In the past, it was easy. Corporations made money. Nonprofits helped the world. If a corporation wanted to help the world, it would donate to a nonprofit, or set up its own foundation.

That model is changing. Social ventures, a new kind of for- and nonprofit hybrid, are easing their way into the business world. From Good Capital, a socially responsible investment firm, to Google.org, which dedicates resources to helping urgent world problems, social ventures are proliferating throughout the country.

According to Andrew Greenblatt, NYU professor and Director of Products and Innovation at Criterion Ventures, the current generation of graduating college students will ensure that this trend becomes a fundamental part of our economy. To help today’s entrepreneurs navigate the confusing world of establishing a social enterprise, Greenblatt helps run Criterion’s Structure Labs, the country’s only one-day workshop on launching a social venture.

Business Pundit caught up with Greenblatt to discuss setting up hybrid ventures, where the movement is going, and how it will change the economy.

BP: Can you tell me more about the history behind Structure Labs? How did you guys come up with the idea?

AG: Criterion Ventures is a consultancy that launches social ventures, specifically with an eye towards things that have broader social impact. We also launch our own ideas. We identify some kind of need in society, find a sustainable way to address that need, and then launch a venture around it. We’re social entrepreneurs for hire.

Through this work, we’ve found out more about the problems faced by social entrepreneurs. Legal structures are an issue that came up over and over again. You’re either a for-profit, and your goal is to maximize profit. Or you’re a nonprofit charity, and your goal is to maximize making a better world.

Now we have all these blended, multiple bottom-line ventures coming together. Legal structures haven’t kept up. If you just want to maximize profit, there’s one structure. If you want to go out and have people give you money and use that money to do good in the world, there’s a different structure.

When you want to start blending your purposes, it becomes harder. So we created this 5-hour workshop that helps people understand what their options are, and what the advantages and disadvantages of all the options are. It’s fun and engaging. People can take their own projects to the workshop and work with their own real-life We got a grant from the Packard foundation, and that helped us create this, and now we are going around the country and offering the workshop, and that is really cool.

BP: What is a multiple bottom line?

AG: A single bottom line is profit. A second bottom line takes into account other stakeholders in the company. That could be the workers, so people could say that Costco cares about its workers, gives them health benefits, etc.

It could be their community, it could be their suppliers. For example, Ben and Jerry’s would hit cream crises (an oversupply of cream made prices collapse). When one of those cycles hit, and the price of cream went below the cost of maintaining the farms, then Ben & Jerry’s continued to pay the previous year’s to support the family famers.

The third bottom line is the environment. For example, is our carbon footprint growing or shrinking? Are we putting more toxic waste into the world, or less? That kind of stuff.

One beautiful thing about free-market capitalism is that there’s a really simple universal measure of success, and that’s profitability. When you start to add these other things–What does it mean to take good care of your workers? What does it mean to take good care of the environment and the community?–everything becomes squishier.

BP: If I want to launch a social venture, what are three of the most important things I should know, from a legal structure perspective, before I start?

AG: It depends on the social structure. If you want to start a foundation, because your Aunt Tilly died and left you $20 million to give away to save the pelicans, those 3 things you’re worried about are very different than if you’re trying to sell bednets in Africa. So the casual phrase of “social ventures” makes it hard for me to answer that question.

I can give you a broader answer, however. There are probably the three pieces of advice I would give to anyone.

Most people think, so this is my mission, that’s my job, and it’s my lawyer’s job to think about the structure. There are two problems with that strategy. The first is that unfortunately, some lawyers are better than others. The second is that people limit their own vision before they ever meet with their lawyer, because of their false assumptions.

And they go meet with their lawyer with their now-limited vision, and the lawyer says “yeah, I can do that.” Now, if they had a broader vision, then the lawyer would still say “yeah, I can do that.” But they’ve already clipped their own wings (when they limit their vision).

The second thing is that the legal structures have ramifications through different phases of your organization’s life. What your legal structure is will matter when you raise money, so lots of people start there, deciding on a legal structure based on whether they want donations or venture capital.

Some people go a little further. They think of their revenue streams, they think “how am I going to sustain this?” That might influence whether they’re going to be a for- or nonprofit. That’s usually as far as people tend to think.

The next thing that’s going to matter is how are you going to grow? You can franchise your operation, you can license out your intellectual property, or you can just grow. What your legal structure is will impact what options are available to you.

Then, there are issues about how you interact with your market. Being a nonprofit sends a certain message to your customers and your vendors. Being a for-profit sends a different message and allows you to interact with them in different ways.

The last thing that people don’t think about–that we have as the second thing you need to think about in our workshop–is your exit strategy. Someday you will exit this venture. If it means that God comes and takes you to heaven, I assure you, someday you will leave this venture.

Thinking through how you want that exit to be is crucial to how you set up your venture. If you think look, if this is wildly successful, and can sell someday, and I want to capture some of that money and retire, ok…well if you start a nonprofit, you can’t sell it.

So if you’re thinking 20 years from now, you’re retiring and selling this baby off, and you’re starting a nonprofit, we have some talking to do. Things like that.

BP: Let’s look at social ventures as an emerging economic movement. Where would you say we are right now on the timeline of that movement? Where are we going?

AG: Infancy. Elements of this have been around for a while. The idea that you can have sustainable ventures that encourage justice in the world is not new. You know, the YMCA’s been around for a long time. But as a movement, as people identifying it as a unique strategy and getting it moving, that’s pretty new.

It’s hard to choose a moment when this began. We didn’t have a Stonewall (Ed.: or any other major event to mark when this began). But it’s not more than 50 years ago that people started talking about being social entrepreneurs. It’s new.

When I was in law school, nobody knew about this. The fact that a few of us were graduating and wanted to go out and make a difference in the world was viewed as weird. This was 1990-3.

I went back to school to speak at Harvard about a year ago. Someone came from the business school to watch me speak, and we went out for drinks afterwards. He said that the largest student club at the Harvard business school today is the private equity club. The second largest club is the social venture club.

The world has changed rapidly, and it’s picking up speed. Students today are way ahead of where we were as students. That’s going to impact this world bigger, faster, stronger for a long while to come.

If you’re a recruiter for the mainstream economy, and you go to the business school today, you’ll be confronted with the fact that one of the biggest groups is the social entrepreneurs group. If you’re Rape and Pillage Inc., you’re going to have trouble recruiting talent.

I’ll give you one other example. There is a new corporate form out there. It’s called L3C, the low-profit limited liability company. It’s kind of an LLC, but also a new corporate form.

It was created in Vermont less than two years ago. It’s now available in 5-6 states. Just that there is a new corporate form says something, and the fact that it’s being picked up by other states so quickly is saying there’s a real hunger for this.

I think that this is a very young movement, and it is rapidly gaining speed. Economic forces will continue to push that. I think it will snowball faster and faster.

BP: How do you see this movement of social ventures changing the economy?

AG: In response to this? That’s a really complicated question. I’ll give it a shot.

I think more and more of the entrepreneurial energy will move in this direction. Most entrepreneurs start in their twenties. They usually really hit their stride in their forties, but they start in their twenties. And entrepreneurs in their 20s are doing this.

So, 20 years from now, this is what entrepreneurship is going to be. Currently, venture money is moving in this direction. Later on, expansion money is going to have to follow. As so many ventures mature, buyout money will move in this direction, too.

