The Silent Killers

On my run yesterday in Central Park, I was thinking about the characteristics of some of my favorite companies. Suddenly a phrase popped into my head about what ties all of these companies together – they are the silent killers.

When I look at the Foundry Group portfolio, we’ve got a bunch of them in it. They don’t spend a lot of time trying to get written up in TechCrunch. They often aren’t based in the bay area. Their CEO’s don’t run around bloviating about what they are going to do some day.

They just do it. And suddenly they are $10 million, or $20 million, or even $50 million revenue companies. Before anyone has really noticed. Without any real competition. They are the unambiguous and dominant market leader.

Sure – their customers and partners know who they are. Other entrepreneurs, especially ones who work with them in some way know who they are. Smart technical folks know who they are. And the geographic community that they are in know who they are since they are often the leaders of their startup communities.

But they sneak up on you. They don’t waste their time hyping themselves. They don’t run around trying to get VCs interested in what they are doing. Rather, they just do. Their twitter streams are filled with substantive stuff. Their blogs are about their product and how it is used. Their people are everywhere they need to be, and spend almost no time being places they don’t need to be.

These are the silent killers. And I love them.

  • http://www.alearningaday.com Rohan

    Inspiring. The silent assassin idea.. for a start up.

    Dark veiled, slick, quick, cat like reflexes, incredible reaction speed and immaculately planned and organized. 

    And Clinical.

  • Henry

    Are you able to tell us who some of the silent killers are in your portfolio? Not all companies can operate that way though. For instance, had twitter been silent, they wouldn’t have taken off.

    • http://www.feld.com bfeld

      SendGrid, Oblong, Trada, Gnip, Rally, and Return Path are some examples.

  • http://vinodtiwari.com/ Vinod

    Nice post.

  • RichardF

    I love sendgrid :)

    • http://www.feld.com bfeld

      A great example of a Silent Killer that we are investors in.

  • Rich Keck

    Nice post.  CEOs and founders who know and love their space are more likely to behave in the manner you are describing.  Seems like they may also have a better chance to succeed.

  • http://www.MikalBelicove.com Mikal E. Belicove

    It’s true, as a journalist, I never hear from the Silent Killers (as you allude to, they’re too busy running their businesses). It’s usually the Megalophonic Wannabes who pitch and consistently strike out with me.

  • Vivek Chandrasekhar

    Maybe I’m just a bit too naive, but what’s the connection with the image !?   :)

    • Derek Scruggs

      Ninjas are silent and deadly.

    • http://www.feld.com bfeld

      It’s a ninja, my favorite type of silent killer.

      • FAKE GRIMLOCK

        EVERYONE KNOW NINJAS WAIL ON GUITARS AND SHOUT THINGS LIKE “DOUBLE SPIRIT DEATH KICK OF FIRE ATTACK GO!” WHEN THEM SILENTLY KILL YOU.

        IT VERY SNEAKY.

      • http://twitter.com/sumanthr Sumanth Raghavendra

        Brad,
        The image is of a lady in a burkha (the prototypical Muslim attire for ladies) – there is a world of difference between this and a ninja’s garb!

        • Guest

          Exactly!  I opened the post wondering who the woman in the Burka had killed.  Then my next thought ran to “great, the tech news I expected will be politics…”

          • http://www.feld.com bfeld

            Egads. Amy told me the same thing. Fixing now. Apologies for my own stupidity.

  • Vivek Chandrasekhar

    Oh stupid me it didn’t occur to me that its the ninja veil ! I was thinking something else :)

    • http://twitter.com/campfirewest Dan Deppen

      I did the same thing.

  • http://twitter.com/CamiloALopez Camilo Lopez

    Awesome insight! Right now there is so much hype on marketing and PR for small startups. Everyone wants to be mentioned in TC. It is an unhealthy blowfish strategy for early stage companies. 

    As you always say; focus on your product and its value to your early customers. Focusing on PR drives valuable resources away from the product progress. 

  • http://byJess.net Jess Bachman

    Well, truth be told, it’s much easier for enterprise and B2B to be “silent”.

