everyone. It’s a dilution to the company that you merge with, because there is these extra shares out there. It’s a dilution to public company investors as you go forward. And so, that dilution creates a misalignment of incentives, which is the second problem. So, there is a cost to SPACs, which is that you’re giving up a large percentage of shares to the sponsor, which is dilutive to the original owners. They don’t like it.

David Panton: [00:36:26] There are ways to fix that. You can negotiate to get some of those sponsor shares, which has happened in transaction. You can get the sponsor to give up some of those shares, which has happened. You can get the sponsor to put those shares into an earn out, which has also happened. In the vast majority of cases, there are some modification to that SPAC sponsor promote, which is quite significant. So, the biggest negative is the dilution associated with the sponsor promote.

David Panton: [00:36:50] And then, the second is this misalignment of interests. Because the sponsor is, basically, coming into a $10 stock at a fairly low price, around a-buck or a-buck-50, and it’s at $10. So, if the stock price falls from 10 to 6 or 7, they’re still making a lot of money. But for new investors who want to come in the company, they want the stock to go above 10, typically, if they come in at 10 or PIPE investors. And so, it does create a little bit of a misalignment of interest.

David Panton: [00:37:22] And so, understanding that is important. And so, the issue is not that it’s a bad thing per se. If you can get alignment of interest, if you can negotiate correct terms, if you’re an owner or an entrepreneur, then it’s a good deal. And that has happened many times, which is why, you know, half the time that has occurred.

David Panton: [00:37:43] The last thing I would say is that, there is an inherent challenge associated with SPACs in terms of investor participation. Remember I said that the vast majority of investors in SPACs are hedge funds. Hedge funds, for the most part, are short term oriented, financial metric driven. They’re not really interested for the most part in long term growth companies.

Mike Blake: [00:38:06] They’re overgrown day traders. Brought us about it, right? They’re overgrown day traders.

David Panton: [00:38:12] You said it. I didn’t. So, there is a real challenge in that your shareholder base, you know, SPAC is not the shareholder base you want for a company for the long term. You actually want long term fundamental investors. You want people like Fidelity, and Wellington, and T. Rowe Price, and Neuberger, and long term fundamental investors.

David Panton: [00:38:34] And there’s a challenge in shifting your investor base from the short term hedge fund oriented financial arbitrage guys into longer term players. And that process can be hard, difficult, complicated. And it can affect your price. One of the reasons that recently the number of SPAC exit transactions has declined is because of this very issue, which is that, the stock price of SPACs has not been that high because a lot of these hedge funds are dumping stocks in SPACs across the board, regardless of what it did.

David Panton: [00:39:11] So, even good companies, there’s dump in stock. Which is great for people like me who are like, “We’ll buy them.” But not so good for the owners of the company, et cetera. So, that third issue of the transition from short term investors to longer term investors is oftentimes a challenge.

Mike Blake: [00:39:28] Yeah. And I guess that also does create some short term volatility that may or may not be connected to the fundamentals of the company.

David Panton: [00:39:35] Correct. That’s exactly right. Whereas, if you do a traditional IPO, you’re almost 100 percent certain that the participants in that stock, the vast majority of participants, are long term fundamental. Not always. And we’ve seen – which is worth mentioning since you mentioned day traders – this Robin Hood effect. And I should also add that that Robin Hood effect was a part of the explanation for the increase in 2020.

David Panton: [00:40:00] So, Robin Hood, as you know, it’s an online site, effectively an app, I guess, where people can invest. People who typically didn’t have access to traditional brokerage accounts could invest easily online. And these are people who invested in GameStop, et cetera.

David Panton: [00:40:17] And what happened is a lot of people invested in SPACs. It became very hot. A lot of them lost money and they went away. So, easy come, easy go. And so, retail participation or the lack of retail participation then pulling back from the market has also contributed to some of the decline in the market. And, you know, do you want to be associated with that necessarily?

David Panton: [00:40:42] And, by the way, that doesn’t necessarily happen with SPACs only. It could happen with traditional IPOs. But because SPACs are already trading, you know, SPACs were more likely to be recipients of – what I call – hot money from retail investors under that Robin Hood effect. And that’s another issue that people should know.

Mike Blake: [00:41:05] So, I’ve been reading and hearing that the government, the U.S. government in particular, the SEC, is taking a hard look at SPACs and evaluating whether or not they require their own set of regulations, more stringent oversight or some combination of the two. Are you hearing the same thing? And if so, do you think that’s likely to actually happen? And if so, do you think that’s going to take sort of some of the momentum out of the SPAC movement?

David Panton: [00:41:37] Well, you know, the SEC has expressed concerns about SPACs and the rapid increase in SPACs. And the single biggest reason that SPACs declined in volume is because of an action taken by the SEC earlier this year, where they questioned how the SPACs were pricing their warrants, how they were treating their warrants from an accounting perspective. So, this is something you and I very eagerly can talk about.

David Panton: [00:42:05] But are these warrants equity or debt is basically the question. The vast majority of SPACs have treated those warrants as equity. Which sort of makes sense because they are, in fact, an equity instrument. But as a technical matter, they can be treated as debt because they are an obligation of the company that the company may have to pay for in cash. So, there’s very arcane rules around that.

David Panton: [00:42:30] And I actually don’t think the SEC cared very much. The SEC just wanted a mechanism to stop the rapid increase in SPAC IPOs. And by saying to every single SPAC out there, “You have to tell us how you’re treating your warrants, every single person.” It led to a chilling effect, where it slowed it down. It slowed the market down. And there are some people who said, “I just too much headache.” And maybe the SEC doesn’t like SPACs.

David Panton: [00:43:02] I have a very different view. I actually think SEC participation and regulation SPAC is a great thing. In fact, the example that I use is that, before 2015, SPACs were not really accepted by many law firms, by many investment banks. Goldman Sachs as an example, which is a very large underwriter of SPACs today, wouldn’t touch SPAC with a ten foot pole before 2015.

David Panton: [00:43:30] The SEC, basically, changed the rule. And that rule was that the right to get your money back before 2015 was tied to the vote on the transaction. So, if you wanted to get your money out of the trust account, if you’re an investor in the IPO or SPAC IPO, you have to vote against the transaction. If you voted no, you got your money back. So, that resulted in a lot of SPACs failing because people wanted their money back. And they were like, “I don’t care about the deal.” A lot of hedge funds got the money back.

David Panton: [00:43:58] The SEC said, “You should be able to get your money back no matter what, whether you vote yes or no.” And so, by separating the vote from the right to redeem, several things happened. One is the percentage of SPAC transactions that were approved shot up to 100 percent, and it’s been 100 percent since 2015. There’s not been a single transaction which has not been approved, which makes sense because whether you think it’s a good deal or a bad deal, you want it to happen just to have the option if the price does go up.

David Panton: [00:44:30] Two is the failure rate has fallen. So, the number of SPACs which have failed has dropped dramatically. In fact, in the last two years, it’s been zero percent. Now, that’s going to increase. And I want to be clear on that, and that’s a risk in the future because there’s too many SPACs and too many people who should not be doing SPACs that are not going to find a deal in two years and they’re going to fail. So, the failure rate is going to increase. But for the past two years, it’s been very low. And since 2015 it’s under four percent.

David Panton: [00:44:55] The third thing that happened is that new people came into the space, people like Goldman Sachs and others who wouldn’t touch SPACs. So, today, SPACs are a well-established class. The SEC is responsible for that, in my mind. And I think protecting investors is a good thing. There have been a couple SEC actions this year. One was a finding of a SPAC who was a cannabis SPAC that I know they’re going to buy a space company owned by some Russians. The the U.S. Government didn’t approve Russians owning a space company. And the the SEC said, “You got to be diligent. You should have known this was a risk.” The nationality, which is like, “Duh. Of course, you should have.” And they were appropriately fine.

