WeDo Enjoy 12% Growth

WeDo, the Portuguese suppliers of business assurance software, have announced their FY13 revenues were EUR61.5mn (USD83mn), up 12% compared to the previous year. This continued growth consolidates their position as market leaders. EBITDA rose 36% to EUR11.8mn (USD16mn). There was no mention of profits.

The company identified Southern Europe, Middle East and Africa as the regions that contributed most to growth. They also reiterated their strategy of expanding sales to the retail, energy and finance industries, claiming they now have 31 non-telco customers. On Thursday, Chief Marketing Officer Sergio Silvestre separately mentioned that sales to non-telecoms customers now generates about 10% of WeDo’s revenues. WeDo’s continued expansion outside of telecoms comes as no surprise; in January the firm created a new VP role with responsibility for developing their business outside of telecoms.

WeDo’s strong performance suggests their corporate strategy is working and hence needs little change, or further analysis. There are signs that the market is contracting overall, which makes WeDo’s results especially impressive. In his choice of words for the press release, CFO Fernando Videira hinted at some underlying softness in the market (my emphasis):

This level of continued innovation, top line growth, as well as sustainable EBITDA growth, is evidence that WeDo will continue to gain market share and to be the biggest and most robust player in Revenue Assurance and Fraud Management software in the world.

Videira went on to signal the scale of WeDo’s ambition, saying he wanted revenues to reach USD100mn by 2015. It is also worth noting that WeDo’s messages have changed subtly over the years. In the past, they asserted themselves to be leaders in the sphere of revenue assurance, excluding fraud management. Now they clearly prefer to measure their performance against the combined RA and FMS market.

Having attained the position of market leader, WeDo can exploit the advantages this confers, compared to their rivals. As the customer base grows, the same expenditure on maintaining and developing products represents a smaller proportion of the revenues they receive. WeDo also benefits from the viral marketing effect of loyal customers recommending WeDo to their peers, or seeking to purchase relevant WeDo products when they move to a new employer. WeDo’s keenness to tell telco people about their non-telco sales may partly be motivated by the hope that practitioners will continue to advocate business assurance and WeDo, even if they leave telecoms to take jobs in other sectors.

In summary, WeDo’s strategy is established, coherent, and appears to be succeeding. That allows their management team to focus on execution, making high quality sales, and sustainably improving their income.

Eric Priezkalns
Eric Priezkalns
Eric is a recognized expert on communications risk and assurance. He was Director of Risk Management for Qatar Telecom and has worked with Cable & Wireless, T‑Mobile, Sky, Worldcom and others.

Eric was lead author of Revenue Assurance: Expert Opinions for Communications Providers, published by CRC Press. He was a founding member of Qatar's National Committee for Internet Safety and the first leader of the TM Forum's Enterprise Risk Management team. Eric currently sits on the committee of the Risk & Assurance Group, and is an editorial advisor to Black Swan. He is a qualified chartered accountant, with degrees in information systems, and in mathematics and philosophy.

Commsrisk is edited by Eric. Look here for more about Eric's history as editor.
  • Daniel Peter

    Interesting summary about WeDo’s strategy. Having regularly following your blog over the past few months, I could observer WeDo is being promoted and cVidya is being badmouthed in your blog. My observation could be wrong. May I know whether there’s any specific reason for, in general, predominantly, sharing positive news about WeDo and negative publicity on cVidya? I want to be sure that talkRA is still dedicated to telecom RAFM profession and doesn’t have any other agenda.

    • @ Daniel, I believe your question is asked in good faith, so I’ll try not to be offended. Please let me state the following.

      I have freely shared information and my opinion since 2006. The modest cost of this website is a burden to me. Also, it takes up my time. After all those years, I have never made a penny from this website. My agenda has always been to freely share information and my opinion. I have no other agenda and it saddens me that people assume I do. Why is it hard to believe that I need other motives to do what I honestly do, and believe what I honestly believe?