    • http://www.feld.com bfeld

      Consumer facing companies can be silent killers to if they focus on being noisy with CUSTOMERS and USERS not everyone else.

  • http://twitter.com/VitokitoOnline Vitokito

    This is a great post. When google began, Page and Brin, hated the idea of marketing, PR, and Branding. They thought people who doesnt have a good product tend to hype everything up with Marketing.  I really like the idea of getting job done instead of telling people we will be doing this and this in the next few months or years. Only way this strategy could do some good is to deter potential  competition.  

    If you guys pardon my shameless plug: Please also visit our Facebook page and like and be one of the first people to use our services:https://www.facebook.com/pages/Vitokito/161909427189677

  • http://petegrif.tumblr.com/ Pete Griffiths

    Related to issue of vanity metrics.

  • http://procause.com/ matthewhughes

    I left a large, multi-billion dollar company to work for a small start up a few years ago.

    I ran into a former manager and friend from the multi-billion dollar company some time later and he asked about the top-line at the start up I was working for.

    I told him we had just hit $10mil in sales.

    His response: “Ain’t nothing wrong with $10mil…”

    That was when I knew there was nothing was wrong with $10mil.

    • http://www.feld.com bfeld

      Bingo!

    • James Mitchell

      $10 million top line is nice but what is your cash flow and profits. If $10 million produces a real $2 million or $2.5 million cash flow, great. If you’re inflow is $10 million but you’re outflow is $20 million, not so great.

      • http://procause.com/ matthewhughes

        Of course.

        I was just making the point that even relatively small companies can be successful in their own right. 

      • http://www.feld.com bfeld

        Actually, it depends a lot on what your goals are. 

        As an investor, I’m often just fine with a $10m company that loses plenty of money (although $20m is a lot for my tastes) as long is it is growing 100%+ year over year. That company has a good change, within a few years, of being a $50m company generating $5m of cash flow and, as long as it sustains a steep (> 50% growth curve) could be generating $10m or $20m of cash flow within another year or two.

        A $10m company generating $2m of cash flow and growing 100% year over year would be awesome. But there aren’t many of them on this planet. Most that have that profile are growing much slower (< 25%).

        You are absolutely right to point on that revenue by itself doesn't mean much. But understanding what the goal of the company on the growth and valuation creation curve, and the measurement period at any particular point in time, matters a lot.

        • James Mitchell

          That’s from an investor’s point of view. I think you said that FG has 40 portfolio companies. If I owned a piece of 40 companies, in most cases I would want most of them to be swinging for the fences. If just one of them turns out to Zynga, the other 39 can tank and I still make a lot of money.

          From the entrepreneur’s point of view, the first $5 million in his pocket is a lot more valuable than the second $5 million. So swinging for the fences may not make sense if there is a viable business plan to go for a double with much higher odds of achieving the double than the home run. (Of course, in some markets, that might not be a viable option, you’re either 1 or 2 or you are roadkill.)

          When you are cash flow negative, you are at your investors’ mercy. A lot of investors, even entrepreneurial friendly VC firms, seem to me to be a bit fickle. We have a stock market crash and they cut back investing, even though they are supposed to be long term players and they have committed capital for the next five years. So as long as you are cash flow negative, you are not in control of your destiny.

          Once you are cash flow positive, all you have to do is keep it that way and you are captain of your own ship. So for my company, I never mention revenues, I only mention profits.

          Some entrepreneurs take an investor’s perspective. They view their current startup as a lottery ticket, backed by someone else’s money. If they hit a home run, they get 10 percent of the winnings and if not, they still received an OK salary and they got five years of education for every year they worked at the startup. This is a fine strategy as long as they are confident they will have another fundable idea and their current VC firm or another one will back their next idea. Conventional wisdom is that VCs are forgiving about failure, I suspect it is a lot more complicated than that. I suspect the real truth is that VCs are forgiving about some failures in some circumstances, and as long as the number of failures is one or two.