That’s already happening with certain consumer brands. Odwalla was bought. Danone yogurt bought Stonyfield Farms because that’s the part of the yogurt market that’s growing. You can still by Dannon yogurt, but it’s the part of the company that’s shrinking. You’re already seeing it begin to happen. It will happen more and more.

The dominant view now is a shareholder ROI economy. Things that can make money for investors get done. If you look at the trillions of dollars of investments that happen in America every year, the majority are driven by ROI for the investor. They fuel the bottom line.

That’s going to shift slowly to the multiple bottom lines. Ultimately, it will be more profitable to do that. Companies that don’t give a crap about anyone else will become less profitable. People won’t want to work there, won’t want to shop there. It will hurt your bottom line to be that company.

Today that’s not true, but you could make the argument that we’re starting to see it. For example, you can look at Costco versus Wal-Mart, and their stock price over the last 10 years or so. The recession may have changed this, but over last 10 years or so, Costco’s perfomrance has continuously been better than Wal-Mart in terms of P/E ratios. That’s partially because people view Wal-Mart’s relentless strategy of single bottom line as a detriment to them. Costco, which treats their workers better, cares about other stakeholders, etc., is viewed as the smarter long-term play.

If you look at who’s graduating from the top business schools today, that’s the talent pool that’s going to answer that question. But I don’t really know what’s going to happen.

We’re still trying to figure all that out.

BP: Anything else you’d like to share?

AG: Some people think that some of these ideas are good business, and they would have survived anyway, and that by painting it with some sort of social gloss is just decoration.

For example, Wal-Mart is way ahead of every other large retailer on the environmental front. They’re pushing their vendors, for example, to reduce packaging.

Pushing is the wrong word. They’re saying if you want to be on our shelves, you have to get rid of that excess packaging. It’s that simple. If you want to be in their stores—20% of the market or whatever—you’ve got to reduce packaging.

Some people are looking at that and thinking well, great, they’re protecting the environment. From Wal-Mart’s perspective, not doing it means more packaging in their trucks and less shelf space.

Yes, it’s good for the environment, but it’s good for the bottom line. They’re doing all kinds of cutting-edge energy management. They use very high-efficient lighting, and it’s off when it should be off, and all kinds of stuff. Again, why waste money?

Some people will say to the extent that any of this matters in business, only the stuff that goes to the first bottom line anyway gets picked up. So Costco will say we give good health benefits, train our workers better, and pay higher wages because it’s cheaper than having high turnover, and because our customers, when they ask where something is in the store, expect the right answer. Having someone who just started yesterday isn’t going to help that.

Some of that stuff that gets shed, is just stuff that costs money. It will help that first bottom line. That’s what some people will say who are watching all of this happen. Because clearly things are happening. You’re watching all this and can’t pretend that this is nothing. They’ll think that’s what’s happening.

I think they’re half right. The things that help the first bottom line are the things that will be picked up fastest and go quickest into the market.

But I think that the mindset of the public is changing generationally. That will have deeper impacts over time that we’re just starting to see. For example, if you want to hire the best and the brightest out of the best schools, you have to offer them more than just a high salary. There will be a generational shift that will go deeper than just “it makes sense to turn the lights out when nobody’s in the store.”

*

Andrew Greenblatt is the Director of Products and Innovation at Criterion Ventures. He is an entrepreneur, lawyer, professor, and social venture expert. Find out more about Andrew and Criterion here.

Images: Steffen’s blog, Harvard Social Enterprise Club, Yarek Waszul

I hate the Example Company. Their product killed my dog. Their customer service gave me road rage, which in turn made me wreck my car. They bilked me out of a $5,000 insurance payment.

They are a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.

Oh, wait. That was Matt Taibbi’s description of Goldman Sachs. But you get my point. Example Company is the devil. Goldman Sachs is a vampire squid. Both companies are being hammered by public perception. (The first company is fictional.)

If you’re a member of the reading public, you may be momentarily astounded by the claims above. But if you’re affiliated with either company, those same claims, under the right distribution conditions, will leave you panicked for the foreseeable future.

Levick Strategic Communications, a DC-based crisis and litigation communications firm, might call your experience a bad day in the Court of Public Opinion. They specialize in techniques to help you survive perceptual whippings like the ones above–and prevent repeats.

They’re very good at it. Either Levick or its current employees have, at some point in time, managed the brand or reputation of:

-AIG, during the financial crisis
-An order of the Catholic Church, during the sex scandals
-The tobacco industry
-Spinach, after the 2007 salmonella outbreak
-The Florida election recount
-The People’s Republic of China, on the subject of Taiwan

When a high-profile company or person makes a visible misstep, or is subject to a prominent attack, Levick steps in. Their highly cultivated media and public affairs techniques have earned them international acclaim.

I talked more about some of those techniques, brand equity, and online crisis management with Levick VP Dallas Lawrence, who heads their digital media team. Lawrence specializes in brand advocacy and defense using social media, the blogosphere, and Internet communications. You can find more of his work at Levick’s BulletProof blog, or through his Twitter feed: @DallasLawrence.

BP: What are the biggest online threats to a brand?

DL: Inaction is one of the greatest single threats today in a crisis. Years ago, you had a couple of days to pull together your crisis team, you could have meetings, you could talk to a reporter, you could get back to them in a day or two with the information.

Today, crisis moves on a 14/40 news cycle, or a cycle measured in minutes. They don’t give you a week to get back. That fundamental shift is not understood in many boardrooms and many corporate communication rooms. It can be a lethal mistake to think you can wait out a crisis in the digital age.

Big does not mean savvy. Domino’s Pizza was the textbook poster child for this earlier this year.

I’m sure you’ll recall the malfeasant kids who put up a graphic video (see YouTube clip above). Domino’s first corporate response to the media within the first 24 hours was, I believe, “we’re not going to comment on this.”

Because it wasn’t the CBS nightly news calling, or the New York Times, they didn’t think it was wise to engage. Meanwhile, millions of people saw that YouTube video, the blogs picked it up, and within 36 hours, every network had it. CNN, Fox were showing the video. And then they finally responded.

Imagine if they had had, within their corporate DNA, the reflex to know immediately that “this is going out on YouTube, we need to have a video out on this within an hour putting this to rest, and storm that video to our fans.” Millions of people order Domino’s pizza. They would reach out to those folks and mention that this was an isolated incident.

Instead, they were silent, for almost 36 hours, which was just lethal in that environment.

They were setting up their Twitter account in the middle of the controversy. This is a consumer-focused brand that sells their product to consumers across America, and never mind that they weren’t proactively sending out tweets, they didn’t even have a profile set up so that they could be monitoring all those tweets. I’m sure they learned their lesson, and the next time in a crisis, they’ll be much better prepared.

In the 48 hours that followed (after the first 48 hours), they finally got it right.

BP: Let’s say there’s a company that does something ethically off. That company calls you and says we’re getting bad PR, can you help us. What would you tell that company to do?

DL: Nine times of out ten, the solution is to rip that band-aid off yourself and set the narrative.

It’s better for you as the brand that has made the mistake (or is so accused) to be the one that establishes the narrative, be the first one to the mic, and really get established at being open, transparent, and accountable. Those are the 3 key terms in 21st century crisis communications. You must be seen as open. You must be accountable, and everything you do has to be transparent.

The broad key theme is to have a company that’s prepared to run to the light, it’s prepared to not duck and cover and hope it passes, and it’s prepared to engage in a sustained dialogue that protects and proves its brand, encourages its investors, and reaches out to its consumers.