      To give some contrast, please let me note how very few people working in this industry will publicly state if they have identified an ‘agenda’ with many other bodies and sources of information. How many people have ever said GRAPA had an agenda? And as a risk manager, let me tell you that corruption occurs everywhere, but whistleblowers are hard to find. I see agendas in all sorts of places, and yet other people tell me I’m wrong to be so cynical! Maybe I am held to a higher standard. I hold myself to a higher standard. This is the one public resource where your comment would actually be published. Would the world be a better place if I stopped doing what I am doing? What evidence do you have for bias, other than a supposition that cVidya must be roughly equivalent to WeDo, and so any analysis should be roughly the same?

      I do not determine if cVidya will make a loss, or if WeDo will make a profit. I write about facts to the best of my ability. It seems strange to me that you question if I suffer from bias, if the evidence shows WeDo has rising sales, whilst cVidya has falling sales. If the reverse were true, I would write the reverse. Do I believe there is a connection between cVidya’s poor sales, their lack of strategy, and their poor execution? Yes I do. But seeing a connection between such things is hardly evidence of bias. It would be more mysterious to praise their management and their products, whilst identifying objective evidence that they underperform their competitors.

      Whilst I cannot control the world, I respond to it. It is an oversimplification to state I like some companies whilst I dislike others. The best proof of this is something else I cannot control: Subex. Anyone who has followed this website over the years will recognize that my coverage of Subex, unlike WeDo and cVidya, has seen a more varied mix of praise and criticism. But that is not because of some emotional feelings I have about a business headquartered in Bangalore, as opposed to one headquartered in Lisbon or Tel Aviv. These are businesses – I am not emotional about them. The varied tone of the coverage given to Subex is because I have, at different times, seen different reasons to praise and to criticize Subex. When their performance is strong, I praise it. When it is weak, I criticize it. This should be ample evidence that I have no hidden bias, either for or against any business.

      I cannot audit WeDo’s books, but I take their latest announcement at face value because it is consistent with what evidence I can gather. For example, I can talk to their customers about how satisfied they are, and I can gather some data on whether they are making further sales. So it seems to me that it would be bizarre not to write this post, which is mostly about their results. However, you treat it as an example of ‘promoting’ WeDo. So what should I do, in the interests of being fair to cVidya? Should I pretend that WeDo is not the market leader, and should I question whether their sales are up 12%? If I had some reason to doubt their results, I would say so. However, I have no evidence for anything like that. Please forward the evidence to me, if you have some. I will gladly publish it!!!

      On the other hand, I would happily give more detailed insight into cVidya’s performance if I could gather more data. As often stated: cVidya now refuse to speak to me. This is in contrast to the behaviour of their rivals. Instead of assuming the fault is with me, why don’t you question why cVidya has a management team that engages in extensive and expensive marketing, that they previously tried to market themselves via talkRA, but now they snub me? I believe it is because they demand more control than I am willing to give them. And, of course, that gives me a bad impression of their management, compared to the management of their competitors.

      I have no grudge against cVidya. If they behave well, I will say so. In many respects, I should have a grudge against them. As documented on this website, they have a track record of dishonesty. They set up the World RA Forum, a clone of GRAPA, designed to act as a sales front whilst pretending it was run by telcos. Pointing out that truth cost me a job, though I was pleased that my coverage of the story caused WRAF to disappear overnight. I repeatedly found fault with Gadi Solotorevsky’s manipulation of the TMF’s RA team, to the point where I had to leave that team. Though I spent too long trying to stay pleasant and cordial with him, in the hope of encouraging him to be less biased, I failed. I have seen the evidence that a cVidya manager lied about being a US company, and everyone else in the industry thinks Alon Aginsky is a joke because he manipulated to have himself ‘ranked’ as more powerful that Neelie Kroes. Most recently, I published comments from a cVidya troll, hiding behind proxy servers, that made personal attacks against me. I would have continued to publish the comments except the troll started adopting the names of other well-known people in this industry. Am I making any of this up? No. Some of cVidya’s behaviour is so ridiculous that nobody could make it up. So is there evidence that cVidya’s management is badly behaved? Yes, there is ample evidence. And yet, I report the truth in the hope that it discourages bad behaviour, and encourages good behaviour. I do not want cVidya’s rivals to behave like cVidya. And if cVidya behaves well in future, I will say so, without hesitation. But first, they must behave well.

