6 Reasons Why Bigger Is Not Better In Your Startup

Many passionate entrepreneurs fight to add more features into their new products and services, assuming that more function will make the solution more appealing to more customers. In reality, more features will more likely make the product confusing and less usable to all. Focus is the art of limiting your scope to the key function that really matters for the majority of customers.

YouTube did it with videos, Instagram did it with photos, and Amazon did it with books. Many of the business plans I have seen as an investor, like trying to integrate all the social media features of Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn into a new platform, don't do it. Of course, once you have a brand and more resources, it can pay to expand your book selling to a full e-commerce site.

In fact, there are a host of reasons why a non-focused startup business is more likely to struggle for survival, lose market and investor attention, and miss out on the opportunity to capitalize on their scope:

1. Time to market is tied to the size of your offering. In many business domains today, the market seems to change about every ninety days. With the current low cost of entry, nimble competitors appear quickly and seize the high ground of your existing customers and potential. No startup can implement a broad strategy quickly enough to stay ahead.



2. Broad product offerings require too much infrastructure. More money is hard to find, and building efficient multiple processes is even harder. Every aspect of every product requires development, testing, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution. The probability of failure goes up exponentially as the number of product features increase.



3. It's tough for an elephant to be agile. Every successful startup I know has pivoted a couple of times, as they learn what really works in the marketplace and in the sales process. Did you know that both YouTube and Facebook started out to be dating sites? Even IBM, with their personal computer, had trouble making their elephant dance.



4. Ongoing market leadership requires continuous innovation. The initial larger cost in time and dollars is only the beginning. The first-to-market advantage doesn't last long. You need continuous innovation in all elements of your product line to stay ahead, or your startup will be quickly left in the dust.



5. Marketing a product with too many features is self-defeating. It's almost impossible to craft a memorable message that has more than three bullets. The more you try to capitalize on the breadth and depth of your solution, the more people don't get the message at all, and settle for a competitor that focuses on their personal hot-button.



6. Your personal bandwidth is quickly exceeded. When your solution has too many elements, even you can't keep the priorities straight, and your team gets frustrated, tired, loses motivation, and tends to not do anything well. As a new entrepreneur in a new startup, it's better to walk before you try to run.

At the same time, focusing on the wrong things is equally destructive and unproductive. In some environments product focus is not the most important element. Perhaps the focus should be on a single distribution channel, better customer service, or a simplified pricing structure. In all cases, hiring the best people is likely more important than adding a few features to your solution.

Thus the first and top focus for every entrepreneur should be on strategy. The strategy needs to be simple, written down, and communicated regularly to the entire team. A simple test is to see if you can quickly name your top three priorities, and if every team member is able to respond quickly with the same three. Too many strategy elements generate lots of work, but few results.

The final focus should be on emphasizing strengths and measuring success, rather than on solving the crisis of the moment and eliminating weaknesses. Only by focusing on the right elements of market, product, business, and people, can you really hope to win. Bigger is not necessarily better. Be the best in your chosen niche and you can change the world.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Inside The Billion-Dollar Battle For Puerto Rico’s Future

The money poured in by the millions, then by the hundreds of millions, and finally by the billions. Over weak coffee in a conference room in Midtown Manhattan last year, a half-dozen Puerto Rican officials exhaled: Their cash-starved island had persuaded some of the country’s biggest hedge funds to lend them more than $3 billion to keep the government afloat.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

9 Phrases Smart People Never Use In Conversation

We've all said things that people interpreted much differently than we thought they would. These seemingly benign comments lead to the awful feeling that only comes when you've planted your foot firmly into your mouth.

Verbal slip-ups often occur because we say things without knowledge of the subtle implications they carry. Understanding these implications requires social awareness--the ability to pick up on the emotions and experiences of other people.

TalentSmart has tested the emotional intelligence (EQ) of more than a million people and discovered that social awareness is a skill in which many of us are lacking.

We lack social awareness because we're so focused on what we're going to say next--and how what other people are saying affects us--that we completely lose sight of other people.

This is a problem because people are complicated. You can't hope to understand someone until you focus all of your attention in his or her direction.

The beauty of social awareness is that a few simple adjustments to what you say can vastly improve your relationships with other people.

To that end, there are some phrases that emotionally intelligent people are careful to avoid in casual conversation. The following phrases are nine of the worst offenders. You should avoid them at all costs.