BP: As a company, what is one way to convince dubious people that you’re being transparent and telling the truth?

DL: I’ll give you an example of something a great company has done. Six Flags, a major theme park, is in the middle of a financial restructuring. They can say and do the press releases until they’re blue in the face.

The CEO of the company, Mark Shapiro, decided to go out and reach out to bloggers personally. Not through a corporate communications director or a press release, but to sit down and have a conference call with 25 or 30 of the most influential bloggers covering his industry. These are roller coaster enthusiasts, these are mommy bloggers, investor bloggers concerned with the financial health of the company.

He threw it open to questions. They talked for more than an hour about their questions. And he said to them, “I don’t want this to be the last time we have this call. At the end of this season, let’s get together and chat again.”

He followed through on that. This week, he did a follow-up call with a couple dozen bloggers, sitting down with them and recapping what they talked about before, how the season went.

I think you can see by how open and honest his answers were, that he was telling it works and all. Bloggers are just as smart as all of the journalists. They know when they’re being spun, and they can’t stand it. They want someone to be honest with them.

BP: Some of Levick’s clients operate in potentially volatile reputation industries. Tobacco and drug companies come to mind. What kinds of strategies do you encourage them to take in order to build their reputations during peacetime? How does that help when a media firestorm hits?

DL: The first thing is that we encourage all of our clients to use their peacetime wisely. You don’t want the first time you’re telling your story to be in the middle of a crisis. You don’t want something to explode in the middle of a crisis that someone else has already defined the narrative for.

During that peacetime, our company builds our database of third-party ambassadors to reach out to potential people we use as message echoing chambers when crisis hits.

We build those relationships now. We reach out to them before we need them. The people we reach out to—industry bloggers, social networking connectors—it’s not the first time they’ve heard of us, when we need a favor.

BP: Who are your 3rd party ambassadors?

DL: They run the gamut. It depends on the crisis. An ambassador could be a university professor, a scientist, a think tank director, or a foreign policy expert. It could be mommy bloggers or fans of your brand on Facebook. The potential universe of brand ambassadors is only limited by the potential number of products & brands.

BP: How do you predict future brand assaults?

DL: Quite honestly, one of the greatest tools for that is the social and digital media space. If your company or brand has the ability to listen to the comments and dialogue that are going on around their brand now, they’re in a far better position to nip potential crises in the bud before they emerge on the front page of the New York Times.

It’s important that companies and brands stay active in that space. For example, a firm that might be trolling for victims of a class-action lawsuit might be setting up a Facebook page now, asking users whether they were affected by a certain product, and to join their class action.

You can even go one step further. An example that I love is Marriott Hotel. They’ve got a fantastic system in place for social media monitoring.

If you have a bad experience at a Marriott hotel, and you send out a tweet before you check out, they want to catch that and correct your user experience before you leave the property, so that you leave a happy customer. You don’t leave a customer who’s then going to tell fifty of your friends and post a negative review and inflict long-term damage.

Image: Cipherdyne

BP: I’ve relayed negative brand experiences that customers have on my own blog. Sometimes customers agree with me, but sometimes commenters post a professional-sounding defenses of the brand. They’re anonymous, so the nature of their defenses sometimes makes me wonder whether they’re PR folks posing as individuals. Is that also something you guys do to defend a brand, put up a positive comment or other kind of comment to try to disarm a blogger’s argument?

DL: We as a firm do not try to do any black hat operations like that. Burger King last year had to fire their VP of Communications for doing just that, going out and fake blogging.

You have 118 million bloggers out there who are all policing and looking for the next corporation that’s taking the easy route. So this is not something we do for our clients.

Does it happen? Absolutely. I know that it happens.

What we might try to do is take the Barack Obama playbook. Chris Hughes and their team wrote the playbook for how you organize your supporters to be your voice and response.

So when Barack Obama was being pilloried in a local Chicago news channel for the Reverend Wright issue during the campaign, the campaign didn’t engage. Instead, they reached out to all their supporters and said “bombard this news site with what you know to be the truth!” And that’s what happened.

We encourage people to use their peacetime wisely, because you can’t unleash your hundreds or thousands of third-party ambassadors during a crisis if you didn’t take the time to connect to and make those relationships.

If someone is posting a negative comment or negative review, you can reach out to your reporters and say hey, we’d sure love it if you could share what you know to be your experience with the brand, and turn them loose.

BP: Speaking of spin, one thing that occurred to me is that it could be said that you guys are manipulating peoples’ opinions of evil companies, or something like that, because you do defend tobacco companies and other organizations that are controversial. How would you respond to that?

DL: I would say that everyone deserves their day in the court of public opinion. That’s what we offer our clients.

We represent a broad swath of clients, from Fortune 500 companies to small individuals to environmental companies doing good. For example, we have a great relationship with a client that has saved school districts more that $1 billion in electric fees. They just won the EPA partner of the year award for what they do to help the environment.

I think that you can look within the client roster and think of one or two examples…but I think that every single one of our clients falls into the category of deserving a day in the court of public opinion. We show up every day to give them that strong representation that they deserve.

BP: How do you determine when a controversy gets safe for a company? How do you determine that it’s a little flare-up that you don’t have to pay attention to?

DL: One of the worst things that can happen is that a company can overreact in a non-crisis situation and actually create the crisis.

One of the questions you have to ask, even if it’s a horribly negative story, is: “Is this really a crisis?” Do you really want to put the CEO of the company out there? Or is this just an issue that requires the response from a corporate communications executive who can just address a couple of quick questions?

That is probably one of the first steps that you have to take in any kind of crisis. You have to put the decisionmakers around the table and ask the right questions.

Obviously, if 60 Minutes is knocking on your door and you know that something’s gone terribly wrong, you probably have a crisis.

But if a lone blogger who’s sitting in the basement of his parents’ house and coming down from his Red Bull high has just hit your company with a snarky blog post, do you need to respond? No, probably not, because that’s exactly what that particular person hopes you do, is engage them. Read the situation and calibrate your initial response and everything after that.

Image: Wikipedia

BP: How many hours a day does it take to monitor and defend a big company’s reputation online?

DL: It can be a full-time job for a very big team if it’s a big enough crisis.

We were involved with the pet food recall, the toy recall, the spinach recall, the financial crisis this year, a number of global litigation issues, the baseball star Roger Clemens. All these folks have an enormous amount of public interest around them.

Our clients had as many as 15-20,000 blog posts and tweets posted about them in a single week. Every single one of the those has potential to be a serious brand threat. So, it really depends on the size of the company and the scope of the crisis.

Image: XPigs

BP: One of your clients is a major financial services firm. Because of the financial crisis, the only thing that comes to my mind about defending its reputation is waiting until the negative media cycle blows out. Do you guys have a more active strategy than that?

DL: In every crisis, there are a couple moments during the before/during/after arc of a crisis. You reach a point in the “during” part where consumer anxiety and tension reaches its xenith. Just after that tipping point, where consumer anxiety begins to relax, you have an immediate opportunity, a teachable moment to build equity.

The world’s attention is still focused on you, but they’ve just exhaled. They now know what the concern is.

For example, during the pet food crisis a few years ago, once they identified that melanine was the issue, Americans relaxed. They realized “oh, now they found it and we can know what the crisis is.”

There was an immediate teachable moment after that. The pet food industry rushed into that moment, to educated consumers, that really calmed anxiety and returned sales right back to where they were.