      Daniel, you say you want to be sure about talkRA’s agenda. After 8 years of doing this, over 600 blog posts, nearly 20 podcasts, a book, too many conference presentations to count, and everything that I have ever said and done, both publicly and privately, I think I can confidently argue that I am consistently what I am. In all that time, I’ve pointed out when liars are liars. Can you see the connection between the UK Metering and Billing Scheme, GRAPA and cVidya? There is only one, that I can think of. They all suffered deficits in honesty and transparency. Apart from that, I can see no connection between these things. And I’ve taken brickbats for stating my honest opinions about all three. So if you observe some inconsistency in my behaviour, I cannot help you. As far as I can judge, I am a person who tries to state things as they really are, without seeking favour from anyone, and without being cowed by the reprisals that inevitably follow criticism.

      So now I have given you a lengthy response. Please allow me to ask you a question. You may remember I asked the cVidya troll some questions, though he declined to respond to any of them. It is in the nature of such things that those who ask questions may not like to answer them, though I have taken time to answer your question. Please let me ask what is your agenda. Do you want a good, honest, independent source of information? To use your words, do you want a website that is dedicated to the telecom RAFM profession? If so, what are you doing about it? I know what I am doing about it. If you want to help, please do. If you have another agenda, then I will not humour you further. I already treat my enemies far better than they treat me. If you are one of them, you will understand if I do not spend more time indulging this line of questioning. But if you share the same goals as me, then get off the sidelines and do something about it.

  • Daniel Peter

    Thanks for your response. I wasn’t sure whether my comment would get published in the first place, now I’m glad I also received a response. I certainly asked the question in good faith. I strongly believe that an agenda of a business enterprise is profit making, an NGO to help a particular cause, a professional forum to contribute/help a profession and that of a PR firm is promoting their clients & making them successful. Agenda of a business enterprise is not inferior to that of an NGO and vice versa, and it’s the same with that of professional forum and PR firms. I respect them for their contribution but I want to be sure about their mission. I believe talkRa is closely aligned with that of a professional forum and want to be sure that my understanding in correct.
    I’m associated with this industry since 2009 and am still learning. My association with talkRA was to learn and get updated with the happening of the RA profession; at the same time the information that I receive should not be biased. Maybe one day I can also start contributing by writing articles in talkRA. I have to agree that your blog is very informative and your contribution to this profession in enormous without any doubt including TMF’s eTOM. I’ll continue to read your blog and I think it’s my right to add my honest comments.

    • @ Daniel, thank you for responding in turn.

      One area where I’m less satisfied with the performance of talkRA is that I originally hoped for a broader range of views to be represented. My personal views are very very well represented – but it would be better to have differing opinions expressed as well. Like a newspaper, high editorial standards can be maintained without needing all the writers to share a single point of view. I welcome argument, and I welcome contribution, so long as the standard is high; the latter constraint is the reason why this is not an open forum. Don’t be shy about contributing your views. If you’re inspired to write, submit a guest blog, because you have every reason to believe it will be published here. From the quality of your comments, I can already judge your writing and insights, which is why I encourage you to contribute more.