1. "You look tired."

Tired people are incredibly unappealing--they have droopy eyes and messy hair, they have trouble concentrating, and they're as grouchy as they come. Telling someone he looks tired implies all of the above and then some.

Instead say: "Is everything okay?" Most people ask if someone is tired because they're intending to be helpful (they want to know if the other person is okay). Instead of assuming someone's disposition, just ask. This way, he can open up and share. More importantly, he will see you as concerned instead of rude.

2. "Wow, you've lost a ton of weight!"

Once again, a well-meaning comment--in this case a compliment--creates the impression that you're being critical. Telling someone that she has lost a lot of weight suggests that she used to look fat or unattractive.

Instead say: "You look fantastic." This one is an easy fix. Instead of comparing how she looks now to how she used to look, just compliment her for looking great. It takes the past right out of the picture.

3. "You were too good for her anyway."

When someone severs ties with a relationship of any type, personal or professional, this comment implies he has bad taste and made a poor choice in the first place.

Instead say: "Her loss!" This provides the same enthusiastic support and optimism without any implied criticism.

4. "You always..." or "You never..."

No one always or never does anything. People don't see themselves as one-dimensional, so you shouldn't attempt to define them as such. These phrases make people defensive and closed off to your message, which is a really bad thing because you likely use these phrases when you have something important to discuss.

Instead say: Simply point out what the other person did that's a problem for you. Stick to the facts. If the frequency of the behavior is an issue, you can always say, "It seems like you do this often." or "You do this often enough for me to notice."

5. "You look great for your age."

Using "for your" as a qualifier always comes across as condescending and rude. No one wants to be smart for an athlete or in good shape relative to other people who are also knocking on death's door. People simply want to be smart and fit.

Instead say: "You look great." This one is another easy fix. Genuine compliments don't need qualifiers.

6. "As I said before..."

We all forget things from time to time. This phrase makes it sound as if you're insulted at having to repeat yourself, which is hard on the recipient (someone who is genuinely interested in hearing your perspective). Getting insulted over having to repeat yourself suggests that either you're insecure or you think you're better than everyone else (or both!). Few people who use this phrase actually feel this way.

Instead say: When you say it again, see what you can do to convey the message in a clearer and more interesting manner. This way they'll remember what you said.

7. "Good luck."

This is a subtle one. It certainly isn't the end of the world if you wish someone good luck, but you can do better because this phrase implies that they need luck to succeed.

Instead say: "I know you have what it takes." This is better than wishing her luck because suggesting that she has the skills needed to succeed provides a huge boost of confidence. You'll stand out from everyone else who simply wishes her luck.

8. "It's up to you." or "Whatever you want."

While you may be indifferent to the question, your opinion is important to the person asking (or else he wouldn't have asked you in the first place).

Instead say: "I don't have a strong opinion either way, but a couple things to consider are..." When you offer an opinion (even without choosing a side), it shows that you care about the person asking.

9. "Well at least I've never ___."

This phrase is an aggressive way to shift attention away from your mistake by pointing out an old, likely irrelevant mistake the other person made (and one you should have forgiven her for by now).

Instead say: "I'm sorry." Owning up to your mistake is the best way to bring the discussion to a more rational, calm place so that you can work things out. Admitting guilt is an amazing way to prevent escalation.

Bringing It All Together

In everyday conversation, it's the little things that make all the difference. Try these suggestions out, and you'll be amazed at the positive response you get.

What other phrases should people avoid? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below as I learn just as much from you as you do from me.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

5 Horrible Things Congress Just Snuck Into Law

Congress has officially approved the latest omnibus budget deal, which now heads to President Obama's desk. The bill is essentially guaranteed to be signed into law, because anything less means the government would shut down. Again.

In what's become something of a sick annual tradition, members of Congress attached a multitude of riders to this must-pass piece of legislation in an attempt to sneak through deeply unpopular things they could never justify introducing or voting for on their own.

The text of the 2,000 page bill was quietly made available to the public in the middle of the night on Tuesday -- just a few days before it was passed by both houses of Congress. So, what was Congress trying to hide? Here are five of the most egregious things we found.