Every crisis has kind of the same phases. There are opportunities to limit and mitigate the damage impact upon the brand during each of those. There are also opportunities to grab the spotlight during when the world is watching you.

What you do next really does matter. You can show a proactive, transparent, and accountable strategy. You can actually win over a lot of critics during a crisis.

*

Here’s an interview with Dallas where he talks more about brand ambassadors and strategies:

*

For more on social media and crisis management, as well as reflections on current events, visit Levick’s blog here.

What are some cash-flow options available other than traditional banks?

What is the biggest business blunder management is making regarding social media?

Should our website be ‘mobile compatible’?

If you’re a business owner or manager, questions like these probably cross your mind on a daily basis. How do you find answers for them? Ask someone on your team? Consult an article? Hunt it down in a forum?

Most importantly, do you usually find what you were looking for?

The people behind Bizmore know that finding intelligent answers to business questions can be a challenge. So they created a searchable Q&A website covering even the thorniest of business-related questions. Users generate questions, and their peers—many of whom are CEOs or experts in their fields—offer informed, germane answers.

Bizmore’s commitment to its niche (the audience is comprised of owners and managers of small- to medium-sized businesses) keeps topics relevant. They supplement their Q&A content with staff-written features, giving readers a complete interactive resource. And unlike other answers sites, you don’t risk running into juvenile or spammy content.

Vistage International, an executive coaching and networking group, launched the site in July. Former CNET executive and veteran tech writer Alice Hill founded the site; Jeff Davis, who edited Business 2.0 magazine for nearly a decade, is Bizmore’s Editor in Chief.

Business Pundit recently caught up with Hill and Davis to discuss Bizmore’s history, uses, and implications.

BP: What inspired you to come up with the idea for Bizmore?

Hill: The idea came from our parent company, Vistage. Vistage is a leadership organization that’s been around since the 1950’s. It brings together a community of peer groups, mentors and experts to talk about their business and get answers from peers. That’s how you really grow your business and solve important challenges. We thought it would be great to bring this same experience to an online location, so people can tap into the same peer experience from anywhere, at anytime.

The small business (SMB) audience is such a huge part of our economy–they constitute 70% of all U.S. jobs and more than 50% of the GDP. And small businesses are underserved, so we thought: Can we create something online that has that same in-person, really intimate power of a leadership organization, but gives people a way to connect online and get answers and advice from other peers and experts?

That seemed like an exciting thing to do, an untapped audience and a lot of people with a lot of questions. It seemed like using a Q&A platform would be a great way to do something different than the usual expert articles and blogs that are out there right now.

BP: What do you mean by untapped audience?

Hill: Right now, if you are a manager or owner of a business, it’s really hard for you to get personal advice without having to hire a consultant, a lawyer, an accountant, or another expert. You can read articles and do research, but it’s really hard to have that conversation back and forth, especially online.

Online, you can comment, blog, have someone write back, or write an article, but there’s no back-and-forth. That’s why we thought that building a Q&A site would enable you to ask a question, then have experts, peers, and other people from the around the world answer, to help you look at the different perspectives that different voices bring to the issue.

BP: What’s the main thing that differentiates you from a LinkedIn group or a blog written by an expert?

Hill: As far as blogs go, Jeff likes to say we’re taking the comments in a blog and turn them upside down. You start your discussion with a question, with a person that has the issue, whereas a blog is more writers thinking up topics for the day.

If you’re a writer, you’re hoping that you’re picking something timely, or something that resonates. But it’s different when the user says that I don’t understand what’s going on, says I have a specific issue and there’s one that I need help with. It’s user-driven, but then the answers can be articles, experts, peers, all jumping in to help the user. It’s many to one, instead of one to many.

We’re not the same animal as LinkedIn. It’s hard on LinkedIn to just get advice, experts, and content in one place. LinkedIn is more about your career, your profile, and your contacts, but they’re not focused as an advice platform for a specific audience.

Davis: This is a very different world here. Our content is about recognizing that businesspeople are a bunch of experts. Our community is based on recognizing that high-level managers and executives of businesses know things about running businesses that are very hard for traditional business journalists to replicate.

We hand the microphone over to people inside of companies who do one thing really well. We get them to explain one method or management tactic that works for them that others can learn from.

There’s a lot of practical management and business advice that’s being put into practice inside of successful companies small, medium, and large. All we’re really trying to do is get inside of those companies and get them to share their wisdom.

BP: Can you tell us more about your experts?

Davis: We’re not the first website to offer up business experts. What’s different is that we handpick and share who our experts are, and they’re chosen purely with editorial objectives in mind.

It’s an independent editorial platform. There’s no issue or question that is out of bounds for these guys. As long it’s a relevant, compelling issue or topic, we’re going to try to find experts with the very best wisdom to share on that topic.

Our experts agreed to answer a handful of questions each week on our site. In exchange for that original content, we display their biography and some links to their books, white papers, and anything else that’s relevant to their topic. It’s a way for them to display their brands on the site, while we give users access to their great wisdom.

Our experts have been very enthusiastic. Many of them have come from a world of promotion where people call them up and ask them stuff, people write articles. You’d be surprised how few of them are interested in doing that the old way.

Instead of a blog, a call, or an article, I just offered the experts a chance to engage with an eyes-on business audience of senior managers, executives, and business leaders. I gave them a chance to directly contact those people.

These experts have jumped at the opportunity to have this kind of exchange. They’re tired of having one-way conversations with an audience. They’re willing to try out a new Q&A platform to get a more direct personal engagement with people they’re tried to reach.

BP: How do you envision Bizmore in its most successful form?

Hill: We want to attract as focused an audience as possible. We want to make sure there’s no solicitation on the site. We want to keep the quality high as we grow as big as possible.

There’s also a huge international audience, outside the US, who are trying to figure out how to get business inside the US. Especially with the recession, there are also so many American companies who are trying to figure out how to diversify inside the US. The Internet is a phenomenal way to reach people internationally that is hard to do in other models.

We’ll also build out the features in the site over time. We’re talking about adding a marketplace so that people can promote their companies in a way that’s not soliciting, but gets the word out about their companies, job boards, and business-related things.

I think that at the core, we just want to have the best, most relevant living archive of business advice. The audience will constantly improve on it. We’re hoping that as more and more questions get added, the site becomes more useful to every person who jumps on.

Explore Bizmore for yourself. Read Q&As anonymously, or sign up for a free membership to gain full access to the site. You’ll join 15,000 Vistage CEOs, twelve distinguished industry experts, and a host of other users.

Gibbs Technologies brings you one step closer to living like James Bond. That’s not their tag line–they promote themselves more discreetly than that. But when you tear up the highway in your sports car, drive it into the water, flick a switch, and glide down a river, perhaps stopping to wave at passing gawkers, you know it inside: You are 007.

Gibbs calls it High Speed Amphibian technology (HSA). We call game-changing fun. Gibbs’ HSA vehicles include the Aquada, a sports car that converts into a speedboat; the Quadksi, a quad/jetski combo, and the Humdinga, a Hummer-like 4WD vehicle that cruises on land and water. Their patented technology, which took more than a decade to develop, can also be licensed to turn any car into an amphibian.

New Zealand business tycoon Alan Gibbs first tried the concept in 1995. Several years later, multitalented automotive engineer Neil Jenkins partnered with Gibbs to perfect the vehicles’ engineering. Jenkins assembled a group of engineers who, with Gibbs, mastered the design of what will likely become the world’s first mass-production amphibious vehicles.