      I hope I am being consistent when saying talkRA applies decent editorial standards – though I have been very lucky, because I have asked people to contribute on the basis that I trusted them to do a good job, and that means I have hardly ever had to reject any content. It is my honest belief that the powerful communication possibilities of the internet can easily be drowned by a flood of undifferentiated, average and sub-standard content. Other forums which should be providing good information to professionals instead serves them a diet of unrestrained marketing, job adverts, promotion for conference events, and the kinds of ‘how do I do my job?’ Q&A that suggests laziness, rather than a real desire to learn. Often the same question has been asked and answered multiple times, but nobody does a historical search or aggregates the answers so they are in one place. Those forums may be useful in some ways, but talkRA does not try to compete with those forums.

      Also, on the matter of whether I am biased, please remember that Gadi Solotorevsky was invited to be a regular contributor to this blog. He refused, saying he couldn’t write for a website which also promoted rival products. That’s a strange argument, given he also is head of the TMF RA team, a role which requires him to speak publicly about RA in a supposedly impartial way. After all, TMF publications include adverts and sponsored articles. I thought Solotorevksy was being petty about his competitors. The contributions made by employees of other vendors have never abused talkRA by attempting to push simplistic marketing content at our readers. If Solotorevsky had taken the offer, I wouldn’t need to defend my editorial stance, or my right to give my honest opinion about cVidya. The simple truth is that cVidya have not been denied an opportunity to engage in open debate – they simply prefer not to take part in open debate. I have some experience of this which readers may not be aware of, because several times I refused to publish cVidya press releases on the basis they would not answer my follow-up questions about the content. Again, note the inconsistency in cVidya sending me press releases to publish, but Solotorevsky refusing to contribute directly. And note that I have submitted comments to Solotorevsky’s blog, which he refused to publish or respond to. Though cVidya are keen to trumpet their involvement in the TMF, anyone who has actually engaged with the RA working group would appreciate it wanders far from the ideal of transparent, open debate. Its major fault is that it seeks to present a phoney consensus in order to silence differing points of view, and this is normally achieved by simply suppressing disagreement. The usual mechanism is that Solotorevsky selectively manages agendas, meaning decisions he likes are agreed instantly, whilst decisions he dislikes are delayed to a meeting which his interlocutors will not attend, or where he’ll muster sufficient cronies to prevail. So you can see, I feel strongly about bias, and I believe the answer to it is transparency. Level the criticism of bias at me if you must, but ask yourself if any other resource promotes the same transparency of debate.

      If you know representatives of cVidya, tell them it’s in their interest to engage in proper, open, transparent debate, rather than pursuing a course of action where they always seek to control the final message. Like Abraham Lincoln said: “you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Just like GRAPA, cVidya has adopted a communication agenda which intends to fool people, and I believe they both received significant short-term gains. But in the long-run, they hurt themselves. Now we are seeing the hurt for both organizations. Eventually people get enough personal experience to realize the message does not match the reality. And the organization which manages communication like this will also make mistakes for longer, because it is not listening and responding to valid feedback. Of course, once an organization starts down that path, it is hard to reverse course. But tell them they should, before they hurt themselves further. Or, if you prefer, write a defence of cVidya! Your contribution is welcome here, either way.

  • Daniel Peter

    The editorial standards you have maintained for talkRA is very high unlike many other online forums with lazy, substandard content. I should also thank all the bloggers including the guest bloggers for the contribution to talkRA. Maintaining a good standard requires a lot of hard work and passion for the profession, and I could certainly see it in talkRA. In fact when someone newly gets into RA, we request him to go through talkRA to get the industry news. Thanks for offering me to post a guest blog; I’ll try to figure out the technicalities to post as a guest and will also attempt to write keeping in mind the high editorial standards to be maintained
    The opinions expressed in the talkRA are factual and it’s not difficult to cross verify with other sources. It’s good when facts can be verified from multiple sources and we do that in RA reconciliation. On the matter of bias, among the practitioners I know of RA, there was a general opinion that the views expressed could be biased — I belled the cat. Glad you responded and shared the relevant facts.