          • http://www.feld.com bfeld

            I think it fundamentally comes down to the motivation of the entrepreneur. That should drive the financing strategy. If the entrepreneur is a bootstrapper and going for a $5m outcome, that’s awesome and what she should do. If the entrepreneur has already built a successful business, cleared $5m, and now wants to go for a monster, she should raise capital and go for it. If the entrepreneur is a first time entrepreneur, young, and has nothing to lose, she should again consider going for it, unless she wants to be a bootstrapper. The examples and cases go on endlessly – it all comes back to what the entrepreneur wants to do.

  • Gaj

    Did these ruminations have anything to do with you being on the board of a company that is the very antithesis of this?  

    • http://www.feld.com bfeld

      Which one are you referring to?

      • Gaj

        Zynga.  Equal parts desperation and hype.  How did you manage to get involved with Pinkus?  The man who very carefully aligned Tribe.net perpendicular to the ground and flew it in at full speed, screaming at his employees the whole way.  

        • http://www.feld.com bfeld

          Nope – Zynga wasn’t on my mind when I wrote this post.

          Re: Pincus – I’ve known and worked with Mark on various things since 1995.

          • Gaj

            I guess it was just the first thing that came to my mind when I read the post.  

            I’d forgotten that Softbank was an early supporter of SupportSoft.  I’m sure you don’t have anything negative to say about Zynga or Mark, but my view is that he’ll eventually destroy more value than the rest of the company can create.  

    • http://twitter.com/davidhhendricks Dave Hendricks

      I’m sort of with you Gaj…Brad, this post seems to have been written in the heat of some moment, or a fit of pique.  It reminds me a lot of the post that Fred Wilson made decrying ‘marketing’ as a waste of funds, while of course nearly every single investment made by his fund is a ‘marketing’ technology that requires some company to spend on it…

      The concept of a ‘Silent Killer’ is really great.  Stay heads-down, focus on the product etc.  From my experience, if you are a giant killer you have can either try the assassin route (stealth) or you can hit it head on (getting out there).  For founders ‘on the spectrum’, it’s natural to woodshed.  Other founders may be so enthusiastic about their product that they cannot but tell the world about it.  If the product is good, why not promote it at every (relevant) chance?

      If you are selling consumer products, adopted one person at a time, fed by WOM and social sharing, maybe stealth works.  If you are selling an enterprise product, and you are not known (and trusted) by the ultimate economic/technical decision maker, you may not win big enough/fast enough without ‘getting out there’.

      It’s been said that you never got fired for buying IBM.  If you are going to compete with the big boys, you need to make sure the COO/CRO/CFO/CIO and his peers know who you are, or else who will take a chance on you?   

      • http://www.feld.com bfeld

        Nope – no heat of the moment here. We’ve got a bunch of companies in this category and I know of others that I have a lot of respect for that we aren’t investors in.

        And I strongly disagree that you need to make noise wherever you can. I’ll give one example. There is no value in telling all the VCs of the world what you are doing. All you do is inform their views for their investments in other companies. If you are doing great, and you aren’t raising money (or tell 50 VCs how awesome you are doing but no – they can’t invest), almost by definition you will create interest in investing in a competitor.

        Re: the COO/CRO/CFO/CIO’s of big companies statement – I think I addressed this directly in the second to last paragraph.

        “They don’t waste their time hyping themselves. They don’t run around trying to get VCs interested in what they are doing. Rather, they just do. Their twitter streams are filled with substantive stuff. Their blogs are about their product and how it is used. Their people are everywhere they need to be, and spend almost no time being places they don’t need to be.”

        • http://twitter.com/davidhhendricks Dave Hendricks

          thanks for the reply. 

          I agree that telling tons of VCs what you are doing is a worst practice.  You’ve written about signals before, and if you are out raising money and talking to everyone and no one’s biting, it’s probably because you are too far out there.  Keeping cards close to vest allows you to draw players in.  My comment was related to understanding where you needed to be and be present ‘in that community’.

          Being diffuse – instead of being focused – is just plain ineffective, whether it is in promotion or product.