Jenkins is now the Chairman of Gibbs Technologies. Business Pundit caught up with him to explore the business behind Gibbs’ groundbreaking inventions. (Read more about the vehicles’ fascinating technology here.)

BP: Why has it taken your products so long to hit the market?

Jenkins: Several reasons. First, until Gibbs Technology came along, an awful lot of people tried to do what we do, and failed completely and utterly.

In fact, the US government gave General Dynamics millions to do what we do, build an expeditionary amphibious vehicle. They have not performed that well, to our knowledge so far, and that’s because it is extremely difficult to do. As an engineering challenge, you are right at the limit of knowledge and of technology, so it’s a very difficult task.

The first 3-4 years were us trying to work out the science behind what we needed to do. Once we had finished all the solutions we needed, we spent a couple of years working on the product design, because there’s no better way to test engineering in action than putting them into reality. That took us a few years.

In 2003 I think it was, we had a press release of the technology and showed the Aquada for the first time. We were looking to put that into low-volume production at the end of 2004.

Unfortunately, our engine supplier at the time, Britain’s Rover, went into bankruptcy, and we lost our engine supplier. We decided that rather than sell any of the 50 vehicles that we made, we would be better served to keep those to ourselves, and search for a new engine, so that we could put a proper product line on the market and not have an interruption in terms of the product’s availability.

Because it takes several years to actually put a new engine in, first find a source of a new engine, then integrate it into the vehicle, and meet the appropriate regulations for emissions and so on, it’s quite a lengthy task.

BP: Who is your civilian target market?

Jenkins: The beauty of our products is that all products we’re working on covers the spectrum of potential consumers. For example, the Quadski, at one end of the scale, is relatively low-cost. It’s for off-road and marine use. That will appeal, I think, to a lot of younger people and sportsmen who want a fun vehicle.

At the other end of the scale, we have first responder vehicles. These are unique vehicles for specific rescue applications, flood rescue, and that sort of thing. They will look expensive to the man in the street, but to the first responder community, they will represent great value for the money.

At the moment, if there is a flood rescue issue, those guys have to mobilize trucks, boats, helicopters, all sorts of things, in order to rescue people. With our technology, they will be able to leave the fire depot or whatever depot they’re coming from, drive to the area where the service is needed, drive into the water–and if necessary back onto land or into water–to get to the point of need.

Currently, they don’t have a vehicle that does that, so it’ll be a real step forward in rescue vehicles. They’ll be performing rescues on real people in reasonable health rather than recovering bodies.

BP: What market do you think the Gibbs vehicles will affect the most?

Jenkins: We’re not looking at encroaching on any existing market or take any existing market share from anyone. We’re not competing with a car that someone wants to go shopping in, or a sports boat that people only want to use on the weekend. I think it’ll be a completely new way of using transport.

We’re in a completely different class of purchase. We’ll be competing for money against other forms of transport, I guess, but we have such a unique differentiator that we probably won’t be classed in the same way as a car.

For example, if someone wants to do what we do, which is build normal road transport and good water transport, they would have to buy a boat, a trailer, and a truck to tow it all. Launching a boat takes time and skill.

We’re a vehicle where they could combine all three of those items. Instead of having to store one for some of the time, they could buy and use our vehicle very simply. They could go straight from land to water.

(With our vehicles), it takes 5 seconds to transition from a land vehicle into a boat. Once it’s transitioned, it takes 5 seconds or less to be heading out onto (the water), doing 30-35 miles per hour, which is a respectable speed for any motor boat.

BP: Is it legal to drive into a river in most countries?

Jenkins: In most countries, there is nothing to stop you launching a boat in any water, as long as you comply with the laws of the land and the water authority, (although) there are areas where there are some speed restrictions, there are areas protected from navigation.

Generally, you can take almost any of the major cities in the world, including New York, London, Sydney, all sorts of places. There’s nothing that stops you driving down an available ramp and into a river, cut some traffic and get into the water and get out somewhere else.

All you need is the infrastructure to get in and out of the water, which many cities have. I’m not sure about Manhattan, whether that has many boat ramps, but for example, London has many boat ramps on the Thames.

BP: The first phase of the concept was designed in Detroit, if I understand correctly from the Gibbs story. Does that mean that Ford, GM, or Chrysler–or some of their technologies, employees, or know-how–were involved?

Jenkins: The initial concept of the Aquada and really the initial concepts of high-speed amphibians were undertaken in Detroit for around 18 months-2 years, in 1997-98 I think it was, or 98-99.

During that time, we liaised with a lot of the major suppliers and spoke to the Big 3 in terms of looking for engines and drive train components, but we’ve never had a formal relationship with any of those people. We certainly keep a good look out in terms of what they’re working on and what they’re doing, just in case there’s any source of course, but we don’t have a formal relationship, no.

BP: What would your biggest hope for the success of the Gibbs vehicles be?

Jenkins: That’s a difficult question. I think over the past several years, in our work with different groups, including the military and so on, there’s no doubt in my mind that the technology is very useful and provides a completely new dimension to transport.

My hope will be that it doesn’t take a long time for people to recognize that and then start using it. I hope that people are excited by the technology and excited by the opportunity that it affords them in terms of opening up their transport boundaries.

It’s the ultimate off-road vehicle in the sense that you no longer need land. But the primarily it’s a boat that can launch itself and can recover itself. My hope is that the technology is understood and appreciated and that the market develops quickly.

Neil Jenkins’ most recent challenge, at time of writing, has to do with the US regulatory environment. Visit Gibbs Technologies’ website to find out more about their products and upcoming releases.

Susan Piver is the author of several books including Quiet Mind: A Beginner’s Guide to Meditation and her latest,  How Not to Be Afraid of Your Own Life. I had the good fortune to take a brief meditation instruction from Piver at a recent writer’s workshop. Although my jury’s still out on inner peace, I have to admit, five minutes of concentrated nothing certainly was the medicine I needed that day. It was enough to make me want to know more, so I asked Ms. Piver if she’d answer a few questions.

The name of your last book is intriguing – what do you mean by being ‘afraid of your own life’?

SP:  Most people are too afraid to simply be who they are. Most of us have trouble even figuring out who we are — our unique personal presence — through all the advertising, parental admonitions, and cultural conventions. Instead of knowing ourselves, we try to stereotype ourselves in our own minds to fit neat categories. Meditation practice can help enormously. It teaches you to observe with who you really are, without judgment. 

 
In terms of work life, or entrepreneurial pursuits, what are some situations where people might be afraid of their own lives?

SP:  I don’t know about you, but i spend most of the day reassuring myself that my existence is basically nothing to apologize for. Forget about expressing myself creatively, which is what any entrepreneurial pursuit requires — it takes enormous courage just to stand in your own shoes. Again, meditation or other spiritual practice can help you relax. 

  
Business and spirituality are not necessarily considered to be complimentary. How can a spiritual practice enhance business performance?

SP:  I don’t really see much of a split. You can be a spiritual business person without cheating either occupation. If you look at spirituality as the act of being who you really are from moment to moment (which i do), then there is no problem, no split whatsoever.

Can you give us one practical application we can all use at our desks right now?

(or coffee shops or sofas or wherever you happen to be!)

SP:  Pretend you’re someone who loves you a whole, whole lot. Ask them to tell you what you most need to hear today.

 
That’s sound advice we can all use, even if we can’t crunch into the lotus position (which, by the way, is totally unnecessary for mediation). Chill out, relax, and for goodness sake – unplug! If you want to know more about Susan Piver and her books, check out www.susanpiver.com.

Have a great weekend!

Image Credit: drab makyo

I had no idea where to start. While scouring the Web for tips, I ran across Dan Schawbel, who runs a blog, wrote a book, publishes a magazine, and consults on–you guessed it–personal branding.

I sought out Dan’s help by asking whether he’d be interested in doing an interview with BP. He was. Here’s what he has to say. I hope it benefits you, too.

1. BP: A generalist, by nature, doesn’t have a single specialty around which to build a brand. So what does a generalist need to focus on when branding his/her company? Do they focus on a strength not directly related to their services, like good communication, and build out from there?

DS: It depends on your current situation and future goals. I typically recommend that people should be both generalists and specialists if they work for a company. The reason is because if the area that you’re a specialist in isn’t as relevant or value to your company, you may get laid off. If you’re a generalist, then you might be protected because you know other areas of the business and can take a new position in your company. If you’re only a specialist, then you get pigeonholed and therefore it’s possible that you can be exiled completely.

If you’re a consultant, being a specialist is required because you need to be the go-to-person for a specific expertise area or skill. If you aren’t, you won’t be found, it will be hard to grow your client base and establishing a personal brand will be nearly impossible. If you’re an entrepreneur, then being a generalist is imperative because you need to know all aspects of your business, at least at first, in order to get anywhere.

Getting back to your question. A generalist needs to focus on his or her strengths, which is typically not everything. If you really narrow down your skills, you’ll notice that you’re probably better in one area than another. I’m a much better communicator than I am a mathematician. You might be better at accounting than you are at finance. When you figure out your specialty within your generalist role, you should acquire support in the other areas because you can’t focus on everything and be successful. You want to focus on a strength that is related to your services so you can spend more time on it and bring more value to your company and/or your customers.

2. BP: How does a generalist know what to emphasize when building a brand?

DS: In your generalist role, you need to pull out skills that you are most proud of. You should emphasize your unique abilities that help differentiate you from everyone else. Don’t think that you don’t have these qualities and/or skills because you do. You have to really know yourself and what your strengths are before you brand yourself both online and offline. It’s so important that you take the time to really hone in on your differentiation because otherwise your generalist role won’t amount to much in the minds of your audience.

3. BP: What, if anything, does a generalist have to give up to create a unified brand?

DS: A generalist needs to come to grips that they aren’t the best at everything and that they need support. A unified corporate brand is one that has top talent in a range of fields, coming together for a certain mission, as created by the CEO/founder. Generalists need to link up with specialists within their organization because their skills aren’t perfect in every area. Specialists spend years building up their expertise, while generalists float around. The combination of the two is powerful.

4. BP: Do other aspects of the generalist’s presentation, like motto, logo, etc. need to be emphasized to make up for a lack of specialization? Or are there other solutions for the generalist, like just setting up different companies for each specialty?

DS: It depends what your role is: consultant, entrepreneur or employee. If you’re a consultant, then a distinct presentation, motto, logo, website, blog, social network profiles, business card, mission, etc, is mandatory. If you’re an entrepreneur, then your focus should be split, branding both yourself and your company, which more emphasis on your company. If you work for a company, then you might want to take on a consultant-type role outside of your company by establishing your specialization, when you are in fact a generalist at work.

If you’re a generalist, it will be impossible to stand out, so you have to take a niche or specialized role when positioning yourself. If you have 5 specialties, I can guarantee that one or two of them you’re stronger in than the others.

Less is more when specializing and setting up companies, at least in the beginning of your career/business.

Dan Schawbel is the leading personal branding expert for Gen-Y. He is the bestselling author of Me 2.0: Build a Powerful Brand to Achieve Career Success (Kaplan, April 09), as well as the publisher of both the award winning Personal Branding Blog and Personal Branding Magazine.

Managers have been struggling to maximize employee productivity almost since the beginning of time. Shelves full of books exist on the subject. Magazines and online articles try to tackle the problem on a daily basis. High-priced consultants, experts, and speakers add to the mass of productivity-improvement tips. Could there possibly be an easy answer?

In SuccessFactors‘ world, there is. The San Mateo, CA-based company provides scalable talent management software that helps companies track, review, profile, compensate, and manage their employees more effectively. The company provides a variety of on-demand solutions for every size of company, from startups to “mega-businesses” with 20,000+ employees.

If you’re not sure whether software can actually cure age-old management woes, just ask the market. Last year, Deloitte put SuccessFactors on its Fast 50 list of fastest-growing software and IT companies. That’s because the company experienced 1,437% between fiscal years 2003-2007. Clearly, something is working.

Business Pundit caught up with SuccessFactors VP of Product Marketing David Karel to find out more about the company’s views on employee performance, company efficiency, and how SuccessFactors itself has attained such, well, success.

BP: What are 2-3 of the biggest pitfalls that all companies face in terms of productivity? How do your products address those pitfalls?

1. Companies are unable to bridge the strategy/execution gap.

In many organizations, there’s a gap between the overall company strategy and day-to-day execution in the organization. Why? Because execution hinges on a company’s ability to clearly communicate strategic goals throughout the entire organization, ensure everyone is aligned with those goals and enable line management to measure and manage performance of individual contributors at a tactical level in order to drive strategy on a daily basis. This gap gets increasingly larger as companies grow and executives are asked to do a lot more with a lot less.

SuccessFactors gives organizations the ability to easily set and communicate goals to literally every person in the organization (no matter how big or small), hold people accountable for progress against all goals and proactively address productivity and performance gaps as they occur.

2. Companies have a tough time hanging on to their best, most productive people.

Identifying, attracting and keeping top talent is a hot button for most executives because star performers vastly outperform the lower performers in an organization — by as much as 3 times according to research. Even in times as difficult as these, a company’s best people may leave if not given a reason to stick around. The war for talent has not ended; a company’s top performers are still being targeted by competition.

SuccessFactors gives companies the ability to hone in and identify high potential employees and provide them with leadership opportunities, development opportunities and stretch goals to keep them highly engaged. In tandem, we give them the tools to develop employees and reward them based on performance which can have a dramatic effect on both retention and bottom line business results.

3. Companies are not getting the most out of their workforce.

Every organization has a bell curve of performance across their workforce; the rule of thumb is that ten percent are leading the bell curve, 80 percent fall in the middle and about ten percent trail behind with the lowest performance. Not ideal at all. While companies often focus on nurturing their top talent — or fret about managing their low performers — imagine the impact on an organization that could do something to shift the performance curve of the “mass in the middle” even slightly to the right.

We help set clear goals and expectations, and we provide meaningful feedback. Plus, we help companies optimize their workforce with tools to develop and promote from within and make the right external hires when they must go to the outside – so companies can make sure key positions remain filled with the right person for the right job.

Currently, companies are spending about 70 percent of operating expenses on their people. Why should such an immense asset not be fully utilized? SuccessFactors helps provide ways to make better business decisions in today’s tough economy and we pride ourselves on giving our customers the tools to pull the most powerful levers they have to shift that curve to the right.

BP: Can you briefly describe the ideal “pay-for-performance” environment?