    • @ Daniel, thanks again for your honest feedback. Of course I’m flattered that you feel talkRA maintains high standards. And you’re right to thank the other contributors. I am very grateful for their input, which is sometimes underestimated by readers.

      However, my pleasure is fleeting. Whilst I like to hear praise for talkRA, it’s more important that we keep driving standards higher. I’m very sorry to hear about the ‘general opinion’. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and this website is committed to giving both “news and views”. Note that “views” is plural, not just a singular opinion. So I say to anyone who has opinions that differ with mine, to stop lurking in office corridors, and to get on to the internet and share their opinions with their peers. Broad and open debate drives up standards. Water cooler gossip does not. If anyone doubts talkRA or my commitment, they should put us to the test, by writing a contrarian piece that disputes my point of view. So long as the writing is of a tolerable quality, I will gladly publish it here – though I may also exercise my right to reply! ;) And if they want to publish elsewhere, that is fine too. Just let me know where the article is published, and talkRA will promote the article, and encourage debate.

      In the meantime, I look forward to your guest blog. Just let me know when you have something prepared, and I’ll slot it into our publishing schedule.

  • Hello Daniel,

    Blogging is good for your professional career. My hunch is that people who blog and speak at conferences find their career prospects improve. They become better leaders, in part, through that experience.

    An probably every regular talkRA reader is an expert in some aspect of RA. So imagine if everybody contributed an opinion piece once a year. Think of how lively a place talkRA would get!

    And we’d give Eric a break from commenting on press releases. I can tell you that he much prefers to comment on the RA and risk profession. Every time someone contributes to talkRA, either Eric or someone else is there to continue the conversation.

    As luck would have it, I saw a Japanese T.V. show tonight over dinner called Cool Japan. The show’s format is clever. Each episode they walk through some interesting aspect of Japanese popular culture and 12 foreigners are there in the studio to comment and go out on the streets of Tokyo etc. to talk with people and explore the topic. BTW, the show mixes Japanese and English so you can understand what’s going on :- )

    Today’s theme was (appropriately) “on-line communication”. And they noted that 95% of Japanese people who contribute on social network sites do so anonymously — a very high number. So the consensus was that Japanese are very cautious about what they say in public. So by contributing anonymously, they get to speak their minds freely and not be censured by their peers.

    But people in RA are used to speaking their minds! Otherwise, how could you ever get anything done when you work with people in other departments? So it’s another reason why the lack of contributions to talkRA is a mystery.

    Now I sense you’re a good communicator, so you should follow Eric’s advice and write a blog.

    What’s the secret to writing a blog? It’s to not write a blog. Here’s what you do:

    1. Pick a topic in RA you feel passionate about.
    2. Email a one paragraph opinion on that topic to a colleague.
    3. Have that colleague reply to you, commenting on your opinions.
    4. Now you respond back to him. And you can go back and forth some more if you want.
    5. OK, so guess what? The conversation you just had is probably 90% of the content you need for a good blog.

    You see, people communicate best when they speak or write naturally — as in an email.

    Another trick is to audio record a 20-minute conversation with an RA colleague over lunch. Later, you can transcribe the conversation. You’ll be surprised how much good stuff you say when you’re not even thinking about blogging it.

    Now to prove my point, I invite you to go ahead and email your RA opinion to me personally at dbaker at technology-research dotcom and I’ll answer back and we’ll give it a go.

    What do you say?


  • r agarwal

    Eric : I strongly savor your thoughts. Being an industry veteran in the RA & FMS space within the middle-east and European region, I personally feel that CVidya isn’t a product that it proclaims it really is. These comments inserted by Daniel Peter are coming in from a rather inexperienced lad and I can understand his so called lucid imagination.

    Wedo is undoubtedly a leader in this space. We all admire aesthetics and frankly after using their products, I cant but agree that it is a rather solid product.