          One thing I loved about your post, and I should have noted this, is your call to use the company blog as the place to promote the use and application of the product.  I know that we do not do this enough and I’ve internalized this and we are going to do much more of this in 2012.  Great way to crystallize…

  • James Mitchell

    Interesting post coming from a guy who has written two books, posts about ten entries a week on his blog, gives about 50 speeches a year, and whose firm has even made a video about themselves.  ;-)

    This is really just part of the “Should you be slealth and for how long?” debate. The correct answer is that it depends. The approach Brad mentions would not make sense for the CEO of Zynga or any other mass market company.

    As Suster has pointed out, media hype helps a lot in raising venture capital at a higher valuation.

    • http://www.feld.com bfeld

      This post has nothing to do with stealth. None of these companies are stealth – they are all very public about what they do. They just focus their energy on the things that matter, vs. making themselves well known to the “industry at large.” 

      Go back and read the second and third paragraph again.

      For myself, I’ll leave it to you as to whether my books, posts, talks, and video have anything to do with “… trying to get written up in TechCrunch” or “… bloviating about what they are going to do some day.”

      • James Mitchell

        “For myself, I’ll leave it to you as to whether my books, posts, talks, and video have anything to do with “… trying to get written up in TechCrunch” or “… bloviating about what they are going to do some day.”

        Your talking about your motivation for doing what you do. I am lousy at judging people’s motivations, I am pretty good at looking at what they actually do. So whether you are doing this for ego, busines reasons, just to be a nice guy, to give something back, or some other motivation, your are promoting yourself like crazy. Which for a VC is totally brilliant, it increases the odds of your seeing great deals by several fold, plus a lot of other advantages. Which is why you and Suster and Wilson and a few others have an unfair advantage over other VCs.

        What I cannot figure out is why more VCs don’t also do this. Doing that requires a lot of intelligence and energy and time but it strikes me as a worthwhile investment of time. But maybe this comes back to your point, in that you’re doing it simply because you enjoy it rather than the economic payoff, the economic payoff is a nice side benefit.

        If I were a VC, I would want to be mentioned a lot by Techcrunch. It seems as if a lot of Suster’s posts on his blog begin with “This was first posted on Techcrunch.” Even if YOU don’t think much of Techcrunch, if people you’re trying to reach read it, then that’s all that matters. (One thing I’ve wondered about Techcrunch, it seems as if every Y Combinator startup gets a mention.)

        • http://www.MikalBelicove.com Mikal E. Belicove

          James: 

          Curious as to why you think Feld, Suster, and Wilson have an “unfair” advantage over other VCs by writing, publishing, engaging, and positioning themselves as being available and learned?

          Technically speaking (from a legal standpoint), “unfair advantage” is a subjective term that’s “measured by a standard of proper conduct for persons in similar positions. Unfair generally means unjust, and typically involves acts deemed unethical.”

          What’s stopping other VCs from doing exactly what Brad, Mark and others do, and why is this considered an unfair advantage?

          • James Mitchell

            When I say unfair advantage, I am most certainly not talking about improper conduct. Whatever their motivations (and I suspect that for all of them the motivations are noble, but as I said, I gave up decades ago trying to figure out people’s motives), Feld/Suster/Wilson have made a huge contribution to the entrepreneur ecosystem in many ways, including helping entreprenurs understand how VCs think. That is big difference from 20 years ago, where most entrepreneurs found VCs to be difficult to figure out.

            From a Michael Porter point of view, every company should be striving for an unfair advantage. As Hank Ace Greenberg, who was CEO of AIG for decades, said, “All I want in life is an unfair advantage.”

            So the job of every strategist (CEO, Board member or whatever) is to understand his company’s strengths and weaknesses, the strengths and weaknesses of their competitors, and the nature of the market, and then to construct as many unfair advantages as possible. Warren Buffett, for examples, wants to purchase companies with deep moats. A moat is simply an unfair advantage. Coca Cola, due to its strength as a brand, has an unfair advantage.

            What’s stopping other VCs is:

            Most of them are not as smart as Feld/Suster/Wilson
            Most are not as good writers
            Most don’t have as much energy
            At 11 pm at night, most of them are playing with their kids rather than writing posts

            Certainly in some cases seeking an unfair advantage can be based on unethical conduct, as Microsoft has so aptly demonstrated. But it does not have to be.