Ideally, a pay-for-performance culture takes root when:

1. Employees are given visibility into what really matters to the organization

2. Expectations are clearly set around how each employee is to make an impact

3. Everyone’s performance is compared against these expectations is then measured — always fairly and consistently.

4. Rewards in the form of raises, bonuses, etc. are then passed out based on real achievement.

5. Execution is the most important, and most often overlooked, part of running a successful business. Especially in the current environment, executives should use every tool at their disposal to make sure their company is running as a single machine and moving toward big-vision goals. This means ensuring each employee compensations, bonuses and so on are tied to performance, and SuccessFactors provides tools to do just that.

BP: How do your products and services ensure that a manager’s team is working at peak levels of efficiency 100% of the time?

In this environment, with many organizations forced to downsize or put a hold on hiring, managers are being asked to deliver a lot more with less. It’s quite the conundrum. Against this backdrop, team optimization is the key to survival. SuccessFactors’ suite of tools helps managers do just that by getting everyone focused on what matters most to the team, and to the organization at-large. Whether it is giving managers the solutions they need to both develop each employee to his or her full potential or making sure teams are fully engaged and motivated to give their most — everyday — SuccessFactors is there everyday to help companies achieve tangible and measurable results, lower costs, and align their organizations.

BP: SuccessFactors is doing really well as a company. How did the company grow so successful? How is it staying successful in a difficult economy?

Today, SuccessFactors is one of the fastest growing software company in the world — but it hasn’t been easy. In fact, SuccessFactors was born in 2001, during a challenging economic time in Silicon Valley, and we’ve battled every step of the way to rise from an unknown start-up to a market leader. We now boast a massive and growing 4.7 million strong user base with more than 2,600 customers in 185 countries — and we’re only getting started.

Since day one, SuccessFactors has been focused on customer success and our on-demand platform helps us do this quickly – getting customer-driven product evolution and frequent enhancements up-and-running when they need it. We also deliver innovative, customer-driven new features on an iterative monthly basis, allowing customers to continuously increase the value they receive from us. We also interact and work closely with our customers on a daily basis – a paradigm shift from the legacy, on-premise software sales model of selling multi-million dollar license deals and then reengaging the customer five years later.

How has this downturn changed our business? Now, our customers are pouring everything to keep their existing customers satisfied and do more with less. They’re doing that by putting increased focus on their top talent and high performers to make sure their employees are motivated and engaged. As a result, SuccessFactors has gone from a nice-to-have to a must-have in the arsenal of software solutions. That’s how we’re able to thrive in the downturn.

David Karel is the VP of Product Marketing at SuccessFactors. Learn more about SuccessFactors here.

This isn’t your grandfather’s business show. And guaranteed: No pleated pants.

With these words, David Siteman Garland introduces another episode of The Rise to the Top. The syndicated show is nearing its second season, and the 20-something Siteman Garland couldn’t be more enthusiastic.

“It’s a talk show on steroids,” he says of the entrepreneur-focused show, which airs both online and on ABC30 St. Louis. The show uses both traditional and new media to reach out to more than 50,000 viewers. Each multi-segment episode features tips, interviews, inspiration, advice, and other fodder for entrepreneurs. To boot, The Rise to the Top hosts community events, such as networking dinners and a summer-themed business event including Anna Kournikova in July.

Almost singlehandedly, Siteman Garland has built an exciting small-business community in St. Louis. Judging by his extraordinary levels of energy and commitment, the Midwest is just the beginning. Business Pundit interviewed Siteman Garland to find out more, so to speak, about how he runs the show.

BP: How’d you get into TV production?

DSG: The story is crazy. After I graduated from college at age 22, I started a professional in-line hockey league in St. Louis. It was like getting an MBA in two years.

I had a knack for doing sponsorships, so I ended up with a radio show talking about in-line hockey on 1380 St. Louis, a major station. While I was still doing that work, I sat down with a friend at a coffee shop and realized something. I said I felt like there was nothing on TV right now that would be designed for forward-thinking entrepreneurs, the young and the young-at-heart. I said, “I don’t know how I’m going to do it, but I’m going to do it. I think the show will catch on, and we can do good things for the community.”

I had no idea what to do when I started the show, so I found people who did know what was going on. I would ask anyone that would listen to me, I would say “look, I want to do a TV show. I don’t know what I’m doing. If you think it’s a bad idea, tell me now. If you think it’s good idea, and you think someone can help me out with this, I’d appreciate if you could nudge me in right direction.”

As a result, I got networked into some of the top people who could make this a reality, including one of the top media people in St. Louis. The original plan was just get on cable access and see what happens. Next thing you know, the head of this network station (my46 http://www.my46stl.com/) in St. Louis is nice enough to say “let’s give this a shot and see what happens.” It all happened through networking and relationship-building.

I poured everything I had, including all my savings, to get the show going. I made my own production studio, but that’s another story.

BP: What happened?

DSG: I hired a production company when we first started, but things didn’t go as planned. Costs escalated. Our price per episode was more than $8K, which was a huge amount when we were trying to get started. We had budgeted far less than that.

We were going bankrupt in a hurry. It got to the point where we either had to pack up shop, or try to get a loan or investors. We also didn’t have a lot of time, had 1.5 weeks to shoot the next episode.

I thought: “I just have to take action.” I decided to start a Craigslist competition for video editors (that’s the most important role). I put out an ad on Craigslist. Two days later, I had 98 resumes, from someone with 5 Emmies to some guy who just emailed “Yo, my name’s Jay, I do video.”

I weeded the candidates down to 50. Then, I interviewed 25 video editors in person in two days in 2 different coffee shops. By the end, we had narrowed it down to five decent editors.

I created a competition where I paid each candidate a small amount to edit an entire episode. I told them the best one would go on TV. Through the contest, I built great relationships with some of the editors. We got high quality content for less, and with the money saved, we were able to purchase our own equipment.

We had no place to shoot, so we transformed my condo into a studio. We created the most extensive studio in condo history! I’m actually looking at a couple set pieces as we speak. It’s sort of like living in a funhouse.

BP: How many employees do you have?

DSG: We have a team of fewer than ten people. I’m the principal owner of the company. I’ve created a Dream Team of entrepreneurs, independent contractors, and college interns. We have people in internet marketing, graphic design, web development, media planning/buying, video production, and logistics. Our tasks include signing sponsorships; shooting the show; producing, creating, and editing the show; events, and more.

My hands are in a lot of different buckets right now. It can get a little overwhelming in terms of doing everything at once.

BP: Who’s your demographic?

DSG: 62% of viewers meet our target demographic, which covers ages of 25-49. 29% of our demographic is in the 50+ age range, which I didn’t see coming. They’re attracted to our forward-thinking attitude. We’re getting some high-end people who want to know what the “kids” are up to. 9% of viewers are 18-24 years old.

BP: What has your experience with advertisers been?

DSG: We try to offer a different level of engagement than many advertisers. We like to create an experience where advertisers come to events. We try to keep it different.

We also use social media more. For example, the Sub Zero Vodka Bar in St. Louis spends $0 on advertising every year. We created an off-the-menu sponsored drink called The Rise to the Top. It’s a vodka mojito with 3 secret ingredients. The only way you find out about the drinks is through our show, events, Twitter feed, and other show-related media. It creates a sort of “cool factor.” People feel like they have a secret code when they go to the bar and get the drink. It’s been trackable and highly successful.

The idea was to get brand awareness so that we get people through the door. The key for working with any sponsorship or advertiser is to listen, to pay attention to exactly what the advertiser looking for.

You have to have the ability to say no, to tell them “I think you’re money is better spent elsewhere.” It comes back to you tenfold in the long run, because people know that you’re the person who is paying attention to users. You get a reputation for knowing what kinds of products, etc. users are interested in.