THE PART THAT ALLOWS FOR MORE SECRET (AND POSSIBLY FOREIGN) POLITICAL MONEY


A provision buried on page 472 added the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from taking any action to reign in the political activity of 501(c)4 organizations. These organizations, which enjoy significant tax exemptions as nonprofits, weren't originally supposed to engage in political activity at all. In recent years, however, they've become a favorite of anyone who wants to buy political influence without attracting attention.

Everyone from Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS to the Harry Reid-aligned Patriot Majority USA has taken advantage of the lax rules governing 501(c)4s. Since there's no legal requirement that 501(c)4 organizations disclose their donors, anyone can use them as a vehicle to pour unlimited money into our political system. And we mean anyone. As former Republican Federal Election Commissioner Trevor Potter has pointed out, even foreign nationals and governments could use 501(c)4s to quietly influence U.S. policy.

Let that sink in folks: Rather than allow the IRS to prevent the abuse of tax-exempt nonprofit status for purely political purposes by both parties, Congress has specifically banned the agency from taking any kind of action -- even at the risk of allowing secret foreign money to poison our elections.

THE PART THAT HELPS CORPORATIONS HIDE POLITICAL ACTIVITY FROM THEIR OWN SHAREHOLDERS


On a similar note, another provision tucked away on page 1,982 prohibits the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from requiring corporations to disclose their political spending.

This is especially outrageous because disclosure is, at least on paper, one of the least controversial and most basic steps toward reform the government can take. We're not talking about cutting off the flow of money here -- just letting the public see who's spending it, and what they're spending it on. As noted by the LA Times' Michael Hiltzik, even the Supreme Court made a point of emphasizing the need for disclosure in its widely reviled Citizens United ruling:

"With the advent of the Internet," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, "prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters." Disclosure would enable shareholders to "determine whether their corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are 'in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests."

All that said, Obama's SEC seemed completely unwilling to implement such a rule anyway. Despite the fact that a petition calling for a new disclosure rule drew 1.2 million public comments -- the most in SEC history -- SEC chairwoman, Obama appointee, and former Wall St. lawyer Mary Jo White has consistently refused to take any kind of action on the matter.

THE PART HARRY REID GIFTWRAPPED FOR A PRIVATE EQUITY CEO


In one of the more straightforward cases of influence peddling we've ever seen, Harry Reid reportedly solicited contributions for his Super PAC -- which, by law, he's supposed to have nothing to do with -- during a May 2013 meeting with private equity CEO David Bonderman.

Bonderman quickly picked up on Reid's not-so-subtle hints. Bonderman, his wife, and firms under his control contributed well over $1 million to Reid's Senate Majority PAC in 2014. In what we're sure is a completely unrelated coincidence, Reid pushed to insert two pieces of language that would directly benefit Bonderman's businesses into the 2015 omnibus. What else is there to say?

THE PART COPY-PASTED FROM CISA -- A HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE BILL


Civil libertarians and privacy advocates received a nasty shock when it was discovered that the full text of Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) was added 1,729 pages into the budget deal. Pushed as a "cybersecurity" measure, CISA actively encourages companies to quietly share data they've accumulated on consumers with numerous government agencies.

While the bill has been lambasted by privacy advocates and major tech companies like Apple, Google, Twitter, and Wikipedia, it does have the blessing of numerous industries that spend big to buy political influence -- The Telecommunications Industry Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, and Retail Industry Leaders Association have all applauded its passage.

THE PART THAT EXTENDS MOST OF THE TERRIBLE THINGS ADDED TO LAST YEAR'S OMNIBUS


Nearly all of the riders attached to the 2014 "cromnibus" budget agreement were re-upped in the 2015 version. As we reported last year, the 2014 omnibus agreement included everything from nullification of voter-backed marijuana legalization in Washington, DC, to $479 million for war planes the Pentagon didn't ask for, to a rollback of restrictions on risky derivatives trading that was quite literally written by lobbyists for CitiGroup.

It's hard to find many good things to say about Congress after legislation like this, but hey -- at least they're consistent. And as long as monied interests are allowed to effectively control government policy, you can definitely expect that consistency to continue....unless we do something about it. More on that here.

By Mansur Gidfar and Josh Silver.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

'Star Wars' Fans Lose Their Minds When Theater Projector Breaks

The Force may be strong, but can it contain a theater full of angry fans?

A projector broke down at Hollywood's Arclight Cinemas late Thursday night --midway through a screening of "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," according to reports.

To make matters worse, it then skipped to a later part of the movie. 