            Interestingly, Feld/Suster/Wilson do not seem to view other VCs as competitors. A lot of their blog posts are about how other VCs are so great. Me, I do lead generation for attorneys, there is one 800 pound gorilla (his name is obvious but I will not mention it) and I never talk about how smart he is. I am not going to say anything bad about him but at same time, I am not going to toot his horn.

          • http://www.feld.com bfeld

            re: At 11 pm at night, most of them are playing with their kids rather than writing posts. Fred gets up at 5am and posts. And I know Mark plays with his kids, puts them to bed, and then writes late into the night. 

            I don’t have kids so I’m probably the only one who “doesn’t play with their kids” but I’m almost always asleep by 11 as I’m an early bird.

            I think it’s the other stuff – focus, energy, desire, interest – not playing with kids.

          • http://www.MikalBelicove.com Mikal E. Belicove

            Perhaps I’m keying in on one particular word too much, but I obviously feel its important (when you accuse someone of being unfair, it deserves attention).

            In the Buffet item you cite as defense of the word “unfair”… a deep moat is most certainly not an unfair advantage… it’s simply an advantage. The moat was created thru brilliant strategy, precise execution, luck in some cases (i.e., when preparation meets opportunity), but not unfair business practices. And the existence of said moat — and the protection or fortifying of said moat — so long as is it done within the bounds of what’s available to anyone else attempting the same (and is done so in accordance with the rules and regs governing that moat), is not an “unfair” practice either.My point being, you simply cannot term what some do by creating and leveraging a platform “unfair” when everyone can — but may choose not to — do the same.To my point, look at New Enterprise Associates (NEA), a highly successful VC that simply doesn’t do what the ones you cite here do… they have a Facebook Page with around 700 likes, and that’s pretty much it as these sorts of things go. (Dan Primack wrote a great profile of the firm recently for Fortune.) They have no celebrities on staff, they stay under the radar, and they do very well, as do hundreds of other firms like those Feld/Suster/Wilson are affiliated with. 

          • James Mitchell

            For a VC firm that seeks to invest in early stage deals, I do not see much merit in staying under the radar. If you do, not that many early stage entrepreneurs will hear of you and they will not show you their deals. It seems like a dumb policy to me.

            And should I ever seek to raise VC (please God, spare me that), all of the VCs boast of their value add. One can read a VC who blogs and decide how smart he is and how top he is on things.

            In addition, there is a signaling issue. At least in tech deals, most of them have a social networking component. If a VC is not using Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube and all of the other channels personally on an on-hands basis, then why should I assume he knows much about them? It’s like the virgin priest who lectures about sex, why should I take him seriously?

            As for unfair, I’ll stick with the term since others use it. You’re referring to how the advantage was obtained, assuming that unfair means that they obtained their advantage through improper means. I am using unfair to mean it is not a fair fight. If I get into the boxing ring with Muhammad Ali, that will not be a fair fight. If I enter into a programming contest where my opponent is Richard Stallman, that will not be a fair fight.

          • http://www.MikalBelicove.com Mikal E. Belicove

            James:

            While you may not see much merit in staying under the radar, many VCs do, and their results — as is the case with NEA — are all that matter. 

            As for the “unfair” item, we simply don’t see eye-to-eye on this one. It’s still beyond my understanding how anyone can view creating and leveraging a platform as being an “unfair” advantage and not simply an advantage when everyone can exactly the same (it’s not like Brad or Mark are preventing other VCs from doing what they do). 

            In your two examples – Ali and Stallman – no one is forcing you into the ring or contest… contesting and fighting are your choices. Were you forced to compete or fight, indeed, an unfair advantage could be claimed, but here again, no one is forcing anyone into anything… you’re simply objecting for reasons I and other reasonable people I suspect would fail to understand and agree with.

            Simply put, blogging, speaking, authoring, teaching, presenting, etc., are not “unfair” advantages because anyone — at least anyone we’re discussing here (i.e., VCs) — can choose to do the same and no one is preventing them from doing so.

