Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘boic’ Category

The Landmark Aviation story

By Hans Ullmark, Founder and CEO at Collaborate and a member of Gerbsman Partners Board Of Intellectual Capital.

How much is a brand worth – just the brand itself – in actual dollars. This rather unusual story provides an answer.

A few years ago three aviation services companies came together under new ownership to form a new company, Landmark Aviation, with sales of around $750M. All three founding companies had long histories in the aviation industry, with their own distinct corporate cultures and business processes.

Landmark Aviation’s new management team was faced with lots of practical challenges, and two big questions, namely, “How do we turn these diverse companies into a single organization with a common purpose and business focus?” and “How do we create a single, sustainable brand?”

Fortunately, they had the foresight and wherewithal to address these questions in a deliberate way, both internally and externally. They knew that a strong brand would not only help get business off to a flying start (pun intended), but that it would also help the company command a higher acquisition price, in the likely event that it were to be sold sometime in the future.

In order to create a brand strong enough to transcend the three founding brand names, along with their combined 150 years of heritage in the industry, the marketing team employed an approach we call “brand-led change.” It’s designed to help accelerate the growth of brand asset value for companies going through disruptive transitions such as mergers, acquisitions and new leadership, and it consists of the following steps.

Step 1: Know the brand’s strengths, and the competition’s relative weaknesses.

The first step was to conduct qualitative research, both internally and externally, to provide management with actionable insights, rather than the typical overload of abstract data that traditional research companies tend to offer. The results gave management the tools to define both a customer-driven service offering, and a unique brand positioning.

Step 2: Provide a compelling vision.

Internally, people wanted to know what the common purpose of the new, “merged” company would be. The vision was expressed as: “We are dedicated to enhancing the ownership and operating experience for every customer.”

Step 3: Start internally, then go externally.

Before any marketing and sales activities were put in motion, management launched an internal program called “Living the Vision.” It introduced the new company and the new brand to Landmark Aviation’s 2,400 employees in 35 locations across North America. As a result, the new organization entered this fiercely competitive field (a handful of well-established service providers fighting for market share) with highly motivated employees, clear on their goal of becoming the country’s leading aviation services company.

Step 4: Retain existing customers.

Along with creating the new brand came the necessity of demonstrating to existing customers that the new entity was stronger than it had been before, and was relentlessly focused on bringing more value than its competitors.

After the launch of the new brand, Landmark helped minimize confusion by clearly communicating that the services offered were just what the customers had asked for. Many of the airport operations, the so-called FBO terminals, were re-designed and upgraded. The resulting feeling — of a fresh, new company backed by extensive experience — resonated with customers, who overwhelmingly stayed with Landmark.

Step 5: Win new customers.

Confident of retaining existing customers, Landmark set out to win new ones, reaching out to nearly all their constituents via a broad-based marketing effort that included a strong web presence, print advertising, direct marketing, an impressive trade show calendar, local events, sales tools, an active PR agenda and branding at over 30 airports around the country. The rather traditional and conservative aviation services industry was unprepared for how quickly and convincingly the new company had gotten its act together. In taking the industry by surprise, Landmark took market share with it.

Step 6: Measure your progress…and then wait for the offers.

After 18 months, a tracking study revealed that Landmark had climbed to a No. 2 ranking in “most preferred provider” status in all of the different segments and service categories in corporate aviation. The owners soon started receiving offers to sell the company.

The offers were not made solely for the entire company, but for parts of it as well. In particular, offers came in for the FBO part of the Landmark operation, both with and without the Landmark brand name. The difference between the offers was that the one that included the Landmark brand name was approximately $70M higher.

The day the sale closed, the new owner walked away with both the operation and the brand name, and we realized the value of just the Landmark Aviation brand was around $70M.

Given that the costs for building the brand over nearly a two-year period were around $8M, this meant that the investment in building the brand had yielded a return of 875%. Few, if any, investments in the lifespan of a corporation ever generate such remarkable returns in such a short time.

Of course, every company, and every brand, is different. But the process of building a brand doesn’t change that much: know the competition better than you know yourself; start internally and work your way out, because your own people are among your greatest resources; retain your existing customers, and then go after new ones with everything you’ve got; measure your progress (and maybe, in some cases, field the offers); and finally, put all the resources you can behind creating a differentiating brand idea – an idea that helps visualize the brand.

And who wouldn’t like 875% return on marketing.

Collaborate
Collaboratesf.com

If you’d like to know more about the external team that helped Landmark Aviation build its brand and its business, call Hans Ullmark at Collaborate (415) 710 2139.