Multiple videos posted online Friday show theatergoers seriously freaking out -- some ironically, and others not so much.

"Nooooo! This is so f***** up," one man shouts in a YouTube clip posted by michirubio, as theater staff members are seen desperately trying to solve the problem.

Moviegoer Erik Melendez posted a similar video to Facebook, where he claimed the film was "spoiled" by the glitch and "everyone in the theater went crazy."

"The theater went into mayhem, people ran out, yelling 'Stop the movie!' [and] closing their eyes -- anything to not witness a spoiler," he later told LAist.

A video posted by Elise Golgowski (@zebrasbite) on Dec 18, 2015 at 1:24pm PST

The issue was eventually fixed and the movie continued, according to CBS Los Angeles.

It has not been revealed what caused the problem, and Arclight offered a full refund for all the viewers, according to Mediaite.

Michael Melendez told CBS that "it kind of ruined our night," adding, "But it’s better to tell these fun stories than the sad ones you hear about."

Several moviegoers took to Twitter to complain, or laugh, about the incident:

The movie theater we were at messed up our movie so they stopped it then started playing it again at the wrong part lmfaoooo

— erik- as seen on tv (@ErikNoManches) December 18, 2015

When u tryina watch the new Star Wars but the projector breaks halfway through

— Peyton E. VanWinkle (@peyton_elise98) December 18, 2015

When the projector breaks 3/4 of the way through Star Wars. Ahhh SERIOUSLY?????

— Melissa Blades (@LissaLee94) December 18, 2015

Saw Star Wars at The Arclight. They reset the image 1/2 way thru & started it again 15min after where it left off. Lol get yo shit together!

— Elise Golgowski (@freaktreschic) December 18, 2015

@ArcLightCinemas arclight couldn't deliver and my screening for Star Wars is currently interrupted. Not okay. Refund pic.twitter.com/6pqNVq4MFt

— !!! (@ustopdropandrol) December 18, 2015

Despite the evident frustration of those in the audience, Marc Pattavina told GeekNation it was a "strangely fun experience."

"But there's people who were really hyped to see this and have been anticipating this for a very long time that had to be very let down," he added.

Kristin Nepi added that the staff was apologetic, "but you really can't get that first-time experience watching a 'Star Wars' film. You can't get that back."

Also on HuffPost: 

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Applebee's Waiter Turns Over $32,000 In Cash Left Inside Restaurant

LOS ANGELES, Dec 18 (Reuters) - An Applebee's waiter in central California turned over $32,000 in cash that a family forgot at a table, an amount that exceeds his annual salary after taxes, because it was the right thing to do, the waiter told Reuters in an exclusive interview on Friday.

Brian Geery, 33, said he found a canvas pouch at a table in the restaurant where he works in Fresno after a family finished eating, and noticed a rectangular shape inside.

He showed the pouch to his manager, who suggested it might contain medicine, and at his boss's suggestion Geery opened the pouch to check. The rectangular shape was a stack of bills.

"I couldn't believe it, I'd never seen so much cash in my life before," Geery said.

Carrie Hellyer, Applebee's regional director, said Geery declined a reward from the family, and initially withheld his name from media outlets wishing to cover the story.

"He just said that he did it because it was the right thing to do and he didn't want the right thing being overwhelmed by anything else," Hellyer said.

Geery, a 10-year Applebee's veteran who said the money exceeded his annual income after taxes, gave the pouch to his manager and went back to waiting tables.

"I'm a big believer in karma," he said. "I just feel like you treat others as you would want to be treated."

The cash was picked up by police later in the day, said Fresno police spokesman Lieutenant Joe Gomez.

When the family called police on Thursday to report the loss, arrangements were made for them to pick it up at the station, Gomez said.

Underscoring the waiter's honesty, Hellyer said there was no surveillance camera in the area where the family left their money.

Gomez said the money was returned to the family only after a detective determined it was obtained legally. The cash came from rental properties and a Mexican restaurant the family operates in San Jose, he said.

"You know how some people don't use banks, I think they're that type of person," he said.

The family had attempted to rent a safe deposit box at a bank on Wednesday, but one was not immediately available, he added. As a result, he said, they had the cash with them at Applebee's when they went there to eat and simply forgot it.

(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis, Editing by Dan Grebler, Sharon Bernstein and Ken Wills)

Also on HuffPost:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.