David Panton: [00:45:41] And so, the SEC is acting against bad actors, in my mind. And that’s a good thing because they’re acting against bad actors. It takes out the bad actors and leaves good quality people. So, there is a flight to quality. So, I believe that, yes, the SEC regulation oversight is going to happen and will continue to happen, and they’re going to ask for greater disclosure. But I think that’s all a good thing because by protecting investors, if you have high quality management teams buying high quality companies, that is a good thing. You shouldn’t have to be worried. The people who should be worried are the ones who are not doing the right thing.

Mike Blake: [00:46:17] I think we can see examples where the government stepping in to regulate actually does add legitimacy to a particular transaction or asset class. I think the government paying a lot more attention is starting to regulate cryptocurrency, and nonfungible tokens, and so forth, I think, has actually helped those two asset classes, again, if you bother to regulate it, then it must be real.

David Panton: [00:46:47] I will say one very quick thing, just a factual point. So, there is a firm called Pershing Square, which did the largest SPAC app. They raised the $4 billion SPAC. And they were recently sued by a former commissioner of the SEC and a very well-known law professor, who said that SPACs effectively – I mean, this is my jargon here – is a violation of an act known as the Investment Company Act. That a SPAC really should be regulated under the Investment Company Act. And they’ve filed the action against Pershing Square saying that he was effectively engaged in fraud.

David Panton: [00:47:28] For the first time that I’ve ever heard of, almost 50 law firms got together and wrote a letter to the SEC to say that that argument was nonsense. It was balderdash. It doesn’t make any sense that SPACs are a different investment category, are a separate investment category, they do not fall under the Investment Company Act, and that the legal theory behind that was unacceptable. And these almost 50 law firms are the largest law firms in the world and, certainly, the largest in the United States.

David Panton: [00:48:04] And what that did was, that reaffirms, in my mind, the institutionalization and establishmentization of SPACs. Almost every major investment bank in the United States – in fact, every major investment bank, I don’t think of any – has a SPAC desk. Every major law firm represent SPACs in some capacity. I mean, SPACs are here and they’re here to stay. They’re a very real and valuable mechanism for helping private companies go public. Can they be improved? Sure. Can we improve investor protection? Sure. Can we improve disclosure? Sure. Will that happen? Absolutely. Am I glad it’s going to happen? Yes, because it strengthens it.

David Panton: [00:48:48] But SPACs are not bitcoin. Which sort of like, what’s the backing? And they’re not NFTs. They’re not cryptocurrency. This isn’t some unique, weird thing. This is just a publicly traded company that’s helping a private company go public.

Mike Blake: [00:49:05] We’re talking with David Panton, and the topic is, Should I form or sell my company to a Special Purpose Acquisition Company or SPAC? David, we’re very grateful for the time that you’ve given us. I just have time for just a couple more questions and I’ll let you get back to helping other people with SPACs and other transactions.

David Panton: [00:49:24] One question I wanted to make sure to get to is, what is the timeline for a SPAC looks like? If I’m leading a company, I decide that I want to go down the road, and I think that my company qualifies in terms of revenue and TAM and so forth, what does a timeline look like from deciding I want to do a SPAC to actually executing one?

David Panton: [00:49:45] Oh, that’s a great question. So, one of the advantages that I mentioned earlier about SPAC versus a traditional IPO is the speed. That you can actually do a SPAC in a shorter time period than a traditional IPO.

David Panton: [00:49:58] There is a company here in Atlanta called Intercontinental Exchange, ICE. They own a company, actually a crypto company, I guess, or a crypto exchange called Bakkt, B-A-K-K-T. And it was a subsidiary. They’ve had investments from all the folks. And they’re trying to decide what to do with it. And a SPAC approached them and said, “Let’s take it public.” And they said, “Oh, that’s interesting.” And from the day they were approached to the day when they announced a deal was less than three months.

David Panton: [00:50:25] So, in three months, they were able to do their PCAOB audits. They were able to negotiate the deal, structure the deal, get it done, which is unheard of in the traditional IPO world. Traditional IPOs take a year or two years from beginning to end. Now, three months is on the the shortest end of the spectrum. I can’t imagine a SPAC deal from beginning to end being done less –

Mike Blake: [00:50:52] Well, the result is not typical.

David Panton: [00:50:54] That’s right. Not at all typical. What is more typical is four months, five months, six months, seven months. It could take as much as a year. But in SPACs, I would say three to six months is a reasonable time in order to get everything done. Because, remember, they’re on a clock. They typically have 24 months in which to do a deal. So, there’s a huge incentive to move quickly. And as a result, that is one of the advantages. And so, timing, I’d say, minimum three months. It could be as much as a year, more likely six to eight months.

David Panton: [00:51:25] And in terms of activity, what needs to be done, is really focus on making sure that these PCAOB audits are done is the most important element. But, also, putting together your projections and, you know, being able to tell the story of the business.

Mike Blake: [00:51:44] So, one question I’m very curious about is, celebrities and high profile investors seem to like SPACs. Why is that? Is that a fashion thing? Is it particularly well suited to very high net worth individuals? Why is that?

David Panton: [00:51:59] It’s a great question. I can’t say for sure why that is. But here is my answer. One is that, actually, SPACs are a relatively easy way to get into the capital markets. With a relatively small amount of money, the sponsor capital can be $100 million, $2 or $3 million. You’re able to be the CEO of a publicly traded company, which is $100 hundred million or $200 million dollars to invest.

David Panton: [00:52:35] And let me tell you what’s wrong with having $200 million to invest. Not a single thing. So, if you can afford to do it, you know, that makes a lot of sense. And a lot of celebrities have a few million dollars, which they can leverage. So, they like the leverage ability. They like the relatively low cash. And then, of course, the return is huge. You’re investing a few million dollars and you’re getting a huge chunk, so returns make sense.

David Panton: [00:53:00] And then, I’d say the final thing is that, there is a proven track record of wealth creation in public companies through celebrity participation. So, in the DraftKings example I told you earlier, one of the things they did was after they went public, they brought on as an advisor a guy by the name of Michael Jordan. Who, if you think about sports and gambling, the best known spokesperson who’s really known for gambling, it’s Michael Jordan. So, Michael Jordan being associated with the stock literally went up 20 or 30 percent by his announcement.

David Panton: [00:53:40] So, celebrities actually do add value. And there are other examples, Weight Watchers brought on Oprah Winfrey, stock went up. You know, there have been a number of celebrities associated with brand. Maybe look at people like Rihanna who has Fenty, the value of Fenty is very high because of her celebrity status. P. Diddy has Ciroc vodka, which used to be number 10 or 15 vodka. Now, it’s a top three vodka because of P. Diddy’s celebrity status.

David Panton: [00:54:11] So, celebrity status does actually add significant value or can add significant value to certain products and certain companies. And there is value in that. So, you’re able to not just get the financial returns because investing relatively little and getting the upside of the sponsor promote, but you’re also able to leverage your status to, in theory, generate even more returns because of the celebrity status. So, that’s my thesis.

Mike Blake: [00:54:42] David, we could go on a long time. SPACs are obviously very complicated. They’re very in depth. But there’s only so much free advice I can impose on you to give to our listeners. You know, there are probably questions we didn’t get to or questions that we could have gone into more depth on, if one of our listeners wants to contact you for more information about this, maybe they’re interested in selling imto a SPAC, can they contact you? And if so, what’s the best way to do so?

David Panton: [00:55:09] Yeah. Absolutely. And the best way to contact me is by email. And it’s dpanton, D as in David-P-A-N-T-O-N, P as in powerful-A as in athletic-N as in nice-T as in tall-O as in outstanding-N as in nice, dpanton@navigationcapital.com.

Mike Blake: [00:55:28] I like that. That’s going to wrap it up for today’s program. And I’d like to thank David Panton so much for sharing his expertise with us.

Mike Blake: [00:55:35] We’ll be exploring a new topic each week, so please tune in so that when you’re faced with your next business decision, you have clear vision when making it. If you enjoy these podcasts, please consider leaving a review with your favorite podcast aggregator. It helps people find us that we can help them. If you’d like to engage with me on social media and with my Chart of the Day and other content, I’m on LinkedIn as myself and @unblakeable on Facebook, Twitter, Clubhouse, and Instagram. Once again, this is Mike Blake. Our sponsor is Brady Ware & Company. And this has been the Decision Vision podcast.

 

Tagged With: Brady Ware & Company, David Panton, Decision Vision, going public, IPO, Mike Blake, Navigation Capital Partners, Panton Equity Partners, private equity, SPAC

Jonathan Weathington With Shuckin’ Shack

September 10, 2021 by Jacob Lapera

Franchise Marketing Radio
Franchise Marketing Radio
Jonathan Weathington With Shuckin' Shack
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Brought To You By SeoSamba . . . Comprehensive, High Performing Marketing Solutions For Mature And Emerging Franchise Brands . . . To Supercharge Your Franchise Marketing, Go To seosamba.com.

Jonathan Weathington joined Shuckin’ Shack in an official capacity in 2014 at the outset of franchising. Initially hired as VP of Franchise Development, he was promoted to CEO in November of 2014.

Prior to working for Shuckin’ Shack, Jonathan helped build the second Shuckin’ Shack in Historic Wilmington NC, and spent 14 years in the service and retail industry with companies such as VF and BB&T.

He holds a BA in Political Science and an MA in International Relations. At home, Jonathan enjoys spending time outdoors and hanging with his wife and two cats – Frank and Etta.

This transcript is machine transcribed by Sonix

TRANSCRIPT

Intro: [00:00:07] Welcome to Franchise Marketing Radio, brought to you by SEO Samba, Comprehensive, high performing marketing solutions for mature and emerging franchise brands to supercharge your franchise marketing. Go to SEOsamba.com. That’s SEOSamba.com.

Lee Kantor: [00:00:31] Lee Kantor here, another episode of Franchise Marketing Radio, and this is going to be a good one today on the show, we have Jonathan Wethington with Shukin’ Shack. Welcome, Jonathan.

Jonathan Weathington: [00:00:42] Hey, Lee, how are you doing?

Lee Kantor: [00:00:43] I am doing great. Before we get too far into things, tell us about Chuck and check How are you serving folks?

Jonathan Weathington: [00:00:50] Sure, I think we’re serving folks really well. We started in two thousand seven single unit and grew to a second unit in two thousand twelve and then started franchising in twenty fourteen. And and really, it’s our goal to just treat people well by serving them the best seafood and coldest drinks possible.

Lee Kantor: [00:01:06] Now what’s the kind of the origin story of the franchise? Did it start out as a mom and pop and then just organically grew into a franchise? Or did it set out to be a franchise from the beginning?

Jonathan Weathington: [00:01:18] It did not set out to be a franchise from the beginning. I think like most other restaurants, it really just set out to survive the first year from the beginning, and that was that was twenty seven. We were kind of headed into not a great place as far as macroeconomics are concerned across the nation, but just kind of started kicking butt and taking off and grew from there. And the partners. I was not a founder, but I knew the founders and I was around when the concept started and I saw it grow from just a single location. Mom and pop with two business partners and a 960 square foot location just grew every year. Started looking for a second location somewhere around late. Twenty ten or sorry, around late two thousand eight. And then things really started taking off. Finally opened a second location in twenty twelve. And then we’re in the process of looking for a third location and at that point decided to shift gears a little bit and focus a little more on franchise growth.

Lee Kantor: [00:02:18] Now, when you made that kind of switch to being a franchise group. Organizationally, how did that impact kind of your day to day because that’s a different real business, right running a franchise. Being a franchisor as opposed to, you know, running a franchise?

Jonathan Weathington: [00:02:36] It’s an extremely different business, you’re no longer just an operator, and I came in from the outside, though I knew the founders and I helped them build the second location. I was working for a couple of other companies at the time that they started franchising, and so I came in completely from the outside to help them specifically grow the franchising side. I had a rich history and, you know, processes and procedure and all of those things and kind of consolidating. I’d gotten a taste of really ultra ultra large business for some of the previous organizations I had worked with, and I knew that Chuck and Jack was scalable. But to answer your question directly, the partners, I think, found out and really knew coming into it that you’re no longer an operator of a single restaurant. It’s no longer your base. Goals are the same, which is to treat your customers exceptionally well, served great food and give people a good time. But how you get there on the franchising side is a little bit different because now you’re responsible for imparting that knowledge and training that within your own system to new franchisees coming in who may or may not have any familiarity whatsoever with your brand.

Lee Kantor: [00:03:44] Now, what does that ideal franchisee look like? Are they kind of that second act executive or are they the professional franchisee that is looking for another maybe a food concept to kind of round out of portfolio or the empire builder that’s going into a market and wants to take over the, you know, the the area?

Jonathan Weathington: [00:04:08] I think all of the above, I think that’s one of the beautiful things about franchising in general is that for us, at least for us, I can’t speak for every brand, but I’ve certainly had these conversations with other brands and that the diversity within their own franchise system is pretty great and that we do have folks in our system who are in empire building mode. I want to start with one, I want to build 10 and I want to do that over the next 10 or 12 years. And they have multiple units of multiple brands and they see us as as a long term investment. We also have a single unit franchise owners who are owner operators, and right now in our system, that’s our bread and butter. We love single unit owner operators. They tend to care about the business extremely well. Their numbers are typically even better than us as our company units, because let’s face it, they have to pay us royalties and marketing fees. And so there’s more of an incentive for them to run a little bit tighter ship. And, you know, they’re really invested within the community. And then on the other side, we have former military former military in our system. We have folks who have retired from their other careers and started the second career in this. So they come from all different directions. And I don’t think that’s just your main to check and check. I think that’s franchising as a whole. That’s one of the best parts about the industry and the sector overall.

Lee Kantor: [00:05:25] So in your system, what separates kind of the rock stars from the kind of average?

Jonathan Weathington: [00:05:31] How they treat people. That’s it. You know, we give people a great systems, we give them great products, we give them great marketing materials to reach their customers. We can drive customers in the door. That’s not an issue. It’s how they treat people. That’s what separates the rock stars from from the average folks. And again, that may not be just germane to us, but at the end of the day, when people come into a restaurant, they’ve already decided that they’re going to spend money there. It’s how you can make that money, have value to them. What is the worth like? How do they feel walking out of the doors? Would they, without hesitation, say yes, I will absolutely come back within the first few minutes of coming into their visit. And that’s it how they treat people and how invested they are within their local communities. That’s what separates the great from just the good.

Lee Kantor: [00:06:20] Now how does the organization help a franchisee when it comes to their people and their talent? What are you doing to help them kind of identify the right check and check employee and also keep them?

Jonathan Weathington: [00:06:37] Sure. So I think on our end, a lot of what we do, we don’t we don’t certainly hire for any of our franchisees or anything like that, but we encourage folks to hire for talent as opposed. I mean, sorry, we encourage folks to hire for personality as opposed to talent or as opposed to skill. We want people within our four walls who can speak to others just like you’re in someone’s living room. We desire folks who work for us to have a genuine sense of connection with other human beings. And quite frankly, the product doesn’t matter. We just happen to serve an exceptional product. And so that’s that’s one of the things that we teach is a part of our university training is how do you identify those kind of life skills that go beyond what you might find in a restaurant? And then as a part of our further training, once we actually get people in the doors and we’re training our employees, we kind of throw out all what we believe are a bunch of bad habits that a lot of other brands use that may work for them, but it doesn’t work for us. We don’t have greetings within our stores. We don’t wear name tags. We don’t do all the typical stuff that you might see in a franchise restaurant. And that’s because when we want, when people walk in the door, we want them to feel welcome. We want them to feel like they actually belong there, like it’s a place that they would go, hang out. I’m not going to come to your house and hope that you have a nametag on and hang out with me. That’s not what I’m after. And so for us, we kind of create that homegrown environment and we are teaching. And I say this very, very often, especially when we’re talking about bartenders and servers in front of the house employees. We’re not teaching them to do the certain things we are teaching them to read the room. We are teaching them to read other people and respond accordingly. And that’s one of the things that makes us extremely different from other brands.

Lee Kantor: [00:08:24] Now, during the pandemic, were you forced to kind of make some changes that maybe will have legs post-pandemic?

Jonathan Weathington: [00:08:33] Of course, yeah, I think we were we would be not telling you the truth entirely. We didn’t take a look at our entire system and say, What’s working, what’s not working, what’s not working? Let’s not put any time, effort and energy into it, and let’s focus on what’s working. That was a little bit more of our approach. We knew, practically speaking, when you’re talking about seafood and you’re talking about our brand. There’s not a whole lot of ubiquity on seafood and delivery. And so we knew that we could not compete with pizza or or some other concepts that may have a great delivery program because that’s what they’re known for. I mean, I order pizza at my own home, and we knew that we wouldn’t be able to compete with that and capture that customer. However, what we did know we could do is stay engaged with our customer base. And then when they were ready to come back or ready to order to go or pick something up, or they just wanted to get out of the house and drive up to the curb and pick something up from us, we were there and we tried to focus a lot of time, effort and energy on exactly that, which is engaging our customer base, making sure that they were there and that we were there for them. And then as time progressed, we were able to, depending upon, of course, the state and the municipality. We were able to develop some take home programs with taken boil kits and booze to go kits and those things. But I think the name of the game for the pandemic for us was just agility. No idea was stupid. Quite frankly, no idea was immediately swept under the table. We everything was on the table and we considered everything and adaptability and agility. Just pragmatism, I think, is perhaps the best way to encapsulate our approach to dealing with COVID and continuing to do it

Lee Kantor: [00:10:15] Now as we end this year and we move into next year. Are you targeting certain regions or is it kind of the whole country in play right now?

Jonathan Weathington: [00:10:27] I think a majority of the country, you know, 20, 20 was kind of our early twenty twenty one late twenty twenty was kind of the first time we started offering franchise opportunities for the right folks across the country. Prior to that, we had primarily been focused on the southeast U.S. east of the Mississippi, of course. We just wanted to have a little bit more market proof and markets outside of the Carolinas. And now that we have that and we’ve seen our restaurants grow and do exceptionally well, not only away from the coast but outside of the Carolinas. We’re at the stage in our development. We’ve got a lot of the right pieces on board internally. We’re partnered with the Great Development Group, Braintree Franchise Systems, franchise brands and we’re poised to grow as long as with the right people. And I think that matters more than anything else is that we would consider relationships and franchise partners in other states near or far. But you got to be the right fit in our system, and not everybody fits and that’s OK.

Lee Kantor: [00:11:32] Now, any advice for the emerging franchisor that’s out there, that’s listening on how to kind of get over the hump and get that escape velocity?

Jonathan Weathington: [00:11:44] Sure, I think the biggest thing is to have high brand confidence, and that sounds that sounds so silly and stupid, especially if you’re a founder of your own brand. But if you know your brand more than anyone else, which you should, is that continue to lean into that and continue to make sure that you depend upon that when you’re making decisions. And I think furthermore, just because someone hasn’t done something doesn’t mean that you can’t do it. And so I think that, you know, you have to determine obviously systems, procedures, all of those things, but lean on what you know. And that’s at the core DNA of what your brand is and what it has been and what’s gotten you there. Then maybe it’s not something you should you should sacrifice moving forward.

Lee Kantor: [00:12:30] Well, if there’s somebody out there that wants to learn more about the opportunity, what’s the website?

Jonathan Weathington: [00:12:35] Sure, it’s Chicken Shack franchise,

Lee Kantor: [00:12:38] And that’s chicken with no gee, right?

Jonathan Weathington: [00:12:41] No, gee, that’s right s s h youkai n Shack franchise.

Lee Kantor: [00:12:48] Well, Jonathan, thank you so much for sharing your story today. Thanks, Lee. All right, this is Lee Kantor, we’ll see you next time on Franchise Marketing Radio.

Tagged With: Jonathan Weathington, Shuckin' Shack

Ben Armstrong with Netherworld Haunted House

September 9, 2021 by Mike

Gwinnett Business Radio
Gwinnett Business Radio
Ben Armstrong with Netherworld Haunted House
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Mike Sammond, Ben Armstrong and Steven Julian

Ben Armstrong/Netherworld Haunted House

Created in 1997 by Billy Messina and Ben Armstrong, veterans in the film and television industry, NETHERWORLD is Atlanta’s most popular self-guided, dark attraction. Recognized as one of the most highly acclaimed haunted houses in the world, NETHERWORLD is known for its over-the-top special effects, unique make-up, elaborate costuming, skilled stunt actors and unusual themes. Since relocating to Stone Mountain in 2017, NETHERWORLD has expanded its offerings to include year-round escape games, known as Escape the NETHERWORLD, and outdoor laser tag, dubbed Laser Adventure Battle Arena.

Over the years, NETHERWORLD has garnered local and national attention from media including CNN, “The Today Show,” “The Early Show,” The Travel Channel and Wall Street Journal and has been voted the top haunt in the nation by publications such as Hauntworld Magazine, Dread Central, Fangoria and USA Today.

NETHERWORLD’s innovative horror experience and attractions continue to draw in generations of thrill-seekers eager to see what new nightmares have been unleashed! For more information, visit www.fearworld.com or call 404-608-2484. Keep up with all things spooky by following NETHERWORLD Haunted House on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter

Gwinnett Business Radio is presented by

Tagged With: atlanta haunted house, business podcast, business radio, Business RadioX, gwinnett business, gwinnett business podcast, Gwinnett Business Radio, Gwinnett Business RadioX, gwinnett businesses, gwinnett haunted house, gwinnett online radio, gwinnett radiox, hanuted house, netherworld, netherworld haunted house, online radio, podcast, Radiox, regions bank, small businesses, sonesta gwinnett place, steven julian, subaru, subaru of gwinnett, subaru radio studio

Workplace MVP: Jeff Gorter, R3 Continuum

September 9, 2021 by John Ray

Jeff Gorter
Minneapolis St. Paul Studio
Workplace MVP: Jeff Gorter, R3 Continuum
Loading
00:00 /
RSS Feed
Share
Link
Embed

Download file

Jeff Gorter

Workplace MVP:  Jeff Gorter, R3 Continuum

Critical incident response veteran Jeff Gorter contends that business and human responses to crisis events are not separate but interwoven. On the twentieth anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, Jeff and host Jamie Gassman discussed the parallels of that event and the COVID-19 pandemic, and the importance of acknowledging 9/11 for your employees.  Workplace MVP is underwritten and presented by R3 Continuum and produced by the Minneapolis-St.Paul Studio of Business RadioX®.

Jeff Gorter, Vice President of Crisis Response Services, R3 Continuum

Jeff Gorter, Vice President of Crisis Response Services, R3 Continuum

Jeff Gorter, MSW, LCSW, is VP of Clinical Crisis Response at R3 Continuum. Mr. Gorter brings over 30 years of clinical experience including consultation and extensive on-site critical incident response to businesses and communities. He has responded directly to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina, the Virginia Tech shootings, the Deepwater Horizon Oil spill, the 2011 earthquake/tsunami in Japan, the Newtown Tragedy, the Orlando Pulse Nightclub Shooting, the Las Vegas Shooting, and the breaching of the US Capitol on 1/6/21. He has conducted trainings and presented at the Employee Assistance Professionals Association Annual Conference, the American Psychological Association Annual Conference, the World Conference on Disaster Management, the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies Annual Meeting, and at other state, national and international venues on a variety of topics.

LinkedIn

R3 Continuum

R3 Continuum is a global leader in workplace behavioral health and security solutions. R3c helps ensure the psychological and physical safety of organizations and their people in today’s ever-changing and often unpredictable world. Through their continuum of tailored solutions, including evaluations, crisis response, executive optimization, protective services, and more, they help organizations maintain and cultivate a workplace of wellbeing so that their people can thrive. Learn more about R3c at www.r3c.com.

Company website | LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter

About Workplace MVP

Every day, around the world, organizations of all sizes face disruptive events and situations. Within those workplaces are everyday heroes in human resources, risk management, security, business continuity, and the C-suite. They don’t call themselves heroes though. On the contrary, they simply show up every day, laboring for the well-being of employees in their care, readying the workplace for and planning responses to disruption. This show, Workplace MVP, confers on these heroes the designation they deserve, Workplace MVP (Most Valuable Professionals), and gives them the forum to tell their story. As you hear their experiences, you will learn first-hand, real life approaches to readying the workplace, responses to crisis situations, and overcoming challenges of disruption. Visit our show archive here.

Workplace MVP Host Jamie Gassmann

In addition to serving as the host to the Workplace MVP podcast, Jamie Gassmann is the Director of Marketing at R3 Continuum (R3c). Collectively, she has more than fourteen years of marketing experience. Across her tenure, she has experience working in and with various industries including banking, real estate, retail, crisis management, insurance, business continuity, and more. She holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mass Communications with special interest in Advertising and Public Relations and a Master of Business Administration from Paseka School of Business, Minnesota State University.

TRANSCRIPT

Intro: [00:00:03] Broadcasting from the Business RadioX Studios, it’s time for Workplace MVP. Workplace MVP is brought to you by R3 Continuum, a global leader in workplace behavioral health and security solutions. Now, here’s your host, Jamie Gassmann.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:00:24] Hi, everyone. Your host, Jamie Gassmann, here. And welcome to this episode of Workplace MVP. This year marks the 20th anniversary for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. We are also halfway through the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some are calling these two tragic bookends to the last two decades. Interestingly, though, while these two events are different in nature, the impact they made on businesses and employees are very similar.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:00:53] Is this a coincidence? Or is there something to be learned about the impact disruption can have on an organization and its people? What should an employer be focused on when an event like 9/11 or COVID-19 happens? Are there solutions or support options that can be leveraged to help them successfully navigate the troubled aftermath of the events?

Jamie Gassmann: [00:01:15] With us today to share his expertise and firsthand knowledge from responding to the psychological first aid needs of employers for both 9/11 and COVID-19, among other major events across our history, is Workplace MVP Jeff Gorter, Vice President of Crisis Response Services for our show sponsor, R3 Continuum. Welcome to the show, Jeff.

Jeff Gorter: [00:01:37] Thank you, Jamie. I appreciate the opportunity.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:01:40] So, we’re glad to have you here and really interested in hearing a little bit about yourself and your career journey that’s led you to R3 Continuum and to where you’re at today.

Jeff Gorter: [00:01:53] No. Thanks. And just by way of background, I am a clinical social worker, master’s level social worker. And so, I come from a clinical background and have been in the field providing services either in private practice or in a public setting for 35 years. But the last 20 years of that have been specifically focused on providing disaster response.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:02:20] And so, can you share with our audience the disaster response work that you did post-9/11? And how does that compare to the work that you’re doing today in response to the COVID-19 pandemic?

Jeff Gorter: [00:02:33] And if you caught the 20 year reference, I really look at 9/11 as sort of that was certainly my first experience in responding to a large scale event. Part of the backstory of that is that the former president of Crisis Care Network, which is now known as R3 Continuum, Bob VandePol and I were in private practice together. And he had left the practice I’d say six months before 9/11.

Jeff Gorter: [00:03:03] And when the attacks occurred on that day, I called Bob and I said, “Bob, from what I understand, based on the new position that you’re in, I guess your company is going to be involved in this. I just want to let you know I am trained in this, if there’s anything I can do to help.” To which he said, “Can you be on a plane in four hours?” And I was in New York City that evening able to provide and to begin providing response.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:03:34] And how does that compare to some of the response works? I know you’ve done some response work with the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of that’s been done virtually. But are some of the sessions or some of the work that you’re doing with that, can you tell us a little bit about, you know, how they work and kind of what your role is that you play within that?

Jeff Gorter: [00:03:56] It’s an excellent question. Because I’ve really been wrestling with the fact that, you know, this being the 20th anniversary of 9/11, that was very much in the forefront of my mind, and yet COVID has such a dominating factor. And, as you said in your intro, it’s kind of no surprise that these two things are, you know, juxtaposed here at this moment.

Jeff Gorter: [00:04:19] So, specifically, when I went to New York City, I was deployed to assist businesses as employees were returning to work for the first time following the attacks. And that’s a key element in that, you know, businesses played a major role in helping employees feel like they were getting back to some sense of normalcy or something that they could control. And so, many of the things that they talked about were more tangible, if you will, in the sense that they talked about things like the smells, things like the grittiness of the dust that was everywhere, how a siren going off for a police or fire would create a startle response the first time. And many of us can remember that the first time we saw a plane flying again after all flights had been grounded.

Jeff Gorter: [00:05:19] And so, for many of them these were much more visceral kind of descriptions of what they were going through. And, yet, for many of them, their stories were also about how resilience, how going back to work was not just getting back to work, but was in for many of them, a patriotic act. A small but very tangible stand against the darkness, if you will. And their getting back to work meant this is something I can do in this national crisis.

Jeff Gorter: [00:05:52] Now, in juxtaposing it to COVID-19 that the swift recovery of business operations is and has been continues to be a central component to our nation’s recovery. But it’s different because 9/11 was confined to a day and we didn’t know that at the time. But it’s confined to 9/11. It was a specific point in our calendar that we can look back. And it was a moment of sharp human initiated attack.

Jeff Gorter: [00:06:24] Now, COVID has a different perspective in that it is a prolonged, ongoing, unfolding, still not done crisis, driven primarily by biology. And so, in that sense, you know, the fear and the emotions elicited are, in many ways, just as powerful. Whereas, you could point to it, you could feel it between your fingers in New York City what the attack was like. Here, it’s kind of a vague, shadowy fear creeping outside your door. It’s everywhere, and yet I can’t point to it. And so, the fear is the common factor, but it’s also different kind of fear. And so, I think that’s important to recognize.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:07:16] Absolutely. And, obviously, from a business perspective, there’s some similarities in some of the thinking. And so, looking at your perspective of business leaders – and I know we’ve talked about this and I know you’ve got an opinion and kind of some thoughts – around that balancing act between human and business and how employers need to be looking at that following a disruption in the workplace, can you share your perspective on that with us?

Jeff Gorter: [00:07:42] Yeah. Well, I begin with the assumption that many business makers or business leaders have that the human response and the business aspects are two different things. And I contend that they are not. That they are, in fact, inextricably woven. And that, typically, when a large scale disaster hits, business leaders will go to their business continuity plan. They’ll pull that three ring binder off the shelf or they’ll go to their files and they’ll look at that plan, as they should. And they’ll review that crisis plan, the policies, procedures, what the strategies were to contain the crisis and mitigate the impact. That’s a sound thinking.

Jeff Gorter: [00:08:25] The trouble is, most of those plans focused on issues like I.T. security, facilities management, supply chain integrity, things that undoubtedly are important elements in a business recovery. But these plans often forget the most essential aspect, the human element. It doesn’t matter how secure your firewalls are or how quickly you get the power restored and the computers working again, if the people aren’t reassured and ready to go back to work. So, taking care of your people is taking care of your business. And I know I think it’s a mistake when a business owner says, “Well, I’m going to do one over the other.” They have to be done simultaneously.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:09:10] And, you know, so focusing on that people side of it, when a major incident occurs such as 9/11, or when you’ve got a pandemic like COVID-19, or other types of disruptions that impact a workplace, typically, if you were going to provide recommendation, what’s that first thing that an employer should be focusing on when it comes to their people?

Jeff Gorter: [00:09:33] So, I look at it as two parts. The first part, first and foremost always is safety. I need to ensure the safety of the employees. And that means physical safety and emotional safety. I have to prepare or provide for both aspects of that. So, I need to make sure when a large-scale event happens, have all the appropriate authorities been called? Have the right people been notified? Is the site secure? Are all the employees accounted for? Have immediate steps been taken, even simple steps like providing food, water, or blankets? Have immediate steps been taken for the care and comfort of my team? And has leadership physically directly checked on the team? Have they been visible? Have they gone around? Have they checked on and ensured the safety of everybody, both physically and emotionally? So, safety is first, job one.

Jeff Gorter: [00:10:32] But then, followed up by that, there are three simple things that I would say that the leader needs to do, and that is communicate, communicate, communicate. That one safety is restored, it’s imperative that leadership starts communicating early and often. This establishes them as a credible source of verifiable information, and that is in short supply following a crisis.

Jeff Gorter: [00:11:01] And it’s a common mistake among leaders to say, “Well, you know what? I’ll send a message out.” Or, “I’ll do some communication once I know all the facts. Once I have a complete idea of what’s going on, once I know the whole ball of wax, then I’ll be able to send out a message that encompasses everything.” And then, as one hour goes by and two hours go by and four hours go by, employees in that absence are going to become increasingly anxious. And it’s human nature in the absence of real information to plug in our worst possible fears.

Jeff Gorter: [00:11:40] And so, you know, maybe they’re going to ask themselves, “Maybe leadership was hurt. I thought we would have heard by now. Maybe they’re part of the injured. Maybe they don’t know that this is going on. Maybe they’re unaware of this. Maybe they don’t care.” And you can see that in the absence of real information. By that point, a negative narrative has already begun to take root.

Jeff Gorter: [00:12:04] And it is so hard to play catch up after that and try and establish. Especially in the age of instantaneous communication through social media and other sources like that, it is absolutely essential that a leader is out there early with frequent brief updates sharing what you know, what is verifiable, and share what you don’t know, but promising to confirm it as soon as you can. Which is to say, “I’m going to be open about I don’t know. I don’t, as a leader, have to have all the answers right now.”

Jeff Gorter: [00:12:42] And doing that, sharing what you know, admitting what you don’t but saying I’ll get it as soon as I can, has an incredibly calming and reassuring effect. It will enhance a leader’s standing with their employees and lets them know, “Okay. The leaders have a plan. They know what they’re doing. They are on top of this. I can take a deep breath at this moment.”

Jeff Gorter: [00:13:08] So, again, as an example, saying something like, “Following this event, we can confirm that three employees were injured and have been transported to the hospital,” that’s verifiable. “We don’t know their status at this point, but we will share that info as soon as we get it.” That’s all you need, something as brief as that. So often, again, leaders will, “Well, until we know more, I’m not going to say anything.” Or they’ll make, “I’m sure everybody’s going to be okay.” Are you sure? Can you guarantee that? No? Don’t say it if you can’t.

Jeff Gorter: [00:13:45] Just simply say what you know, admit what you don’t know. But assure them that as soon as we can have verifiable information, we’ll get back to you. It’s amazing how comforting and calming that is for an employee group that is looking to you for leadership in the midst of this.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:14:06] Great. And, you know, as you continue to go through kind of that recovery process after these types of events, when an organization is starting to regain a sense of new normalcy, how, at that point, can business leaders help to support employees and, really, the organization as a whole in that recovery effort?

Jeff Gorter: [00:14:27] Yeah. Kind of building on what I was saying before, that the employee and organizational interplay is inextricably interwoven. The employee recovery depends on organizational recovery and vice versa. Employees are going to look to the workplace for stability, financial stability, as well as just something that I know is there, predictability, structure. They crave a return to something that feels normal, and where they feel in control, and where they know what they’re supposed to do.

Jeff Gorter: [00:15:03] When the crisis happened, I had no idea what I was supposed to do. I’d like to get back to something where I feel I am trained and where I have a sense of influence and agency. Likewise, organizations are only as strong as their employees. And they need engaged, motivated, healthy workers to weather the storm. There’s an old quote from Kipling in which he said, “The strength of the pack is the wolf. And the strength of the wolf is the pack.” Meaning, the interplay between the organization and the individual they support each other.

Jeff Gorter: [00:15:41] And so, business leaders set the tone of positive resilience and an expectation of recovery for everybody. And part of that is ensuring access to the resources that are supportive to their employees, like onsite or virtual behavioral health specialists who are able to provide immediate support, psychological first aid, and encouragement. Being able to offer 24-7 phone or text access, perhaps via their employee assistance program or through other strategic vendors who can provide that. Offering and making sure there is access to print or electronic resources for education, coping, guidance. Things like that are immediate steps that the employer can do to support the employee. And as the employees come back, they support the organization and it is a common effort.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:16:48] And so, for disruptions like with the COVID-19 pandemic where we’re kind of on this ever changing kind of evolution, if you will, for the last year-and-a-half, do some of those same initiatives apply in the context of a disruption that maybe continues to evolve as opposed to a one day event?

Jeff Gorter: [00:17:11] I think you’re absolutely right. And even more so, I think that because what we have come to realize, even though we’re 18 months into this – the words almost stick in my throat in saying that, but that’s where we are right now at this taping – almost every day, it is a changing, fluid, dynamic circumstance. Where we are now and where we were back in February 2020 are vastly different places. And we know so much more and yet we are incredibly aware of how much we don’t know.

Jeff Gorter: [00:17:48] And so, that same central concept that in the absence of real information – I’m going to plug in my fears – just highlights the need for leadership to have a constant, steady, reliable drumbeat of information, even if it’s little bits. Even if my update today is to say no new changes today, that’s worth doing. That is something that reassures them that leadership is on top of it.

Jeff Gorter: [00:18:20] Because, again, that’s one of the things that clearly has typified this prolonged, slow moving disaster is that, you know, almost no two days are the same. And yet there’s still this emotional sense of Groundhog Day of, “What? It’s still here? We’re still talking about this.” And so, yeah, for leadership to not fall into the trap of thinking, “Oh. They don’t want to hear any more updates.” No, keep doing it. It’s essential.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:18:52] Great. And, obviously, for 9/11 this is a milestone anniversary, so looking at milestone anniversaries, you know, some employees may have or may experience kind of a reaction or, like, a triggering effect to that. And just how an employee handles the disruption when it’s happening, it’s all different in terms of the different levels of resilience and how people kind of process trauma. From your experience, you know, what should an employer be looking at so that they can show support and care knowing that with an anniversary like the 20 year anniversary everyone’s going to kind of approach it differently?

Jeff Gorter: [00:19:37] Yeah. No, that’s a great question. I mean, there were some organizations, obviously those in the New York area or Pennsylvania or in D.C. that were directly impacted. But I think it would be a mistake for a business leader to assume that, “Well, I don’t think any of my people were involved. I don’t need to pay attention to that. I don’t need to mention that.” In the 20 years people have moved, people have relocated, people have taken different jobs. People who were children at that point, who may have lost a loved one at that time, have grown up, moved, taken on new jobs. Again, it would be a mistake to think, “Oh, it’s so far back, we don’t really need to worry about it.” This is a significant day.

Jeff Gorter: [00:20:21] And so, for an employer, I think it’s important for them to acknowledge the solemnity of this day, the power of this day itself, and to recognize that employees may have some challenges with it. Not everybody. Not that they have to. But some may. And so, as a leader, getting out ahead of that and simply recognizing and acknowledging that lets them know that you get it, that you understand that this day is different from other days. It has significance, which helps those employees to feel understood and validated, not isolated and alone as if something is broken or wrong with them.

Jeff Gorter: [00:21:02] And so, it’s important, too, one of the ways that an employer can do that is to remind their employee of the wide range of resources that they have. Again, the behavioral health support, either onsite or virtually, as we’ve talked about before, should they choose to use it. So, for them, again, highlighting what their EAP can do or other groups. In most cases, people just want to be able to share their experiences. And anniversaries are times where we talk about it, because that helps us when we talk about it. It helps us feel less alone. It feels connected. We feel like we’re part of something. They may or may not want to talk about it, but it’s important for a leader to create this safe space for people to do that, to be able to talk about it.

Jeff Gorter: [00:21:54] Because I think one of the things that I am sure once we get past COVID, we’re going to do this. But one of the things that happened during 9/11, if we look back on it, all of us constructed a narrative. A story of where we were when it happened. What happened next? How did it impact us? Where are we now? We developed a story. That’s human nature. It’s how we make peace with it. It’s how we wrap our minds around it. This narrative is where we begin to constrain it as a chapter in our lives. An important chapter, a significant chapter, but not the only chapter in our lives. Things happen to be for that. Things have happened since that.

Jeff Gorter: [00:22:39] And so, being able to talk about it in that narrative sense, as if it’s a chapter helps to, again, feel a sense of control. And I begin to view myself, not as a victim, as if it’s still going on today, but more as a survivor or perhaps even a thriver. Here’s how I grew from this. Here’s how I’m different because of that. Here’s where I learned some things that are important.

Jeff Gorter: [00:23:07] So, being at work on the day of an anniversary, I think is beneficial to employees impacted by any major disruptive event because, again, there’s surprising power in the mundane, comfort in the normal. I want to be around something that feels supportive and and constrained. And going about their everyday lives helps a sense of control, helps them get through that day, and it helps them to have a balanced perspective on the significance of the past. The reality of this present. And the hope for the future. We will move to the next chapter as it were.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:23:49] Great. So, if a leader were starting a conversation like that with their employees – you know, because I love that concept of creating kind of this, like, open area. This comforting, you know, feeling that it’s okay to be transparent in how you feel about that – if you were going to provide a conversation starter for how a leader could set that tone and set that stage for that conversation, how would you advise them to speak to kind of get that conversation moving?

Jeff Gorter: [00:24:25] So, I think, you know, a generalized statement to begin with saying, “As we approach this anniversary, we recognize the power it has for us as a nation, for many of us as individuals. We want to acknowledge that and here’s the things we’re going to do.” And maybe that, again, if they are aware of folks who were survivors or who had a closer context, or it is part of our organizational history that our company was impacted by that day, then I think it would be a very wise idea to have onsite or virtual counselors available to be able to provide immediate, tangible, I could point down the hall and I can see that person if I want to go talk to them, I know they’re there. That’s an immediate thing that they can do.

Jeff Gorter: [00:25:14] The other is to remind them of other resources that they may have. Their employee assistance program, 24-7 hotline that is offered. To simply say at the point of the towers collapsing, many organizations I’m aware of will have a moment of silence at the moment, perhaps, when the first plane struck the building. They will do that, and that is, again, a way of honoring the solemnity of it, a way of acknowledging the reality of it, and just simply let your employees know, “Okay. We get this. We’re taking it seriously. This means something to us. And we’re doing some things to acknowledge that.”

Jeff Gorter: [00:26:01] Other organizations may say, “You know what? Given this day -” maybe even something simple like saying “- we’re having lunch brought in as just a way to acknowledge and provide a communal opportunity for us to get together and share that experience.” You know, depending on the the structure of your work site, that is a pretty low cost way to affirm to your employee group because they will talk about that afterwards. “Wow. Our company got it and they did something substantial to help us.”

Jamie Gassmann: [00:26:44] Great advice. So, we’re going to take a quick break and hear a word from our sponsor. Workplace MVP is sponsored by R3 Continuum. R3 Continuum is a global leader in providing expert, reliable, responsive, and tailored behavioral health, crisis, and security solutions to promote workplace wellbeing and performance in the face of an ever changing and often unpredictable world. Learn more about how R3 Continuum can tailor a solution for your organization’s unique challenges by visiting r3c.com today.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:27:19] So, some feel, Jeff – and we kind of mentioned it in the introduction too – that 9/11 and COVID-19 pandemic are tragic bookend events and have various similarities in their impact on employees, you know, with mental health concerns, substance abuse, sleeping concerns. Can you share your perspective on this? You know, are there similarities? And if so, what would you say are the similarities? And do you have any context to why that might be the case?

Jeff Gorter: [00:27:56] I think that’s a great observation, because I think on the surface, it would be easy to say, “Well, my goodness. I can hardly think of two completely disparate type of events.” I mean, they are radically different and they’re separated by 20 years. But if we did that, we lose tapping into the accumulated wisdom and knowledge that we gained from how we adapted to 9/11, and how that has sustained us through so many other crises that have happened in between, and how that can inform and shape what we’re doing now in response to the current crisis.

Jeff Gorter: [00:28:35] So, some areas of similarities that occurred to me is that, you know, both 9/11 and COVID changed everything about how business is conducted. I mean, if we think back on it, I think one when cheap and easy example is – for those of us of a certain age – can you remember when you didn’t have to take your shoes off at the airport to get on a plane? You know, it changed how we travel. It changed what we define as safety. It changed what security protocols with baggage. It changed even the work environment itself, where we work, who we work with, how we work has been changed.

Jeff Gorter: [00:29:18] There was radical change after 9/11 and the same thing has been happening after COVID, that it’s created changes that are going to be likely permanent as a way of adaptations to that. And so, that’s one area of similarity in that everything’s changed.

Jeff Gorter: [00:29:38] Another is that both 9/11 and COVID-19 have required a massive expenditure of time, money, resources by companies to respond to it, to adapt to it, to restore some sense of functional operations and confidence. That happened after 9/11. The same thing happened after COVID-19. I defy you to find a company that says, “You know what? We are pretty much operating exactly the same way with exactly the same plans, policies, and procedures as we did before those events. You know, it really didn’t touch us. It didn’t change us.”

Jeff Gorter: [00:30:19] I mean, to the contrary and particularly in the midst of the pandemic, we had to initiate almost immediate changes. As I said earlier, things like we’re operating from home now where many of us who never envisioned ourselves as remote workers now find themselves with their library kingdom. And other things in which we’ve changed. We’ve made so many initiatives in response to this to try to enhance the safety while returning to operations. And we don’t know the effectiveness of many of these until later. You know, we have to make the change. We’re going to do it.

Jeff Gorter: [00:31:07] But many leaders and workers alike are saying, “Well, did we do the right thing? Did we make the right decision? Are we doing enough? Or did we do too much?” So, I mean, these questions were the same that’s an echo of 9/11. We said the same kinds of things. We wrestled with the same sort of initiatives then as we do now in determining what was the right calibration. It’s only in hindsight that we’ll know. But it did require massive amounts of time and energy.

Jeff Gorter: [00:31:41] And then, the third thing, and I think this is probably the one that is most pertinent to me as a behavioral health professional, is that, both of these events had a global emotional impact unlike any other event. And if we think back over the last 20 years, there have been many major events. We are only a few days away from the 16th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. There have been multiple large scale mass shootings at schools or in other public locations. There has been a breach of the U.S. Capitol.

Jeff Gorter: [00:32:21] All of these things are major defining events, yet none of them had the emotional charge on a global scale. There’s almost no person on the planet that has not been aware of those events that was not emotionally moved by those events. There was a universal sense of shock, vulnerability, fear that defined 9/11 and was very similar to the pandemic. And I think, you know, those other tragedies that I said were huge and highly visible, but they were constrained to areas, regions, cities, location. Whereas, 9/11 led the whole world to know things are different and the same has happened with COVID-19.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:33:18] Interesting. And you you mentioned in a previous conversation with us and you may have have kind of touched on it a little bit here that events like 9/11 and COVID-19 pandemic are described as seminal moments that impact an individual’s view on life, which can lead to them re-evaluating what’s important. So, can you elaborate a little bit more on that?

Jeff Gorter: [00:33:45] Yeah. I think, the easiest way to understand, seminal moments are those milestones, those tragic milestones in the story of your life. As I talked about, they are unavoidable reference points in the story of our lives. You know, we will say, “Was that pre-COVID or post-COVID?” It’s the kind of thing that you immediately will recognize and you reference events as almost, you know, magnetically rotating around that.

Jeff Gorter: [00:34:19] But what I think is so important about that is that the events are the events. The events themselves are only the beginning. I think the way we responded to them is much more compelling and is much more reflective of that personal agency, that personal story that we construct, that narrative that we build following these events. So, the event happened, but the story of how we endured, what we had to let go of, where we grew, how we changed, how we adapted, how we found moments of happiness or lightness even in the midst, those kinds of things are lived experiences that I think hold tremendous value.

Jeff Gorter: [00:35:09] You know, I think that in older days that might have been called wisdom. That’s the kind of thing that you look back on and you say, “You know, I would never want to go through that again. But I learned some things about myself, about my company, about my community, or about my country.” And that is important knowledge to be able to have and to incorporate. I know that we all want to hurry by. We all want to get to the happy ending. Can I just flip through the book? Can I fast forward to the end of the show here and see the happy ending?

Jeff Gorter: [00:35:44] But the reality is, if we let this moment pass by without intentionally purposely reflecting on what this means to me as a person, what this means to me as a leader, what this means to my company, what it means to my team, I think we lose something of incredible value.

Jeff Gorter: [00:36:05] And so, again, especially with something that has been as prolonged as the pandemic, we’re just like, “Well, I just need to get through it. I just need to get through another day. I just need to keep rolling.” But I think savvy leaders have found that stepping back, intentionally reflecting on this, and what lessons I learned from it, it positions them for better success in the future when they get past this.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:36:38] Right. So, almost like attributing meaning to the event and how that is having an impact on your life, because it could be both in positive ways and negative ways. So, there could be a couple of different things that are learned from that, both professionally and personally when you’re looking at it, would you agree?

Jeff Gorter: [00:36:57] Exactly. I think, again, attributing meaning to it as part of that narrative making. It’s human nature that when we go through an event that has that kind of power that impacts us like a physical blow, we try and make sense of it. We try and reassert a sense of control. And we typically go – sorry. I’m going to go a little Psych 101 here for a moment – in one of two directions. Meaning, attribution means we either determine internal disposition, what does this say about me? About how I handle it? What does this reveal about me? Or external situation, what does this say about my context, my company, my community, my country? So, we’re going to assign a meaning to this.

Jeff Gorter: [00:37:51] And, again, the event is the event. So, the pain has occurred, the trauma has occurred, the tragedy has occurred. That doesn’t change. But my meaning will greatly influence my trajectory afterwards. And so, by that, there is a critical inflection point. There is a moment. A moment where almost all of us, whether we’re conscious of it or not, where we look at this and we say, “Wow. What I just went through, what does this say about me?”

Jeff Gorter: [00:38:24] Do I look at this and do I say, “You know what? I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, man, I’m just glad I got through that.” Or do I say, “You know what? This just proves once again that I am the unluckiest guy on the face of the Earth. You know, I am a soccer ball on the field of life. I just get kicked around all the time.” Do I view this as, “Wow. I am so happy to be alive following this. I am going to go home and kiss my partner and hug the kids. And I’m going to enjoy life in a different way. I’m going to value life.” Do I say that? Or do I say, “What’s the point? Why even try? Stuff like this happens. I told you it’s just one bad thing after another.”

Jeff Gorter: [00:39:13] And you know why? The event is the event. My interpretation is going to determine whether I move ahead with resilience and in a positive way. Or that I add on to the sense of negativity, the sense of pathology, something must be broken. And, you know, do I view this as, “Okay. These powerful emotions I’m experiencing are normal, understandable reactions to this really powerful event.” That makes sense. Or do I say, “I’m not handling it right. I must be doing it poorly. I think I’m not smart enough or strong enough. Maybe I’m broken. Maybe I’m losing it.” You know, the event is the event, but my interpretation is going to determine where I go from. And so, I think that how we attribute meaning is going to help us move forward.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:40:09] Interesting. And so, you know, looking at kind of moving forward and looking at leaders that might be listening in on this conversation, if you are going to give them a take away from this show, something that you wanted to leave them with that can help them to effectively support their employees when disruption occurs, what would you share with them? What would you want them to take with them?

Jeff Gorter: [00:40:35] So, I’m going to share not something that originates from me, but I want to share a quote from one of my favorite poets, Maya Angelou. She had a quote that I think I have reflected on and it has helped me in so many situations when responding to a large scale event. And the quote is, “They will never remember what you said. They will never remember what you did. But they will always remember how you made them feel.” And I find that so incredible.

Jeff Gorter: [00:41:09] Because as a leader, I urge you, I encourage you to help your team feel cared for, help them feel supported, help them feel valued. And when you do that, they will surprise you. They will inspire you. They will lift up your company in ways you can’t do alone. So, it’s not about having the magic words. It’s not about following exactly the ten point plan. It’s about keeping in mind that my goal is they will remember how I made them feel. Make them feel cared for and valued, and they will take care of the rest.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:41:49] Fantastic. So, looking out over your career, I’m always curious to ask my guests, what are you most proud of when you look out over your career?

Jeff Gorter: [00:42:01] Well, that is a challenging question. The things that are obvious particularly in the context of our conversation, being able to have responded directly to 9/11, having had an influence here during COVID, or responding to the Vegas shootings, or going to D.C., all of those events that I have done. But I don’t want to be distracted by, let’s say, the bright, shiny, big is the only thing that matters.

Jeff Gorter: [00:42:40] I think probably what I’m most proud of is that I consider it a humbling honor to be able to walk alongside somebody in what might have been one of the worst days of their lives. And it doesn’t matter whether it was a mass event that rocks the globe or whether it was the loss of a friend and co-worker who they had really come to depend on. Being able to be there and help take a little bit off their shoulders, it’s a day well spent. And so, it’s each one of those times that I’ve had an opportunity to speak into somebody’s life.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:43:20] Wonderful. So, with our listeners, if they wanted to get a hold of you, Jeff, how would they be able to do that?

Jeff Gorter: [00:43:28] Well, as I mentioned, I am with R3 Continuum, and so, certainly, being able to access that through our website. But also being able to respond to me directly, if you’d like to send an email to jeff.gorter@r3c.com, jeff.gorter@r3c.com. And I’d certainly be willing to respond to any questions.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:44:00] Fantastic. Well, thank you so much, Jeff. It was very moving, great information shared, very powerful stories, and advice. And we really do appreciate you. And thank you for letting us celebrate you on the show today. And hearing the experiences you had, the work you did in supporting workplaces at 9/11, and even with COVID, and other events within our history. So, thank you so much for being a part of our show.

Jeff Gorter: [00:44:31] Thank you so much, Jamie. And I urge all your listeners, be well, be safe.

Jamie Gassmann: [00:44:38] Great. And we also want to thank our show sponsor, R3 Continuum, for supporting the Workplace MVP podcast. And to our listeners, thank you for tuning in. If you’ve not already done so, make sure to subscribe so you get our most recent episodes and other resources. You can also follow our show on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter at Workplace MVP. If you are a workplace MVP or know someone who is, we want to know. Email us at info@workplace-mvp.com. Thank you all for joining us. And have a great rest of your day.

 

Tagged With: COVID-19, covid-19 crisis management, Crisis Response, critical incident, Jamie Gassmann, Jeff Gorter, R3 Continuum, September 11th, workplace, Workplace MVP

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • …
  • 81
  • Next Page »

Business RadioX ® Network


 

Our Most Recent Episode

CONNECT WITH US

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Our Mission

We help local business leaders get the word out about the important work they’re doing to serve their market, their community, and their profession.

We support and celebrate business by sharing positive business stories that traditional media ignores. Some media leans left. Some media leans right. We lean business.

Sponsor a Show

Build Relationships and Grow Your Business. Click here for more details.

Partner With Us

Discover More Here

Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy

Connect with us

Want to keep up with the latest in pro-business news across the network? Follow us on social media for the latest stories!
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Business RadioX® Headquarters
1000 Abernathy Rd. NE
Building 400, Suite L-10
Sandy Springs, GA 30328

© 2025 Business RadioX ® · Rainmaker Platform

BRXStudioCoversLA

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of LA Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversDENVER

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Denver Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversPENSACOLA

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Pensacola Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversBIRMINGHAM

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Birmingham Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversTALLAHASSEE

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Tallahassee Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversRALEIGH

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Raleigh Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversRICHMONDNoWhite

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Richmond Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversNASHVILLENoWhite

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Nashville Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversDETROIT

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Detroit Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversSTLOUIS

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of St. Louis Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversCOLUMBUS-small

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Columbus Business Radio

Coachthecoach-08-08

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Coach the Coach

BRXStudioCoversBAYAREA

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Bay Area Business Radio

BRXStudioCoversCHICAGO

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Chicago Business Radio

Wait! Don’t Miss an Episode of Atlanta Business Radio