About Gerbsman Partners

Gerbsman Partners focuses on maximizing enterprise value for stakeholders and shareholders in under-performing, under-capitalized and under-valued companies and their Intellectual Property. Since 2001, Gerbsman Partners has been involved in maximizing value for 68 technology, life science and medical device companies and their Intellectual Property and has restructured/terminated over $795 million of real estate executory contracts and equipment lease/sub-debt obligations. Since inception in 1980, Gerbsman Partners has been involved in over $2.3 billion of financings, restructurings and M&A Transactions.

Gerbsman Partners has offices and strategic alliances in San Francisco, Boston, New York, Washington, DC, Alexandria, VA, Europe and Israel.

Read Full Post »

Article from SF Gate.

“Facebook began bringing video calling to the masses Wednesday, partnering with Skype to provide the free chat service to its 750 million members.

Video calling comes to the world’s largest social network as part of a larger overhaul of Facebook’s chat features. The updated service will allow users to create group text chats by adding multiple friends into the same window. The chat window also becomes more prominent, taking up the right side of the screen by default.

Speaking at the company’s Palo Alto headquarters, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the updates marked a shift for the company away from simply adding users at an ever-faster clip.

“The driving narrative for the next five years or so is not going to be about wiring up the world, because a lot of the interesting stuff has actually been done,” he said. “It’s about what kind of cool stuff you’re going to be able to build, and what kind of new social apps you’re going to be able to build, now that you have this wiring in place.”

Zuckerberg said the shift was prompted in part by a surging demand for sharing information. Facebook users share twice as much today as they did a year ago, as measured by photos posted, comments written and other items.

Facebook’s announcements come on the heels of Google rolling out a new social offering, Google+, that duplicates many of the sharing functions found in Facebook. Google+ also includes a feature called Hangouts that enables group video chatting.

For starters, the Facebook-Skype partnership will only allow one-on-one chatting. Group video chat could be forthcoming, executives said, although on Skype’s stand-alone product, that feature costs money to use.

Zuckerberg said Google’s new product validated Facebook’s own works, and that in the future social features would become an expected part of every application.

The question is which Internet company will prove better at retaining users. Google has more unique users, but they spend less time on the site than Facebook users do. The more time users spend on a site, the more valuable it is to advertisers.

Susan Etlinger, an analyst at Altimeter Group, said Facebook’s large user base would make its video-calling feature instantly competitive with Google’s and other video chat services.

She said the company’s plans to build new services on top of their platform signaled a newfound maturity for the 7-year-old company.

“What I heard Mark say today is that Facebook is starting to focus more on the social aspect of social networking, whereas in the past they focused more on the networking and engineering,” she said. “It’s a really healthy shift.”

Executives at Skype, which was acquired by Microsoft in May for $8.5 billion, said the acquisition would introduce them to an enormous new audience and sell add-on services to them.

“We think this makes a lot of business sense as well,” Skype CEO Tony Bates said. “We get huge reach. In the future we’re talking about potentially also having Skype paid products available within the Web format that we saw here today, so we’re very excited about it.”

Every month, Skype’s users spend 300 million minutes making video calls, Bates said. At peak times, video represents more than half the company’s traffic. (Skype has 170 million regular users.)

Video chat should be available to everyone within a week, Skype product manager Mike Barnes said. Making calls requires users to download a small Java application through the browser.

At first, users will not be able to link their Facebook and Skype accounts. But that integration is in the works, Barnes said. Users who have microphones but not webcams will be able to make voice-only calls on Facebook, he said.”

Read more.

Read Full Post »

Based on the strategic growth and access to the Brazilian market, Gerbsman Partners has established a “strategic relationship” with a Brazilian medical device manufacturing and distribution company.   This 24 year old wholly owned family company, is seeking additional product opportunities in the medical device, technology and low tech areas, for manufacturing, licensing and/or distribution.

With the significant growth in Brazil (190 million people) and South American and with The World Cup and The Olympics coming to Brazil, this BRIC country is growing at a significant pace and can offer US, Israeli and European companies “access” to a a highly desirable market.

The company presently is profitable, has no debt, complies with all local regulatory aspects, has international quality manufacturing certification for medical devices, a direct sales and distribution network in place, access to other European and Asian markets and strategic alliances with other Brazilian high and low tech Brazilian companies.