    Granted, it is a great product in its user-friendliness, their professionalism etc, but the question, I’d like to put forth to the RA/FMS world is . is it really worth the money ? Every single software company dealing with fraud products speaks about real time tracking, capability etc. Let me tell you that I have challenged the likes of Gadi from Cvidya, Sekhran & Anuradha from Subex etc to show me how fraud is prevented using real time. All of them speak one single language, its economics, and their favorite word is opportunity cost.

    Personally, I admire the way you present each case and why you feel that one outranks the other or vice-versa.

    Keep continuing the good work Eric and I’d look forward to reading many more such informative blogs of yours.

    Cheers !

    • @ R Agarwal, thanks for your feedback. It’s always a pleasure to hear that people find talkRA informative.

      You make a very good point when asking if the software products are worth the money. On the one hand, if they improve the efficiency of tasks performed by staff, and there is a never-ending stream of leakage that is being dealt with, then logically they should all eventually generate benefits that outweigh costs. And given the real values of leakage identified in many telcos, it may not take that long for the benefits to exceed the costs. On the other hand, I was talking to an old colleague of mine last night, and he reminded me that many analysts don’t actually like using the tools their managers have purchased. The tools may correctly manipulate and find patterns in the raw data, but maybe they’re not that easy to use, meaning the efficiency saving isn’t so profound. And more importantly, they may be set up in such ways that only relatively limited and narrow use is made of them. Analysts may find they have to work with data in other ways, to solve more varied challenges, using more generic reporting tools to construct a wider selection of reports, as and when they need them. And if they’re also skilled at using such generic reporting tools, they may prefer to use them even when there is an overlap with what their dedicated RA or FMS tool can do.

      I don’t want to vouch for one vendor’s products over all others, but I’m conscious that Lavastorm’s solutions are sometimes lauded by customers because they provide user-friendly building blocks but otherwise allow users more flexibility in how they choose to construct the reports they need. And in our book, I wrote about what I called the emergence of a ‘new paradigm’ for revenue assurance, which emphasized how we can get the best from both the people we employ and the technology we give them, by harnessing increased data and processing power. The idea is to avoid restrictions on how staff think about, implement and respond to leakages and controls, by encouraging RA staff to make more use of generic BI tools instead of dedicated RA and FMS tools. The essay in the book is too long to present on talkRA, but this blog covers some of the reasons why I anticipated the rise of the new paradigm. And the following quote from that essay covers the main gist of the argument: “Instead of using specialized tools, which in turn are supported and used by specialized staff, multipurpose corporate business intelligence (BI) supports the needs of RA”. In some ways, that sentence already feels old-fashioned. But the idea behind it is sound.

      However, I can’t honestly say I’ve identified an upswing in the numbers of telcos following the ‘new paradigm’. When I wrote that essay, there seemed to be a few telcos who had chosen to take a different path, deviating from the standard model of acquiring COTS RA or FMS software from one of the specialist vendors. They found they would get very good results by using good, modern, but more generic BI tools. I don’t sense that lots of other telcos have followed their lead. A nice bit of theory is irrelevant if not many people follow it in practice. But maybe relevant changes are happening that are harder to identify and monitor. Maybe the specialized tools offered by WeDo, cVidya and Subex are on an evolutionary path to become more generic data analytic tools – whether the vendors consciously think like that or not. Though I don’t have enough evidence to support this conjecture, maybe Lavastorm’s popularity with some users will translate into increased sales, and they’ll set precedents that others will try to follow. And maybe analysts are already working in hybrid ways, even when that means resisting their managers and the CxOs who paid for specialized tools. If some analysts currently prefer to use more generic data analytic capabilities, even when they are being pressured to use dedicated tools from specialist vendors, then maybe managers and CxOs should try to understand why that is, instead of getting upset because it makes it harder for them to justify the money they already spent on purchasing best of breed software. Maybe the analysts don’t fully understand how to get maximal value from the tools made available to them. Maybe they suffer a natural conservatism, where they stick to techniques they already feel familiar with, instead of learning how to use new tools. Or maybe the analysts are like most people – they want to get the job done as efficiently as possible, in the least amount of time – and so they’ll defy management by using whichever tools and techniques they’ve learned are best in real practice.

