A Reputation Online = An Operational Bottom Line

Back in the early 1990s, President George H.W. Bush gave a famous speech in which he referenced “the new world order.”

Although President Bush was referring to something completely different, the term ‘new world order’ would, I believe, be appropriate as a moniker for conducting business in the Internet age; put another way, the Internet has created a “new world order” in which businesses are exposed on a 24/7 basis to a worldwide audience, and are also subject to constant scrutiny.

And that ‘New World Order’ reality has lead to the growing importance of what has become known as “online reputation management”.

To be clear, “online reputation management” is generally defined as an organization’s—or individual’s—efforts to influence or control the business’ or individual’s online reputation; in the age of the Internet and social media, most often reputation management is seen as a concerted effort to have some influence in protecting a singular reputation.

And there is far more than simple ego or narcissism at play with reputation management. For businesses, it is critically important that misinformation about any aspect of a company not be allowed to circulate without any attempt made at correcting errors or falsehoods; search engines—particularly Google—have become important drivers of business, as both consumers and other businesses seek out information on companies prior to selecting with whom they will conduct business.

With that reality in mind—and the understanding that often the ‘best defense is a strong offense”– a growing number of companies are devoting considerable time and resources to their own online reputation management. While it is, of course, impossible to have ‘control’ over everything that is written about an organization, it is possible to both monitor and influence what is online; at a minimum, the goal of successful online reputation management should be ensuring that factually incorrect information that could potentially damage the company and its reputation is not disseminated without any response.

For many business owners, especially smaller to mid-size companies with limited resources, the notion of diverting precious time and money to a somewhat ‘abstract concept’ such as reputation management might seem to be a bit of a stretch. And while I can empathize with those who believe that there are other priorities that must be addressed in order to succeed in business, I would respectfully disagree.

In the year 2015—and likely for many years to come—the Internet plays an integral role in shaping public perception of all businesses, from the largest multinational corporations to the corner pizzeria or grocery store. In fact, according to a recent study by the Reputation Institute, more than 56 percent of companies say the reputation management is a “high priority” for their Executive Management and Board of Directors.

And the simple fact of the matter is smart businesses recognize this reality, and rather than bemoan the need to divert resources, they develop an intelligent reputation management plan and include it as a basic tenet in their organization’s overall business plan.

To that end, here are some simple facts that need to be taken into consideration when a business or organization is considering what efforts it will need to succeed in the field of online reputation management:

  • Assess The Current State of Your Company’s Online Reputation:

Before a company can begin to devise an appropriate plan for dealing with the challenges presented by managing its online reputation, it’s vital that there be an accurate assessment of what the public currently finds when it researches your company online. While some larger organizations may have the resources required to perform this task, given the breadth and scope of the Internet, most companies will likely have to consider hiring an external vendor that specializes in this field.

To assist in this effort, it may also be useful for those in Senior Management to perform an honest and thorough assessment of the company’s recent past, and current strengths and weaknesses; all companies have areas in which they excel, and other areas that present challenges, and this type of honest assessment may prove useful in addressing any negative issues regarding the company’s online reputation—to paraphrase an old saying, the goal in developing a strong online reputation is to ‘accentuate the positive, and eliminate the negative.’

  • Recognize That Reputation Management Must Be Ongoing & Plan Accordingly:

Most business owners understand the notion of “putting out fires”, which translates as tackling often unforeseen challenges that arise during the course of conducting business.

However, unlike singular problems that may arise during the course of everyday business, the issue of online reputation management is an ongoing, continuous effort. The search engines—such as Google or Bing—that decide what information and where is posted about a company on their websites rely on a multitude of factors, including news, social media and other events.  In other words, just because your company’s online reputation looked fine last week doesn’t guarantee it will remain that way going forward.

The ‘battle’ to protect your company’s reputation online is unrelenting—or at least, it should be if done properly.

  • Understand—And Plan To Act Upon—The Impact of Social Media:

Whether it’s via Facebook, Twitter, or any number of other social media websites, the ability of a business’ customers to voice their opinions about the company is easily accessible—and frankly, omnipresent.

Now, on a big picture level, that’s actually a positive—unlike many other nations around the world, we live in a thriving democracy and the right to Free Speech is one of the most critically important civil rights that are enjoyed by all Americans. In lieu of recent world events, Americans should—now more than ever—appreciate and value the right to free speech, and understand that it’s neither universal nor irreversible.

However, like all rights and freedoms, the right to free speech is subject to abuse, and there are those who—for whatever personal or professional reasons—choose to use social media to deliberately do damage to the reputation of either individuals or businesses. It is, in a sense, the ‘price’ we all pay for the right to universal free speech. Still, incorrect or deliberately negative attacks on a business on social media can be quite harmful—as information is shared online between thousands of individuals within a matter of minutes.

That’s why many businesses hire staff whose sole duties revolve around the company’s presence in the world of social media; any efforts made in protecting a company’s online reputation must ensure that it includes monitoring—and providing content and input into—social media sites.

Ultimately, like all aspects of running a successful business, the responsibility for protecting a company’s hard-earned reputation cannot be entirely outsourced. It falls to Senior Management of any organization to recognize the critical role that the Internet plays in determining how their company is seen by current and potential customers, literally around the globe.

It can often take many years of hard work to build a strong reputation as a quality business. Therefore, it’s well worth the time and effort required to ensure that hard-earned reputation is not lost or damaged as a result of some erroneous–or nefarious–online information.

America, Inc.: The Pros/Cons Of A ‘CEO President’

Jevin Sackett

Despite all the hand-wringing, America remains the world’s largest and most dominant economic and military power—and, as a result, the nation’s president remains arguably the most powerful person on the planet.

Not surprisingly, given its size and scope, the American government can also be an enormous, unwieldy entity; divided into three equal branches—Executive (the President & his cabinet), Legislative, and Judicial—the U.S. government also has a massive budget that is unparalleled by even the largest companies in the world.

For example: In 2014, the U.S. federal government spent an eye-popping $3.8trillion!

In addition to that massive fiscal responsibility, as Commander-in-Chief of the American military, the President also has to provide leadership to a world awash in political and military instability and upheaval. It could even be argued that, given recent world events, not since the days of the last World War has the American president faced as many challenges, both at home and abroad.