History

The company was founded in 1988 by a leading Doctor and Lawyer/Business Person and was the first company to manufacture and commercialize the Women’s Health Products (Disposable Vaginal Specula (instrument used by the Gynecologists to examine their patients) in Brazil.  Encouraged by the success of its first product, the company launched other disposable medical devices to substitute the reusable ones, i.e. Anuscopes, Sigmoidoscopes, Forceps, etc. For over 22 years the company has been the absolute leader in all the markets in which it competes.

The company is presently divided into 2 business units. The first one, the core of the company, manufactures and commercializes disposable medical products. The company has its own production plant and a solid distribution network throughout the country composed of its own sales team, distributors and sales reps. (5 sales reps and over 400 distributors).

The other unit was created in 2004 and distributes medical products from an American company focused on Women’s Health. This unit is seeking to identify additional products through licensing or manufacturing.

The company also exports to France, England, Poland, Chile, India and Portugal.

The company is building a new production facility to increase its capacity and also to be open and ready to opportunities of manufacturing new products in Brazil. The new facility will have 50.000 square feet divided as follow:

  • 7.000 square feet for plastic Injection
  • 6.000 square feet for packaging
  • 6.000 square feet for assembling
  • 15.000 square feet still open for new products/projects

The company has high quality and well preserved machines for plastic injection, extrusion, cervical brush manufacture, gloves and packaging.

The company has all the international quality certificates to manufacture and distribute medical products, i.e. GMP, ISO 9001:2008, ISO 13485:2004 and CE Mark and it is also in compliance with all rules and regulations of the local health agency called ANVISA. The company has no debt, is profitable and has sales revenues in excess of $ 16 million US dollars.  Along with the founders, the company has added their son to the executive team.  He is a recent MBA graduate in the US and has domain expertise in finance and engineering with major Fortune 500 companies.

As indicated above, Gerbsman Partners is seeking to identify interested companies seeking to access the Brazilian market in the medical device, technology and/or low tech areas.  This access would be through licensing, joint venture, distribution and/or manufacturing.

Please call me to discuss your interest and I will set up a dialog directly with the company.

Best regards

Steve Gerbsman

Read Full Post »

Article from NYTimes.

“What if you threw a $41 million party and nobody came? A start-up company called Color knows how that feels.

In March, Color unveiled its photo-sharing cellphone application — and revealed that it had raised $41 million from investors before the app had a single user. Despite the company’s riches, the app landed with a thud, attracting few users and many complaints from those who did try it.

“It would be pointless even if I managed to understand how it works,” one reviewer wrote in the Apple App Store.

Since then, Color has become a warning sign for investors, entrepreneurs and analysts who fear there is a bubble in start-up investing. They say it shows that venture capitalists, desperate to invest in the next Facebook or LinkedIn, are blindly throwing money at start-ups that have not shown they can build something useful, much less a business that can provide decent returns on investment.

Color, which says it is overhauling its app, is just one of the start-ups that have set tongues wagging about bubbly excess in Silicon Valley. The Melt plans to sell grilled-cheese sandwiches and soup that people can order from their mobile phones. It raised about $15 million from Sequoia Capital, which also invested in Color.

Airbnb, which helps people rent rooms in their homes, is raising venture capital that would value it at a billion dollars. Scoopon, a kind of Groupon for Australians, raised $80 million; Juice in the City, a Groupon for mothers, raised $6 million; and Scvngr, which started a Groupon for gamers, raised $15 million. These could, of course, turn out to be successful businesses. The worry, investors say, is the prices.

They say they have paid two to three times more for their stakes in such start-ups over the past year. According to the National Venture Capital Association, venture capitalists invested $5.9 billion in the first three months of the year, up 14 percent from the period a year earlier, but they invested in 51 fewer companies, indicating they were funneling more money into fewer start-ups.

“The big success stories — Facebook, Zynga and Twitter — are leading to investing in ideas on a napkin, because no one wants to miss out on the next big thing,” said Eric Lefkofsky, a founder of Groupon who also runs Lightbank, a Chicago-based venture fund with a $100 million coffer.

A decade ago, in the first surge of Internet investing, it was not unusual for tech start-ups to raise tens of millions of dollars before they had revenue, a product or users. But venture capitalists became more cautious after the bubble burst and the 2008 recession paralyzed Silicon Valley.

Meanwhile, it now costs less than ever to build a Web site or mobile app. So this time around the general philosophy has been to start small.

“By starting out lean, you have the chance to know if you’re on to something,” said Mark Suster, a managing director at GRP Partners. “If you start fat and the product concept doesn’t work, inherently the company will lose a lot of money.”