        • http://www.feld.com bfeld

          I’ve written about my motivation before. I’ve very intrinsically motivated.

          http://www.feld.com/archives/2010/10/intrinsic-motivation.html

  • FAKE GRIMLOCK

    ME, GRIMLOCK, APPROVE.

    YES, ME RECOGNIZE IRONY.

  • Tsahi Levy

    Its not matter of silent or not its a matter of being a Killer or not. Doing  activities that serve  the strategy is what it is all about. If TechCrunch serves a purpose of PR to attract JVs or investors then its good. If residing in Palo-Alto serves  hiring then it’s  a purpose.

    I agree with one thing glam startups that often publicize themselves instead of the product/service hurt the industry as a whole. 

  • http://dissertation-service.co.uk/ dissertation uk

    that is an amazing post! i really like it!

  • Stephenjrauch

    I could not agree with you more.  Having been an entrepreneur for more than 20 years I have found myself focusing 90% of my time with the team building product and 10% outwards.  The 10% outwards is spent when the time is right – not before and not after.  Over the past several years I have found too many leaders focusing too much time outwards and not enough time building product.

  • http://twitter.com/clintgc clint gordon-carroll

    it’s all about GSD!

  • Amenet

    Great post, quitd insightful. I guess I’ve been working for one of those silent killer companies. My e-commerce consumer facing company has been growing from 0 to $100 million in 4 years but nobody talks about us, few people know about us. Except our customers and key business partners. Sometimes I think there must something wrong with us as other businesses get so much press and buzz. This post is very inspiring and encourages me to continue in the same direction. Focusing our energy inwards on building the team, the product offer and customer satisfaction rather than outwards on building fame.

  • http://www.swaglove.com/blog Casey Schorr

    Awesome post. I’ve felt this way for a long time about lots of companies I respect most, for example 37signals and Balsamiq are two great examples. And I selfishly feel it for what we’re doing too (SwagLove moreso than Printfection). Great to see VC’s like this too. When you’re reading TechCrunch or attending a local startup event, sometimes the people you want to meet or the companies you should be emulating are the ones that are *not* there, often on purpose because they are focused and busy making real $$!

  • http://www.swaglove.com/blog Casey Schorr

    Read through your comments, seems a lot of people don’t get the difference between writing great content on your blog, doing excellent inbound marketing, etc VS. trying to become “famous” in the industry.

    A good example would be the difference between Paris Hilton & Natalie Portman. They are both famous, both of them “do marketing” but they do it very differently. I’ll take the Natalie Portman company every day – talented, hard-working, puts energy into films vs putting energy into fluff marketing & PR.

    • James Mitchell

      Paris Hilton’s approach works, because we don’t expect much intelligence from celebrities so it’s OK to be a bimbo. In a “serious” endeavour such as starting a company or being a VC, the Paris Hilton approach would not work.

      • http://www.swaglove.com/blog Casey Schorr

        I think that’s what Brad is saying. Paris Hilton doesn’t work, but a lot of tech companies are trying, and these aren’t the ones to follow. The ‘silent killers’ are the companies worth following, even though they aren’t making the biggest racket.

        • http://www.feld.com bfeld

          Bingo Casey – you’ve got it!

    • http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

      I’d be willing to bet that Paris has made more money than Natalie, if that is your metric of success. I’d still prefer Natalie. I think I’m still talking metaphorically here, but worlds might be merging on that last sentence.

      • http://www.swaglove.com/blog Casey Schorr

        Maybe, but they are both ‘rich enough’…. I’d rather be rich Natalie – proud of my *real* accomplishments and how I’ve impacted the world – than rich Paris Hilton! And to bring this back around to tech, I’d rather be a startup impacting the world, creating real value, vs some pump-and-dump flip that got rich off PR. I can think of so many examples, both entrepreneurs and companies.

        • http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

          Agreed 100%.

  • http://www.onepagecrm.com/ Michael FitzGerald

    What you describe is very much like the “Level 5 leader” and associated company from Jim Collins’ book Good to Great.

  • http://kwiqly.blogspot.com/ James Ferguson @kWIQly

    Brad interesting post from a long time bloviator – i reached this conclusion about myself . sure i still like to add 2cents now and then . but we started just doing recently and it feels good. less feedback and more confidence but the feedback comes from clients and so does the confidence . when time is right the market will.see us until then anything that does not serve client is overhead and has to.go

  • Vivek Chandrasekhar

    Ha ha I just revisited this post and noticed you actually changed the pic ! And the pic name is so damn funny :)

  • http://wesleyverhoeve.com Wesley Verhoeve

    I am in a different line of business, running a record label, and I feel quite a bit of pressure to do outward marketing on the success we are having, to continue to project the confidence we do actually have and keep everyone engaged, active and into it. That includes our artists, their managers and sometimes our customers. I will be marinating on this post. Thanks brad.

  • Pingback: InnovationKeg Links – Week of December 12th, 2011 | InnovationKeg

  • Sean Blume

    I like the Ninja picture, its an excellent example of a “Silent Killer.” As a consumer I really don’t pay attention to up and coming companies, if I need a service preformed I usually go online and look on Google Maps to find the closest location to me. Or, as much as I hate to admit it, I look for brand names I have heard about on TV, radio and other advertisement. Suffice it to say, you usually hear about the companies that have the most money to invest in advertising, and the occasional company that really thinks about its demographic and makes educated, well placed ads that hit the target audience. Which, sad to say not a lot of small companies know how to market themselves. Personal opinion of course. I think a well placed bill board, bus stop ad, online advertisement, TV and radio commercial and even flyers or a dancing man with a sign can go a long way. Its knowing the time of day, the right street corner and medium in which you advertise. Know your demographic. The simple rules, more rather basic rules, to business: good advertising and a quality product or service, word of mouth does the rest.

    http://www.plumbers-denver.com

  • Pingback: The Silent Relationship Killer | Cbcburke9's Blog

  • Pingback: Silent killers | Fotoshare

  • Pingback: The Power of TAGFEE and Just Executing

  • Pingback: The Power of TAGFEE and Just Executing | peterklamka.biz

  • Pingback: Hard Knox Life » Is your company a “Silent Killer”?

  • Pingback: Trust Can Scale « Feld Thoughts Feld Thoughts

  • Pingback: cheap auto insurance in new jersey

  • Pingback: Lumberton

  • Pingback: zqaxecrvtbygyhnuujn

  • Pingback: seawetrytuyfggu

  • Pingback: builders kent

  • Pingback: xxl blonde

  • Pingback: casino bonus

  • Pingback: http://www.spankywank.com/

  • Pingback: corsets

  • Pingback: lose weight

  • Pingback: Patricia

  • Pingback: visit this site

  • Pingback: Binary Options System

  • Pingback: kedi

  • Pingback: news

  • Pingback: movie xxx

  • Pingback: best packers and movers bangalore

  • Pingback: automotive

  • Pingback: browsergames

  • Pingback: get rid of herpes

  • Pingback: telefon-domina.tv

  • Pingback: soccer manager

  • Pingback: www.fussballmanageronline.com

  • Pingback: SEO

  • Pingback: nest thermostat review

  • Pingback: Home Based Business Forums

  • Pingback: watch justified

  • Pingback: http://bnn.kz/index.php?do=/blog/19452/can-turmeric-results-advantage-men/

  • Pingback: Gran Canaria

  • Pingback: http://inmyroom.ecrater.com

  • Pingback: the best gaming computer

  • Pingback: Breast Actives

  • Pingback: Dr Oz Garcinia Cambogia

  • Pingback: Garcinia Cambogia Select

  • Pingback: http://find.hamptonroads.com/user/1e8eb7f

  • Pingback: Phen375 Reviews

  • Pingback: picnic table designs

  • Pingback: authority roi

  • Pingback: http://www.xn--12c3b0aaoaggw4c5e0aeb7n8e.com

  • Pingback: concrete

  • Pingback: paleo recipe book

  • Pingback: chockana supply

  • Pingback: vineapp