So any way you choose to look at it, being President of the United States is, as musicians are wont to say, “a tough gig.”

With a presidential election now just over a year away, both major political parties are in the process of selecting their respective nominees.

Interestingly, despite their ideological differences, one thing both parties share as we enter yet another presidential election cycle is the seemingly perpetual question: what leadership qualities are required for a successful presidential nominee and—ultimately—our next president?

Many American voters—of all political stripes—have expressed a desire to consider a political ‘outsider’ as their next president, particularly one with hands-on experience “running” a large organization; the thought behind this idea is that the same qualities that make for a successful business leader could—theoretically—transfer to the political world, and therein better prepare the next president for the seemingly endless financial and geopolitical challenges ahead.

But that poses an interesting question: does having leadership experience in the business world provide the experience and acumen required to be a successful president?

Unless you have resided under a (well insulated) rock the last few months, you’ve likely heard this question—in various forms—debated in American media. Of course, the driving factor behind that debate has been the (seemingly) omnipresent figure of Donald Trump, whose lengthy resume includes decades of prominent real estate development and, in recent years, his presence on the hit television program “The Apprentice.”

More recently, adding fuel to the debate about the merits of having a ‘CEO President’, has been the rising popularity of presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, former CEO of tech giant Hewlett-Packard. Like Trump, Fiorina touts her years as Chief Executive of one of the world’s most prominent tech companies as a substantial asset that would provide her with the requisite leadership skills needed to succeed as American president.

Although vastly different in both style and substance, by reaching the top tier of Republican presidential sweepstakes, Trump and Fiorina are forcing both the voters and pundits to confront the real possibility of having a business-trained, ‘non-politician’ as America’s next president.

Like anything having to do with entrepreneurialism, there are risks and rewards—or in this case, potential pros and cons—to selecting a business leader to run the American government, military and foreign policy.

Putting aside the specific individual personalities of prospective candidates, from the perspective of a fellow Chief Executive, here’s what I see as being the benefits–and potential drawbacks–of a President with a business-oriented resume:


  • Financial savvy: Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of “hiring” a President with a business-oriented background would be the fiscal acumen (and one hopes discipline) that a former business leader would bring to both the Oval Office and Washington, D.C. America’s national debt is approaching $19 trillion, and with a rapidly aging population there will be considerably greater demand on programs such as Social Security and Medicare in the next few years; combine that with Washington’s penchant for ‘pork’—projects that serve the interests of few at the expense of many—and the idea of a president inclined to wield a responsible fiscal ‘stick’ becomes quite appealing indeed
  • Leadership skillsOne of the core traits of any successful business leader is the ability to put forward a ‘big picture vision’, and then build both the team and widespread consensus required to work toward that goal. Political preferences aside, it is hard to argue that over the last several years in Washington, there has been much ‘consensus’ leadership on display. It could be argued that a president with a proven track record in the business world, which illustrated the ability to ‘bring people together’ from various points of view, might be able to fill the considerable vacuum of visionary, and consensus-building leadership in our nation’s capital
  • Interpersonal SkillsAs I have discussed in previous columns, the ability to successfully interact and communicate with other senior leaders—as well as audiences both internal and external—is a critical component for achieving success as a business leader. That same skill is needed by a successful president; thirty years ago, despite their vast differences, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev established a strong personal relationship that played a role in diffusing Cold War tensions between the American and Russian super powers. That ability—to get beyond personal differences and work towards a mutually beneficial destiny—is a characteristic that could, potentially, be transferred from the ‘wheeling and dealing’ world of business to that of a President actively involved in world (and domestic) diplomacy.


  • Division of Powers: America’s Founding Fathers were very wise men who took great precautions to ensure that no one branch of government—or individual, including the President—wielded too much power. As a result, our nation has three branches of government, with Constitutionally-mandated equal powers. In real terms, that means that in order for a president to see his ‘vision’ come to pass, he must convince the Legislative branch—Congress—to pass the laws required to achieve his presidential goals. As we’ve seen in recent years, that’s often easier said than done, and can often require considerable political acumen and experience that a former business leader may not necessarily bring with him or her to the Oval Office.
  • Requisite Geopolitical Knowledge/Experience: It can be argued that few presidents arrive on the first day of their job with the required amount of foreign policy knowledge and experience, especially given the critical leadership role that a president plays in setting the national—and indeed, global—political agenda. However, it can also be argued that somepresidents, particularly those who either bring with them senior level political experience garnered from either the statehouse (i.e. governors) or Washington (i.e. Senators, former Cabinet members) at least have a baselineof knowledge about global affairs and/or trade and commerce. Other than senior business leaders of multi-national companies, few Chief Executives would bring with them to D.C. much hands-on acumen about global affairs or trade.
  • Lack Of ‘Glad Handing’ Skills: Although there is, of course, a certain amount of ‘office politics’ at play in any organization, there is a vast difference between that, and the type of national political campaigning required to be elected president. Chief Executives tend to be ‘can-do’ people who are more results-oriented, and while there may be some executives who could endure—and perhaps even enjoy—the lengthy, costly and unwieldy process of running for the highest office in the land, many others would find the process onerous; in addition, ‘kissing babies’ and taking ‘selfies’ are not the kind of events that most successful CEOs would normally gravitate towards. Simply put, unlike many ‘professional’ politicians, business people are not ‘natural campaigners’.

Without a doubt, the 2016 Presidential Election is shaping up to be one of the most fascinating, unpredictable races in modern times. Based on early results—and we are, after all, still a full year out from election day—there appears to be a palpable desire among the electorate to–at the very least–give serious consideration to ‘non-traditional’ politicians as our next President, including at least two former/current Chief Executive Officers.

Time, as it always does, will ultimately tell whether the American electorate is truly ready to recruit our next President from the ranks of Corporate America.

In the interim, the debate over transferring a business leader from his—or her—executive corner office to the famed Oval one in Washington is likely to heat up in the coming months.

Corporate Communications: Can You Hear Me Now?

conference hall

In earlier posts, I discussed some of the most vital skills required to be a successful Chief Executive Officer.

As you may have noticed, the recurring theme in those columns—and many others that have pertained to successfully managing a growing company—was the absolutely essential need for clear and consistent corporate communications.

Now, on the surface, that may seem to be a given—after all, in business it’s only natural that within an organization employees consistently communicate with their managers, while externally, salespeople regularly communicate with their customers. However, as an organization grows, it also becomes increasingly important that the company consistently communicate with all of its stakeholders—internally as well as externally–as well as the media, which often serves as the conduit for communication between business and the public.

For the senior management of any business, the task of successfully communicating—both internally and externally—has always been somewhat of a challenge, albeit a necessary part of ‘doing business.’ Entrepreneurs are, by their nature, often more focused on building their businesses, rather than sharing their corporate stories.

It’s also ironic, but true, that in this Information Age–where the available tools for communication have never been easier to access and utilize–successful ‘Corporate Communications’ has actually become more challenging.

The fact is that in the Internet age–where even your cell phone can provide limitless amounts of news and information at a moment’s notice–people are constantly inundated with information from a seemingly endless number of sources.

Breaking through that informational ‘din’, and actually connecting with your target audience, is indeed a challenge for all business leaders, and one that requires considerable effort and commitment.

For example: in the case of our company, Sackett National Holdings (SNH), successful communications has never been more important. This year, we’re experiencing unprecedented growth, and as a result, we’ve also been hiring a considerable number of new employees to keep up with that expansion.

That is, of course, good news.

Still, it’s increasingly important that we ensure that all of our employees—both existing and new hires—are kept abreast of our diverse and growing business.  As we strive to ensure that all of our employees understand the current state of our company–and the direction it’s headed going forward—internal corporate communications has become an even more important priority for our Senior Management team.

One of the benefits of having a ‘tech savvy’ company such as SNH is that we are well suited to utilize technology to benefit not only our clients, but our own internal communication efforts as well.

Still, like many growing and diverse companies, one of the challenges we face in achieving our internal communications objectives is basic geography. Our corporate headquarters is located in Las Vegas, but we also have a large office in San Diego, as well as offices in Ohio and Kansas City; in a less-technological age, that geographic disparity would present significant logistical problems for our communication efforts.

Enter the benefits of technology.

As a method of bridging the geographic distance between our regional offices, and ensuring ‘consistent and clear’ corporate communications—our company recently began providing employees a “CEO Communication” webcast; initially broadcast live, and then posted online for several days in case any employees were unavailable during the original webcast, this video allows me—in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer–to speak directly to all  SNH employees, and deliver the good news about our company’s growth and success.

In that same broadcast, we also made a point of singling out several employees for their exceptional work, and thanking them for their efforts on behalf of the company. In addition to sharing information about our company’s growth, we also included some lighter fare, such as photos from company gatherings as well as contests offering employees prizes.

And while internal webcasts are most useful as a means of updating and connecting with staff, I also believe that maintaining the ‘human touch’ is an important element in our internal corporate communication efforts. To that end, we recently held company ‘Town Hall’-type meetings in San Diego and Las Vegas—providing employees with a chance to hear directly from Senior Management about the status of our company, as well as fielding corporate questions from those in attendance.

I was very pleased to find that, in response to an internal survey, 94 percent of our employees said they welcomed the ‘Town Hall’ events, and hoped we would conduct many more on a regular basis; while happy with that result, I wasn’t the least bit surprised, because I recognize the inherent and natural desire of employees to be kept ‘up to speed’ with what’s happening at their place of employment.

Concurrent to our internal communications efforts, our company is also expanding our efforts to reach out to external stakeholders—including current and potential customers—to share information about both our organization, and the innovative products and services we offer.

With double-digit growth, rapid expansion and unique and innovative products to proffer, we’re proud of SNH’s corporate ‘story’, and are committed to the communication efforts required to share our story often, and with as many stakeholders as possible.

In the business world, most commerce can be divided into one of two categories: business-to-business (B2B) as well as business-to-consumer (B2C). At SNH, we’re fortunate to have subsidiaries that are industry leaders in both B2B as well as B2C businesses.

While there may be some minor differences in the way a company approaches communication for a B2B versus B2C audience, it’s imperative that the corporate messaging for both be clear and consistent—and fully aligned with an organization’s internal communications; the several hundred employees who work for our company are our strongest ‘brand’ ambassadors, and ensuring they are fully engaged with our company’s progress is key to our success.

When devising a corporate communications plan, it’s important to keep in mind that throughout all of history, there’s never been a time when information was more readily available–everywhere and all of the time.

Given that reality, one of the most formidable challenges facing organizations—and those charged with running them—is to commit the time, effort and resources required to ensuring successful corporate communications; by doing so, you will also ensure that your company’s story gets heard, and doesn’t fall between the constant ‘clicks’ of the Information Age.


Labor Day ‘15: Americans Working On A Dream

Jevin Blog_Labor Day
It may be hard to believe, but the dog days of summer are descending upon us once again, and as is the case every year, they bring with them the arrival of Labor Day–our annual, national holiday designed to recognize the immeasurable contributions made to our nation by its working men and women.

For most Americans, Labor Day carries with it a certain degree of bittersweet flavor, marking as it does the unofficial ‘end of summer’ and the approaching autumnal season. Annually celebrated on the first Monday in September, Labor Day was created by the nation’s labor movement in the late 19th century, and became an official federal holiday in 1894.

Still, it is only appropriate that more than a century after its creation, Labor Day continues to annually honor America’s working men and women. It’s not an overstatement to say that this nation was built—and well into the 21st century, continues to thrive—in large part based on the often unheralded hard labor of millions of Americans, whose names and faces we will likely never know.

Despite the tectonic economic shifts brought about by new technology over the last several decades, the foundations of American commerce are still greatly dependent on the actual labor of the American worker.

Even in the ‘Information Age’, as a nation we rely daily upon the foods grown by American farmers, the goods delivered by our truck drivers, or the roads and homes built by the nation’s construction workers; for millions of other Americans, technology has replaced the plow or the hammer as their workplace  ‘tool’, yet their work and dedication still provides the foundations for successful companies, large and small.

Our company, Sackett National Holdings, along with our subsidiaries, provides a classic example of how innovative state-of-the-art technology succeeds when it is paired with dedicated, skilled employees. We proudly consider our company, and all of our subsidiaries, to be very ‘tech savvy’ and constantly on the lookout for new, innovative ways to utilize technology to help our customers succeed in their respective industries.

Still, despite our commitment to technological innovation, our Senior Management team fully recognizes that a large part of our company’s continued growth and success is due to—and reliant upon—the skills and dedication of our staff. The high degree of attention we as a company pay to quality customer service is fully reliant upon the hard work and commitment of our employees, and every department within our company reflects both the entrepreneurial dedication and concerted efforts of our staff to serving our clients’ needs.

Computers, and technology in general, can provide wonderful tools to help a business succeed; however, no technology can—nor likely ever will—replace the personalized service and attention to individual customer needs provided by a skilled and dedicated employee.

These days, we often hear much talk about how ‘nothing is ever made in America anymore.’ And while there can be no doubt that globalization has resulted in some dramatic shifts in the American economy, here’s a few facts to consider before we write off America’s capacity to ‘make things here’ in the new millennium:

  • The American manufacturing sector supports approximately 17.1 million indirect jobs in the United States;
  • In addition, it’s estimated that about 12 million Americans are still directly employed in manufacturing, for a total of 29.1 million jobs directly and indirectly supported by American manufacturing, as of 2013, representing more than one-fifth (21.3 percent) of total U.S. employment
  • By comparison, as of 2013, there were about 4 million Americans working in what is considered to be the nation’s “core” technology sector; of course, millions more Americans—both blue and white collar workers—utilize technology as part of their daily work.


And in the 21st century, as was the case in the previous century, perhaps no single American manufacturing sector better symbolizes the pairing of technology with dedicated labor than the American auto industry; in previous columns, I’ve noted the dramatic, and impressive, post-recession resurgence of the American automotive sector.

As an automotive industry leader actively partnering with thousands of auto dealerships nationwide, our company’s subsidiary–National Credit Center–is fortunate to contribute to, and participate in, that amazing resurgence.

But don’t take my word for it—the numbers speak for themselves.

  • Between December 2009 and December 2014, the number of jobs in the auto manufacturing category rose by 230,700 (from 653,300 to 884,000)
  • Over the same period, the number of jobs in the auto dealer category rose by 272,200 (from 1,616,800 to 1,889,000).
  • When those two related figures are combined, the total increase in automotive jobs over the past five years is 502,900

By any yardstick you may choose to use, that is an extraordinarily impressive recovery for an industry that skeptics were saying was near death as recently as a half dozen years ago.

The lesson from the auto industry’s re-emergence as an economic powerhouse is that even in the new millennium, American business and labor can—and very often do—work in tandem, thereby creating a mutually beneficial relationship that provides gainful, productive employment as well as a solid ROI (return on investment) for employers.

And so as Americans once again prepare to enjoy our annual, national day celebrating the achievements and contributions of American labor, I think it’s worthwhile to pause for a moment and reflect on the efforts and dedication of the American worker.

Yes, the new millennium and its technology brings with it many changes in the American workplace; and yes, globalization means that American companies—and workers—are competing on a much larger stage than at any time in our history.

But anyone who underestimates the resilience and dedication of America’s working men and women need look no further than our automotive industry.

For not unlike the nation’s auto industry, America’s working men and women are resilient and dedicated; and as a result, the American Dream is also still very much alive and well, and worth celebrating this Labor Day.


It’s Personal! Customer Service In The ‘Selfie’ Age

Hands Holding Digital Devices with People's Images

Jevin Sackett Business

It may be hard to believe, particularly for those under-30 years of age, but there was a time in the not-too-distant past, that we all lived in a world where the daily reality included:

  • Only one phone company—not so affectionately known as ‘Ma Bell’; and a time when placing a long distance call was often an exceptionally expensive thing to do
  • A grand total of three network choices proffered for TV viewing
  • The need to be in front of your TV screen, at a designated time—or else risk missing a favorite program
  • A world in which would-be photographers had to purchase a camera, then film, and then bring that film to a third party–and wait to get it developed
  • And a world in which job seekers had to manually search through the “Help Wanted” ads in their local newspaper

There are many other illustrations of the changing times, but I think you get the point. 

In ways almost too numerous to count, the business world of 2015 bares almost no similarity to the one that existed as recently as 20 years ago. Of course, technology is–and remains–the main driver for the majority of the changes in the way business is conducted today; however, technology has also resulted in one other significant trend within the business world.

The personalization of goods and services. 

One of the most significant changes that technology has both caused–and enabled–has been demand for personalized products and services. Today, it is virtually impossible for any member of the ‘millennial generation’ to conceive of a time when it was the norm for everyone to have the same choices—or in some cases, no choices at all—in everything from telephones to televised entertainment.

In addition, in the era of Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and other forms of social media, the ability to interchange ideas and images with anyone, anywhere at anytime is now a given. And implicit in that fact is the ability for consumers to create, share and enjoy personalized communication and entertainment on a 24/7 basis. 

Many successful businesses—including our own Sackett National Holdings and its subsidiaries—have long touted a commitment to individualized customer service. We’ve long recognized that while a ‘one size fits all’ approach to servicing our clients might make our business model simpler and more uniform, it would also be tantamount to telling customers they’re just ‘another numerical file’; were we to be foolish enough to adapt such a view, the resulting loss of business would be both predictable, and appropriate.

For us, that was always the case. 

However, halfway through the second decade of the new millennium, clients (be they consumers or businesses) now not only appreciate–but expect–to receive products and services designed to meet their individual needs. As I’ve noted in previous columns, the Internet means that customers have a wider array of choices than ever before, and easier access to that plethora of available choices.

Still, even at this late date, some industries are just now awakening to this new reality. Take, for example, the cable television industry. 

It’s estimated that more that $70 billion is spent annually on TV advertising. That’s an impressive figure. However, it may also be deceptive. 

One of the latest buzzwords within the business world is “cord-cutting”, which references a rapidly growing consumer willingness to walk away from ‘bundled’ programming packages offered by the cable TV industry in favor of, you guessed it, more personalized options. 

For decades, cable companies—who have near complete domination of their assigned regions due to lack of competition—have been able to ‘bundle’ dozens of channels, and sell those packages to their customers. Other than opting for satellite television, consumers were left with little or no choice: pay for channels you have no intention of watching, in order to get access to those you will, or walk away from your favorite program or network.

That was then, this is now—and ‘now’ is the age of the Internet. As a result of new technology, a rapidly growing number of TV consumers are cutting their proverbial cable cords—ergo, the phrase ‘cord-cutting’–and seeking alternatives to the expensive cable option; after all, in any business other than cable television, the notion of customers paying for goods or services they know they will never use would be—correctly–seen as patently absurd.

And there is good reason for the cable companies growing concern over a diminishing customer base—as seen in the rapid growth of the alternative option to cable TV. Web video advertising is slated to grow by an impressive 30 percent this year, and while it is valued at about $8 billion dollar (a fraction of the giant cable market), unlike cable, all of the indicating arrows for web-based advertising point upward.

This new era of personalized consumer demand is, perhaps correctly, being seen in historical terms as one of great narcissism. From ‘selfie sticks’ to Twitter—and for better or worse–the primary focus of this era seems to be pleasing the face we see in our mirrors.

However, the bottom line is that businesses failing to provide the quality, personalized goods and services expected by today’s demanding consumers do so at their peril–and risk learning first-hand the economic consequences of customer ‘cord-cutting’.

“How Am I Doing?”: Five Recurring Questions Every Successful Business Should Ask Itself

The keys of success

Back in the 1970s, New York City Mayor Ed Koch was well-known for stopping fellow New Yorkers and randomly asking them “how am I doing?”.

Beyond the obvious attempt at empathizing with his electorate, Koch’s question was actually a wise one; there is much to be gained—and learned—for anyone in a leadership role by pausing every now and then and asking oneself–and others–“how am I doing?”

The theory has ancient roots: even Socrates once opined that “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

Still, you might think that in the narcissistic age of the ‘selfie’ and social media, the self-examining question of “how am I doing” could be seen as superfluous, especially in the business world. However, given the competitive nature—and speed—of business these days, far too few business leaders take the time to seriously reflect on just how ‘on target’ their efforts are, and whether or not their operations are in sync with the best interest of their business.

With that in mind, I’d like to offer up five of the key operational questions every successful business leader/owner should ask his or herself–on a regular, recurring basis–to help ensure his company’s long-term prosperity:

5) Do We Have The Right People In Senior Management Positions?

There’s an old adage that says “a fish rots from the head down”. The business implication of that statement being, that if there are problems within the top management of a company, it’s likely that those problems will trickle down to the business’ daily operations.

Of course, the opposite is also true: a well-run company, with senior management who have a clear vision of where the company is heading–and the skills to take it there–is far more likely to succeed and overcome competitors.

Simply stated, it’s imperative that an organization put in place not only skilled senior management—but the right skilled senior management—to ensure that the executive decisions made daily are in sync with how best to both increase sales, while maintaining a positive workplace environment.

4) Is Our Company Sufficiently Open To New Ideas & Taking Appropriate Risks?

As I noted in an earlier column, one of the biggest challenges that face very successful companies is a sense of complacency, and the accompanying assumption that since the company is doing well now, it can expect to continue to enjoy success going forward.

The fact is that in today’s business world things change faster than ever before, and even companies—such as our own Sackett National Holdings–that are today enjoying solid growth, cannot simply assume they will retain that momentum. Innovation and complacency are foes, and it’s rare that a company that loses its competitive edge is also a hub of innovation.

Another victim of corporate complacency is a company’s tolerance for risk. There’s a reason that one of the most commonly used phrases in the entrepreneurial business world is “no risk, no reward”—it just happens to be true. While due diligence is always important, even successful companies have to be willing to accept the degree of risk that’s inherent with innovation, and introducing new products and services. Thus, it’s important for a company to continually ask itself if it is willing to accept the risk that comes with innovation.

3) What defines and delineates our company from our competitors?

In 2012, there was an estimated 29 million small businesses operating in the United States. For any business-owner, that can be an intimidating number, given the implications for competition; certainly, that competition is good news for consumers, but it also means that it’s absolutely imperative that a company be able to offer customers a product or service that can delineate it from its competitors.

In the Internet age, consumers have more choices—and sources of information regarding those choices—than ever before. To be heard above the ‘din’, to stand out from the vast number of competitors, a business needs to identify what it can offer customers that its competition either can’t, or does not: competitive pricing, a track record of reliability, innovative products, and superior customer service are each examples of how a business can delineate itself from others competing for the same customer’s dollar.

But, of course, in order to persuade customers your business stands out from its competition, a company must also ask itself…

2) Are We Doing Enough To Tell The World Our Company’s ‘Story’?

Business people—and particularly entrepreneurs—are hardly renowned as shy or introverted.

And rightly so. For in addition to possessing ability and ‘business smarts’, it takes a great deal of self-confidence to believe that one can overcome the odds to create–and operate–a successful business.

However, in line with my previous point, it’s never been more imperative than in the Internet age that a business makes the effort required to tell the world its ‘story’—to proudly, and accurately, inform current and potential customers about why they should consider the company’s products or services.

The fact is that, as any first year science student knows, “Nature hates a vacuum”, and if a company fails to tell its corporate story, then that ‘void’ will be filled either by misinformation or by another, more proactive competitor’s story.

There’s a reason that even well established, iconic brands such as Coca Cola, Ford Motors or Bank of America spend considerable time and resources in the areas of marketing and public/media relations. It’s because they realize that, despite their iconic brands, they have both a corporate—and fiduciary—responsibility to help shape the ‘narrative’ about what is being said regarding their company; they also recognize that equally ‘iconic’ rivals such as Pepsi Cola, General Motors and Wells Fargo would be happy to fill the information vacuum, should they fail to tell their company’s respective corporate stories.

Even if the ROI (return on investment) isn’t always immediately apparent, it’s imperative that any company—of any size—make whatever reasonable efforts it can to proudly tell the world about itself; failure to do so in a fiercely competitive market endangers the company’s future prospects, no matter the quality of its products or services.

And speaking of future prospects, there’s the critically important question…

1) Where Do We Envision Our Company To Be In Five Years?

We’ve all heard the expression ‘you can’t get to where you want to go, until you know where you want to be’, and nowhere is this truer than in the corporate journey. Simply having a goal of ‘more success’ isn’t a sufficient vision for a company’s future.

In order for a business to have a clearly delineated path to success, it must also have a clearly delineated goal(s). In shaping a company’s path forward, there are a multitude of important questions to address, including:

  • How fast do you wish to grow your business?
  • Will that growth be organic or via acquisitions, or both?
  • Will the focus be specific to a targeted market or geographic region?
  • If it’s a privately held entity, do you plan to someday consider taking the company public? If so, what needs to be done in preparation for this move?

And of course, a company’s desired goals may need to be revised over time; circumstances change, and so it may be necessary to revisit a company’s longer-term plans to ensure that they remain in sync with significant external changes that occur.

It’s also critically important to remember that all the ‘how am I doing’ questions outlined here are recurring—businesses, like the people who run them, change over time, and constant adaptation to those changes requires ongoing, honest self-appraisal.

The bottom line is that, in an era where change is accurately said to be the only constant, companies willing to continuously ask themselves “how am I doing” aren’t being narcissistic—they’re being well-run.

Google This! Competition=Innovation

man hand using smartphone in officeIn the business world, all companies strive to grow their ‘market share’—the percentage of the market demand for a particular product or service.

In fact, the heart of capitalism derives from competition between companies for the same consumer or business dollar–and the resulting market share. Of course, competition benefits consumers, but it also benefits businesses–by forcing them to become more efficient and innovative in order to stand out from their business rivals.

Which is why it caught my eye when it was revealed this week that Apple Inc. reported 92 percent of total operating profits from the world’s top eight smartphone makers, during the first quarter of this year.

Take a moment and let that sink in: Apple’s ‘iPhone’ generated more than 9 out of every 10 dollars of profit in the lucrative smartphone industry during the first quarter of the year. That’s a truly astonishing accomplishment, and one that is almost without precedent in the business world.

Similarly, an Apple rival in the technology sector is also establishing eye-catching dominance in its field; Google Inc. has become the dominant force in many tech-based sectors, including its overwhelming 67.6 percent market share of the search engine world. Google also has a dominant presence in the online advertising, browser, email and video markets (it purchased Youtube in its infancy several years ago).

Now, don’t get me wrong. As CEO of Sackett National Holdings–a company that greatly values innovative technology–I applaud Apple and Google’s impressive ability to produce high quality tech products and services that are much in demand. These are two American companies that have achieved worldwide success in large part by offering their customers quality products—which have, to a large extent, also transformed the way the world communicates and conducts business. No small feat.

However, as someone whose rapidly growing entrepreneurial business has to—and chooses to—compete against many other large, national companies, I am also well-versed in the important role competition plays in spurring our company towards success.

Whether it’s providing state-of-the-art software solutions to our clients in the financial services sector, automotive, employment screening or retail energy industries, we at SNH recognize that complacency is unacceptable; our customers have choices, and we can’t—and would not—ever assume that they will remain our clients unless we can offer them innovative, quality products and services.

And that is my concern when I read about a company such as Apple attaining 92 percent of the quarterly operating profits for the smartphone industry, or Google’s complete domination of varied online businesses.

The level of innovation that Steve Jobs and his team showed by creating the iPhone was born out of competition, and an entrepreneurial desire to think outside the proverbial ‘box’; Google also became a dominant player in the world’s tech sector through innovation born of entrepreneurial competition.

But when any one company grows so large as to dwarf its competitors—and, as a result, its competition—will that dominance result in less innovation? There are legitimate reasons to believe so.

Innovation is, by its very nature, born out of a company’s need to delineate itself from its competition; to be able to say to clients—and potential clients—‘we can offer you a superior product or service, and do so at a competitive pricing level.’

All businesses–even companies that produce desirable products and services such as Apple and Google–that no longer have to be concerned about fierce competition, rarely remain hubs of innovation.

If it’s true that ‘necessity is the mother of invention’, then it’s equally true that competition is likely invention’s father. And frankly, any company that no longer feels the need to worry about its competition is more likely to become an ‘orphanage’, than a parent, to new inventions.

For all its perceived flaws, capitalism encourages competition, and that, in turn, encourages businesses to take risks; and few, if any, great innovations were ever achieved without some degree of risk.

Still, perhaps it is just the natural evolution of business that successful start-up companies often grow to become dominant players in their industries. Certainly, when we first founded our company more than 20 years ago, we hoped that it would grow to become a national presence, and compete directly with established industry leaders; the fact that we have been able to reach that point is due, in no small part, to our corporate commitment to taking calculated risks, which include innovative technology.

Some critics of Apple and Google say that as those two companies have grown into international corporate giants dominating the tech sector, their capacity for innovation has diminished; although they both no doubt employ smart, innovative people, the tech giants have become so big that they are more concerned with protecting—rather than growing—their market share.

As it always does, Time will tell whether or not Apple and Google’s most innovative days are behind them.

But even if they are, you can rest assured that somewhere out there is a ‘hungry’ entrepreneur working on a new, innovative product, which will ultimately result in greater competition for the Apples and Googles of this world.


Economics 101: A Greek Tragedy

20 euro banknote dissolving as a concept of economic crisis in gThe nation of Greece has, for centuries, conjured up a plethora of images and thoughts: the birthplace of democracy, philosophical land of Aristotle and Socrates, the Parthenon, and the natural beauty of Corfu, Mykonos and other Greek resort islands.

Sadly, over the last half decade, for many around the world the word ‘Greece’ has a very different connotation: a bankrupt nation, whose economic and political uncertainty threatens not only the future of its people, but of the entire Eurozone.

In much the same way that—as the old saying goes–Rome wasn’t ‘built in a day’, so too is it true that this modern Greek tragedy evolved over a longer period of time. What’s transpiring now in Greece can be traced back to decades of mistakes, miscalculations, and an unwillingness by many to confront an evolving, and long threatening, economic reality.

There are those who, perhaps with some validity, have argued for years that while the European Economic Union (EU)—and its singular currency, the Euro—made fiscal sense, it ignored a long, convoluted and often confrontational history among the European nations. For while it’s true that yesterday’s enemies can evolve into today’s economic allies—the examples are countless, including America’s close ties with former ‘enemies’ such as Germany and Japan—European history is long, often violent and replete with the nationalism of many nations.

So it came as no surprise to many that, when the recent referendum question was asked of the Greek electorate “do you wish to accept the terms offered by the EU in exchange for another economic bailout”, more than 60 percent of voters said ‘no’.

On a practical level, it may be difficult for some to understand why Greeks—who have repeatedly said en masse that they wish to remain in the EU—would endanger that likelihood by such a vote, it is completely understandable on an emotional level.

The fact that the ‘No’ supporters used the stern countenance of Germany’s finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble on their referendum poster was not by happenstance; those Greeks opposing the EU bailout knew that their best chance for success would be an emotional appeal, and so relied on a poster that none-too-subtly recalled memories of 1941, a time when German forces invaded and occupied Greece.

And what does the economic and political drama unfolding in Greece mean for Americans, and American business?

That all depends on the terms of reference one chooses to use. Economically, a Greek bankruptcy would have little direct  impact on either American business or consumers. The Greek economy is but a fraction of the size of the U.S. economy: the Greek Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was $242 billion (US) in 2013, while the American GDP for the same year was $16.77 trillion (US).

However, the fear among some economists and politicians is of a ‘Greek contagion’, which translates into a possible domino effect of a Greek bankruptcy, wherein other EU countries with weaker economies and higher debt levels—such as Spain and Portugal—could follow Greece’s exit from the EU.

Were that to occur, the impact on America would be far greater than simply a Greek exit from the EU. According to the European Commission, the U.S. and EU economies combined account for about half of the entire world’s GDP.

So the unanswered issue, especially for an American audience, is would a Greek exit from the EU be the end–or just the beginning of a much larger story?

And the overriding question still remains: how did it come to this?

As noted earlier, a combination of several factors are at play in the evolution of this Greek tragedy. Profligate government spending, overly generous pensions (with Greek ‘retirement’ often starting up to 15 years before traditional American retirement), compounded by a worldwide recession, finally brought to the forefront long-simmering questions about the sustainability of Greece’s social spending.

The real tragedy at play here is not so much a philosophical one regarding the policies of the Greek government, or the terms of a European bailout of Greece, as much as it is a human one. As of this week, Greek banks are restricting individual withdrawals to no more than $60 per day, as they fear running out of hard currency; meanwhile, everyone–from the poor and the elderly, to the hardworking businesspeople and merchants in Greece–face an uncertain economic future that, at best, will likely mean difficult times for several years to come.

There are many economic lessons to be learned from what is currently unfolding in Greece.

These would include: a confirmation that ever-increasing debt levels are ultimately unsustainable, and carry with them very real, and very human consequences; that politicians who choose to sugar-coat the economic reality of their country for short-term political expedience should be avoided at all costs; and a recognition that, as I noted in another recent column, those who choose not to learn from history are doomed to relive it.

From the time of Aristotle and Socrates, Greece has taught the world many Life Lessons.

The modern Greek tragedy, and the resulting painful human drama, unfolding in the summer of 2015 is a political and economic lesson the world would do well to learn.

Learning Las Vegas: The Top 5 Misconceptions

unnamedIf you’ve been watching any television in recent weeks, there’s a good chance that you’ve encountered one of the more brilliant examples of marketing; the kind of creative salesmanship that has helped to transform a small desert town into a world class destination.

Not long ago, in an effort to take a larger slice of the lucrative summer tourism market, the Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Authority (LVCVA)—the folks tasked with ‘selling’ Las Vegas as a desirable destination to visitors from around the globe—initiated an innovative summer marketing campaign. Understanding that—not entirely inaccurately—Las Vegas had a reputation for rather ‘warm’ temperatures during the summer months that could potentially dissuade visitors, the LVCVA introduced thei “Summer Is Vegas Season” marketing campaign.

A brilliant stroke of counter-intuitive marketing, the ad campaign promoted the notion that there was so much to do and see in (a fully air-conditioned) Las Vegas during the summer, that triple-digit temperatures were of little consequence; in fact, the campaign argued, few if any American destinations better embodied the “laissez-faire”, laid back spirit of American summer fun than does Las Vegas.

Has the LVCVA succeeded in its marketing efforts? I would only point out that in 2014, Las Vegas welcomed more than 41 million visitors, a new record.

So, as CEO of a company that is proud to call Las Vegas home to our corporate headquarters–and in keeping with the LVCVA efforts to ‘clarify’ any misconceptions about the city (no matter the season)–I’d like to proffer a few clarifications of my own about America’s favorite desert destination.

To that end, here are what I believe to be the Top Five Most Popular Misconceptions About Las Vegas–and the realities beyond the myths:

Misconception 5) “Las Vegas is in the desert, therefore, it must be searing hot all year round.”

Reality: In actuality, like most cities, Las Vegas has four very distinct seasons, and temperatures that reflect those seasonal changes.

Yes, the summer months bring with them daytime highs that usually surpass 100 (although–as is so often repeated–the humidity is quite low, and therefore it’s almost always a more tolerable ‘dry heat’). But come October, temperatures decline, and coats are almost always mandatory long before Thanksgiving.

For those who are fans of the Yuletide, Las Vegas actually offers up quite cool temperatures in December (traditionally the coldest month of the year), and this past winter, we even had a couple of notable dustings of snow. Winters—such as they are—are much briefer than in most of the country (rarely lasting more than 3 months).

So to summarize, Hollywood’s desert images notwithstanding, for nine out of every 12 months Las Vegas’ weather mirrors that of other cities fortunate enough to enjoy mild springs and autumns, and shortened, temperate winter months.

Misconception 4) “The Las Vegas Strip is home to most Las Vegans, as well as being all that there is to see and do while visiting.”

Reality: The Las Vegas Strip—often referred to simply as “The Strip”—runs for less than five miles. Very few Las Vegans actually reside on the Strip, and some of the most popular tourist destinations are miles away from the Strip’s neon lights.

To be fair, the Las Vegas Strip is home to some of the world’s greatest hotels, five-star restaurants, sparkling nightclubs and diverse shopping experiences; combining that reality with the fact that the Strip is, in fact, the epicenter of tourist activity for millions of visitors, one can easily understand how this misconception came to pass.

But Southern Nevada is also home to Lake Mead and the Boulder Dam (still one of America’s most wondrous engineering feats), the glorious, multi-hued wonder of Red Rock Canyon, and the natural beauty of Mount Charleston.

And for the record, the majority of Clark County’s 2 million residents live miles away from the Strip, often in quiet suburban settings.

Misconception 3) “Gaming Is The Only Business, Of Any Size, in Las Vegas.”

Reality: Las Vegas is home to a diverse and rapidly growing business community.

This is one misconception I can personally address with a high degree of certainty. As a major Las Vegas-based employer, Sackett National Holdings has a growing national business presence in several industries, including financial services, employment screening, automotive and retail energy.

You will note that not one of those business sectors involves ‘gaming’.

So, while we certainly wish our gaming-related neighbors well, our business is illustrative of the many diverse Las Vegas-based companies who are thriving–outside of the gaming sector.

Misconception 2) “Las Vegas’ Labor Market Is Limited In Scope.”

Reality: Las Vegas Offers A Diffuse and Diverse Labor Force.

Again, this is one misconception about Las Vegas I can address with first-hand knowledge.

As CEO of a large—and rapidly growing—company, I can say with certainty that Las Vegas offers a wide array of job candidates, many of whom bring with them considerable professional skills and impressive education.

There may have been a time when Las Vegas’ labor market was limited in size and scope—but that time has most certainly passed.

Misconception 1) “The Only Reason To Visit Las Vegas Is For The Gaming.”

Reality: Las Vegas Offers World Class Entertainment, Fine Dining, Unique Shopping Experiences & Wondrous Natural Beauty.

Perhaps more than any other misconception, the dated notion that Las Vegas exists solely—or even primarily—as a gaming city is just plain wrong.

In fact, the largest Las Vegas gaming companies derive only about half of their revenue from gaming; for the past two decades, an ever-growing number of world-class chefs–and restaurants—along with renowned retailers and top tier musical and theatrical entertainment have tipped the balance, and helped transform Las Vegas. Each year, tens of thousands of tourists have wonderful vacations dining on fine cuisine, shopping in world-class retailers and enjoying top-flight entertainment—all without wagering a dime.

So there you have it. I hope that helps to clarify some popular misconceptions about a city we’re proud to call our corporate headquarters; I also join with the LVCVA, and invite you to discover for yourself what millions of others already know: summer is, indeed, “Vegas Season.”

Deregulating Energy: When Less Is More

Jevin Sackett EnergySince the country’s inception, Americans have debated the role of government—and its regulations—in the free market.

There’s little new about the debate, with some arguing that government has a significant role to play in ensuring ‘fair business practices’, and others arguing that ‘unleashed’ entrepreneurial spirit is the engine that drives our economy.

And while that debate rages on, it’s instructive to look at the results of deregulation—or, put another way, the diminution of government oversight—on the nation’s retail energy sector.

A clarification: “deregulation” of the retail energy sector does not mean that there are no laws pertaining to the industry, merely that the government has freed up the sector for competition in an open marketplace; put simply—deregulating the retail energy sector means providing consumers (both commercial and residential) with a choice of which company they’d prefer as their provider of electric power or natural gas.

Of course, this is a topic of considerable interest to our company. Our subsidiary, Sperian Energy, is a fast growing retail energy provider across several states that have deregulated their energy sectors. Sperian’s rapid growth—clearly illustrated by the tens of thousands of new energy customers it has signed up in recent months—is a reflection of the broader consumer acceptance of a deregulated energy industry, wherever that choice is made available.

This change in the energy industry is occurring at a most interesting point in time. In the Information Age, Americans consume more electricity than ever; in fact, the total business generated by the U.S. electric energy sector is estimated to be well in excess of $200 billion.

Most agree that the modern era of the deregulated American energy market began in California in 1996. In the almost two decades since then, several additional states have chosen to deregulate their electric markets; for consumers of power—both residential and commercial—deregulation has meant that they are no longer forced to accept the utilities tariff rate, which may or may not reflect market conditions; the end result of the regulated system often being price uncertainty going forward.

Deregulation provides consumers a choice: they can choose to lock in an electrical rate that meets their budgetary needs, or they can decide to go with a variable market rate that could result in lower costs depending upon the commodity price. As an added ‘bonus’, retail energy suppliers often offer additional add-ons such as rebates, demand response programs and other customer incentives.

Of course, as with any new business opportunity, there are some challenges when entering the deregulated energy business.
When an energy market first opens up for competition, one of the biggest business challenges is educating the state’s consumers. Often, energy customers may not, at least initially, be aware that they now have a choice as to their energy supplier. However, sometimes the state can play a role in educating energy consumers, as was the case in Pennsylvania. Through its ‘Choice Program’, that state proactively informed consumers about the deregulation; utilizing bill inserts, as well as television and radio ads, the state played an important role in creating an educated energy consumer.

The adage that ‘old habits die hard’ is also true in this case, and sometimes convincing consumers to switch to an alternative energy supplier can take time; the fact is, however, that in deregulated markets consumers are really only switching the supply portion of their energy consumption, and the delivery of energy to their home or business is still conducted by the local utility company.

Despite the obstacles, there can be little doubt that the move to deregulate energy markets continues to grow nationwide. Some states are moving slower than others: in Michigan, for example, only 10 percent of consumers can choose their supplier, while earlier this year Massachusetts completed their full deregulation of the energy market. Ohio is yet another state that is currently considering full deregulation of its energy market.

In addition, renewable energy—primarily solar—is providing even more possible choices for consumers. Alternate energy retailers do not have to wait for deregulation to partner with established solar companies; such partnerships enable suppliers to utilize their sales force to market solar installations, even in fully regulated energy markets.

Of course, the larger debate over government’s regulatory role in the business marketplace rages on. However, few on either side of that discussion can deny that deregulated energy–and the resulting added choices that it provides–ultimately benefits the American consumer.