Two of Color’s photo-sharing competitors, Instagram and PicPlz, exemplify the lean start-up ethos. They started with $500,000 and $350,000, respectively, and teams of just a few people. As they have introduced successful products and attracted users, they have slowly raised more money and hired engineers.

Color, meanwhile, spent $350,000 to buy the Web address color.com, and an additional $75,000 to buy colour.com. It rents a cavernous office in downtown Palo Alto, where 38 employees work in a space with room for 160, amid beanbag chairs, tents for napping and a hand-built half-pipe skateboard ramp.

Bill Nguyen, Color’s always-smiling founder, has hired a team of expensive engineers, like D. J. Patil, a former chief scientist at LinkedIn.

“If I knew a better way of doing it, I would, but that’s what my cost structure is,” Mr. Nguyen said in an interview last week.

Michael Krupka, a managing director at Bain Capital Ventures and one of Color’s investors, said Color needed to raise a lot of money because it planned to do much more than photo-sharing.”

Read complete article here.

Read Full Post »

Article from NYTimes.

“For Reid Hoffman, the chairman of LinkedIn, it took less than 30 minutes to earn himself an extra $200 million.

With the hours ticking down to his company’s stock market debut, Mr. Hoffman dialed into a conference call from San Francisco’s Ritz-Carlton hotel as his chief executive, Jeff Weiner, and a team of bankers raced up from Silicon Valley in a black S.U.V. to meet with potential investors.

Demand for shares was intense, and they decided to raise the offering price by $10, to around $45.

When trading began on May 19, LinkedIn did not open at $45. Or $55. Or $65. Instead, the first shares were snapped up for $83 each and soon soared past $100, showering a string of players with riches and signaling a gold rush that has not been seen since the giddy days of the tech frenzy a decade ago.

Now there are signs that a new technology bubble is inflating, this time centered on the narrow niche of social networking. Other tech offerings, like that of the Internet radio service Pandora last week, have struggled, and analysts have warned that overly optimistic investors could once again suffer huge losses.

That enthusiasm was on full display in the blockbuster debut of LinkedIn, which provides a window into how a small group — bankers and lawyers, employees who get in on the ground floor, early investors — is taking a hefty cut at each twist in the road from Silicon Valley start-up to Wall Street success story.

“The LinkedIn I.P.O. will be used very powerfully over the next year as these companies go public and bankers deal with Silicon Valley,” said Peter Thiel, the president of Clarium Capital in San Francisco and an early investor in PayPal, LinkedIn and Facebook. “It sets things up for the other big deals.”

The sharp run-up after the initial public offering set off a fierce debate among observers about whether the bankers had mispriced it and left billions on the table for their clients to pocket. But the pent-up demand for what was perceived as a hot technology stock set the stage for easy money to be made almost regardless of the offering price.

Naturally, Wall Street is enjoying a windfall. Technology I.P.O.’s have generated nearly $330 million this year in fees for the biggest banks and brokerages, nearly 10 times the haul for the same period last year, and the most since 2000.

Besides the $28.4 million in fees for LinkedIn’s underwriting team, which was led by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, there were also a few slices reserved for specialists like lawyers and accountants. Wilson Sonsini, the most powerful law firm in Silicon Valley, collected $1.5 million, while the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche earned $1.35 million.

Mr. Hoffman founded LinkedIn in March 2003 after making a fortune as an executive at PayPal, the online payments service, but even as LinkedIn grew and other employees and private backers got stakes, Mr. Hoffman retained 21.2 percent, giving him more than 19 million shares when it went public. He has kept nearly of all them, so for now his $858 million fortune — it was $667 million before the last-minute price hike — remains mostly on paper.

Mr. Weiner arrived more recently, in late 2008, after working at Yahoo and as an adviser to venture capital firms, but his welcome package included the right to buy 3.5 million shares at just $2.32. And they are not the only big winners who secured shares at levels far below the I.P.O. price.

For example, when LinkedIn raised cash in mid-2008, venture capital firms including Bessemer Venture Partners and Sequoia Capital, scooped up 6.6 million shares at $11.47 each in return for early financing. They have held on to the stock, but Goldman Sachs, which got 871,840 shares at $11.47, sold all of it for a one-day gain of nearly $30 million.

Scores of fortunate individuals also managed to profit.

Stephen Beitzel, a software engineer, worked at LinkedIn from its founding until March 2004, but kept his stock when he left. His shares are now worth $17 million, and he sold $1.3 million worth in the offering.”

Read the complete article here.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »