26.04.2015 Views

Founders at Work.pdf

Founders at Work.pdf

Founders at Work.pdf

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

442 <strong>Founders</strong> <strong>at</strong> <strong>Work</strong><br />

They weren’t saying, “We’re looking for this new fe<strong>at</strong>ure.” Th<strong>at</strong> wasn’t so<br />

common, whereas th<strong>at</strong> would be very common in the computer business. This<br />

was more interpret<strong>at</strong>ion of the regul<strong>at</strong>ions, and how to take stress out of their<br />

lives.<br />

Livingston: So you became a source of advice for these companies as well as a<br />

source of new technology?<br />

Gruner: Yes, I would say Shareholder.com played a significant role in the l<strong>at</strong>e<br />

’90s and up until now, interpreting both the technology and the regul<strong>at</strong>ory environment.<br />

And from 1995 to 2000, the company and I personally spent a lot of<br />

time going to trade conferences, luncheons th<strong>at</strong> NIRI (N<strong>at</strong>ional Investor<br />

Rel<strong>at</strong>ions Institute) would host, talking about “Wh<strong>at</strong>’s the Internet?” and giving<br />

demonstr<strong>at</strong>ions, trying to make th<strong>at</strong> less intimid<strong>at</strong>ing, explaining it. And then,<br />

starting in 2000, we did a similar thing with Regul<strong>at</strong>ion FD and Sarbanes-Oxley.<br />

Not explaining it so much, but showing examples of wh<strong>at</strong> other companies were<br />

doing.<br />

Livingston: Did you worry about any competitors?<br />

Gruner: At Shareholder.com we had several competitors. By far our most<br />

serious competitor was also a Boston-based company, called CCBN. CCBN<br />

was a very smart company. They were funded by Thomson Financial, a major<br />

company in a lot of aspects of corpor<strong>at</strong>e services, financial services. They were<br />

our arch-competitor.<br />

But <strong>at</strong> the same time, with the dot-com boom, about a dozen companies<br />

popped up in investor and shareholder communic<strong>at</strong>ions, funded by venture<br />

capitalists. At one point, by l<strong>at</strong>e 1999, I calcul<strong>at</strong>ed th<strong>at</strong> over $85 million of venture<br />

capital had flowed into this little niche of shareholder communic<strong>at</strong>ions.<br />

And we were still living on our quarter-million-dollar capitaliz<strong>at</strong>ion and<br />

doing fine. We were offered investments many times by VCs and turned them<br />

down. We just felt growing organically was how we wanted to proceed.<br />

Livingston: You didn’t want to give up control.<br />

Gruner: I did not want to give up control. At the time, I owned about twothirds<br />

of the company, and I felt th<strong>at</strong> just makes life so much simpler, particularly<br />

for me. But I think for everybody else, too, because we would sit in a<br />

conference room, talk about something, make a decision, and be going. We<br />

could make important str<strong>at</strong>egic decisions in an afternoon if we chose to.<br />

For example, we had been pricing our Shareholder Direct service <strong>at</strong> a fixed<br />

cost of $4,000 a quarter, plus telephone fees and other variable charges of the<br />

Internet. Th<strong>at</strong> $16,000 was highly, highly profitable. Th<strong>at</strong> was one of the things<br />

th<strong>at</strong> allowed us to grow organically all through the ’90s. But as these new competitors<br />

are coming in—like I said, about a dozen competitors offering websites,<br />

webcasting, conference calls, and all kinds of services, financed by<br />

$85 million of venture capital—they were going in and just bombing prices and<br />

even giving stuff away for free.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!