      When I wrote the essay, I had an open mind about how things might develop in the real world. For example, I wrote: “it is too early to say if the new BI-led paradigm will supersede the data quality and process improvement paradigms…” I still feel it is too early, though I also admit that I am not able to perceive any clear trends other than the fact that more and more telcos own specialist RA and FMS tools from the specialist vendors. But it’s worth keeping an eye on how things develop, and that involves talking to people in actual telcos, about how they really do their job, as opposed to just take a high-level view of software sales. There is a tension between giving analysts highly automated tools that may channel their efforts and restrict their field of view, versus expecting analysts to be imaginative and creative in adding more value to the business, by freely constructing new insights into the data the business possesses. And Big Data is all about extending the possibilities for drawing insights from data. So I continue to have an open mind about the trends that may emerge, and what may be the norms for how revenue assurance teams approach their job in future.

  • Hi everyone! Two quick comments: 1) Eric do you think we could have a “like” or thumbs up button associated to the posts and comments? (FB / Linkedin style). I feel it would be a good way to help the readers find some good discussions and also show that TalkRA has a very good audience (not everyone likes to comment and only a very few write like the “commentators” above). You could also ask for FB/Linkedin/Twitter login… ; 2) (and more important) Thumbs up to this thread! Several interesting remarks on TCO/RoI/Usability. All the best, Sergio

  • @ Sergio, thanks for the thumbs up! To answer your first question, let me begin by observing we already have a ‘share’ button – so please feel free to share posts on Facebook, LinkedIn and other sites by using this handy button. As for further development, that is very much in my mind, though really the whole website needs a revamp, so it would make sense to include such features in a comprehensive re-design. The problem is, I spend so much time running the site, it is hard to then find time to redevelop it to! Maybe I should ask for volunteers who like doing web development… ;)

  • @ Eric our site is built on and we recommend it. Also why not crowd-fund the re-design/re-vamp? At personal level you can count me in!

  • Daniel Peter

    Hi Dan:
    You are absolutely correct that people who blog and speak at conferences become better leaders and enhance their career prospects too. I used to work in Hewlett Packard and had access to important webinars and internal blogs where I understood the power of communication. Most of the leaders were powerful communicators. B-Schools teach that too. Eric’s is a great communicator and certainly has maintained high standards for talkRA. My observation is that sarcasm mix well with intelligence here and grabs the attention of the reader.
    Most of the RA practitioners have benefited from talkRA and should contribute in some way or other. I asked myself whether I’m contributing, the answer was maybe I should think about it. Now I got an opportunity to post a guest blog and certainly will come up with an interesting blog. With your tips on secret to writing a blog, I certainly believe it’ll shape up well. Please expect an email with a paragraph on a topic about RA from dany.peter at gmail dotcom soon.
    On the matter of mystery about lack of contributions to talkRA. I know for sure RA practitioners also use other sources such as linkedIn groups to express their opinion and aid learning. Click buttons such as “like”, “reply privately”, etc.. are exhaustively used. Having said that, the editoral standards maintained by Eric on talkRA is phenomenal. Maybe it’s worth considering Sergio’s suggestion to include a few fancy stuffs like linkedIN and facebook.

  • r agarwal

    Daniel Peter – Blogging for the sake of blogging doesn’t aid in career enhancements or towards the creation of a better leader. It’s ideas which are worth mentioning that needs blogging. Having said that, let me wish you the very best of luck and I’d look forward to your blog.

  • Daniel Peter

    R Agarwal:
    You are correct. Blogging for the sake of blogging is a waste of time. I’m very sure Dan and Eric requested me to blog in positive spirit and I’ll share ideas that are worth sharing. Thanks for your wishes.