BP: What keeps you going?

DSG: My strongest personal assets are energy and taking action. I have a ridiculous amount of energy all the time. It scares people. I’m always bringing energy into everything, and I just don’t stop.

Taking action is also a major thing. Being able to pick an idea and being able to do something about it is key. I’m not a super planner, but being able to take action is the number one thing.

Part of this process is that you really have to be able to hustle and get it done in the beginning. The rewards are in the long run.

See David Siteman Garland in action at The Rise to the Top. The second season starts in September 2009, on ABC30 St. Louis and on the Rise to the Top website.

Remember the good old days? You know, when you could walk straight from the graduation platform to a cushy job with a $5,000 hiring bonus?

That is so 1998, you might be saying. You’re right. Job seekers have replaced corporate minions in the rat race, sprinting like mad for rare openings. Candidates need to shine to even be considered.

What if you haven’t interviewed for a job in 10 years? Or you just graduated, and want to stand out? 360JobInterview.com knows your pain. The company’s 300+ HR professionals are intimate with layoffs, some even on the receiving end. Their jobs depend on helping you succeed in finding yours.

All you need to tap 360JobInterview.com’s resources is a webcam and Skype. Once you have the goods, you match yourself up with an HR interview coach in your field (choose from more than 55 job categories). You send your coach your resume and job description, then link up with him/her on a Skype videoconference. Your coach interviews you just like a real company gatekeeper would. After the interview, s/he gives you feedback on the interview.

Your in-depth, personalized training session should give you the ability to make a keen first impression during your real interview. If you need field-specific career coaching, resume writing, or follow-ups, the company offers that, too.

Business Pundit interviewed 360JobInterview.com CEO Jeff Garber for his take on the company, the experts, and the job-search process.

BP: I noticed that your interview coaching sessions are one hour. How much can a customer accomplish in one hour?

A lot of ground can be covered in that 1hr. Before an interview session, we ask people to upload their resume and a job description. That way, the coach can really get a better understanding of the candidate.

During the hour session, probably 40-45 minutes is an actual interview. The other balance of time addresses observations, insights, and coaching. For instance, maybe you’re going for journalism, and the question was “can you tell me what makes your journalistic style unique?” If the response was flat, or really didn’t sizzle as far as highlighting your skill mix, the coach can point that out and help you work out an appropriate response. At the end of the session, we provide a written evaluation highlighting what was covered in that session.

In most HR situations, the average interview is about 20 minutes. Ours will be a lot longer and much more in-depth. Afterwards, we will tell candidates what close family members and friends don’t tell you. When you go into a mock interview with a friend, they don’t want to upset you, they don’t want to find the flaws, so they’ll say you know what, you’re doing great, that’s good. That’s not helpful in this (competitive) environment.

We can cover a lot of ground when it’s all about you.

BP: The client can also save his/her interview and look over it again and again, right?

Yes, that’s important for body language. Sometimes the person isn’t making eye contact, or their body language is off. It can be scary to look at yourself on video, but the coach can point out the fact that you’re not making good eye contact, or that you’re fidgeting too much and it looks you’re nervous. That’s why a webcam interview by far is much more important than a traditional telephone interview.

BP: What demographic has been your best customer?

Sad to say, everyone. We have people who have lost their jobs after 5, 10, 15 years of being in market. We have people who are just graduating from school and having incredible difficulty getting an interview in fierce competition. Then there are folks who have to come out of retirement because their retirement funds have dwindled. It’s across the board.

For every job that’s available, there are between 300-500 applicants. Only a few of those get an interview. The interview is more key than ever before. You really have to set yourself apart in this market, and that’s not easy to do

BP: I’ve heard that most people getting laid off are average employees, the C-students of employees. Is that the case, in your opinion?

In my opinion, that’s not the case. The brightest and best as well as the mediocre are laid off. I think that would be an incorrect statement, that it’s just the mediocre who are laid off, because for instance you can look at a company like Google, voted the #1 place to work, they have access to the brightest and the best. This is the downturn, and they’re laying off people. You think they’re laying off people who are not the brightest and the best? I disagree with that statement. I think that everyone is affected, not just the ones that are so-so.

BP: Can you tell me about a success story from your program?

I think the number one success stories are people walk away saying you know what, interviewing is scary to begin with, I have more confidence knowing that 1) I was proactive, doing something about it (by engaging services), 2) the information, coaching, and critiquing provided by the coaches was extremely helpful because they want you to succeed, and it takes a pro person to do that. Candidates walk away with confidence and thinking you know what, I can get this job, which is huge.

Also, this is the first time, probably since the Great Depression, that people are looking for jobs not to better themselves. Years ago, people made job changes because they wanted more salary, maybe a better work life, whatever the case may be. Now, people are actually looking for jobs because they need them. One of the things the coaches work with them on is it’s important for you not to come across as though you’re desperate for a job. No person likes to hire someone who is. Two, you may have been a high-level executive and now you’re going for middle management. You don’t want to come off as though this job is beneath you, because that will be perceived negatively as well.

BP: Your career experts are mostly HR pros. In most companies, HR only provides a pre-screening interview, while hiring managers make the final decisions. How do your HR experts help clients ace interviews in their fields?

Usually the hiring manager and the HR person work hand-in-hand, but the HR person is very quick to ascertain who gets through the door and who doesn’t. Before you ever get through the door to a hiring manager, you have to go through the HR gatekeeper.

Also, sometimes a hiring manager has myopic view of things, and is just interviewing for a specific role or position. HR people interview five days a week, 6-7 hours a day. They really understand their company’s overall need. The hiring manager may be very specific to a certain department, but not look for the same skill mix an HR person would look for.

With downsizing, there is less headcount, so HR people are looking for talent that is very flexible and more of a team player, more versatile for working several positions, not just one. Because they understand one specific company’s environment, and what is needed, they’re able to provide a deeper interview across the board as far as analyzing what a candidate is, what their work ethics are, and how they can work with people.

BP: How do you find and keep your HR experts?

Brad Kaunitz, our senior recruiter for 360, he has done a phenomenal job placing ads with SHRM (probably the world’s largest HR organization). That provided a lot of leads. The people we ended up hiring—from major corporations like Dell, Time Warner, GM, AmEx, Marriott, VW, and Microsoft—were also wonderful for networking. We’ve been very flattered because our recruiters love the concept of what 360 can do, as well as the flexibility they have of working with clients.

Lots of these HR folks are victims of the economy, and they’ve been laid off themselves, so not only do they have compassion, they can speak firsthand about what type of anxiety is related to it. I think they bring even more compelling energy and drive to make things happen for candidates.

BP: Do you have any plans to evolve your business model if the economy gets better and demand goes back down?

Our business model isn’t based on the current situation, but the long term. Independent of that, the Secretary of the Treasury said that we may begin to pull towards the end of the year, but the last component that will come out is jobs.

I think it’s going be a long time until we get to the higher levels that we’re used to. More importantly, I think that the job market will never be the same. I think that our approach will probably change the landscape of how jobs are approached. I think that as you raise the bar for the candidates to be more savvy and better interviewers, there will always be a fresh supply of folks who feel the need to up their game as well. I don’t see that as being fad.

Our near-time goal is to be scalable, because we’ve had a lot of international interest. So we want to develop teams all around the world.

Jeff Garber is the CEO of 360JobInterview.com. Learn more about 360JobInterview.com at their website or blog.