Enterprise Growth Discussion with Twilio, Zendesk & IBM

From this discussion that came in partnership with the Growth Marketing Conference, we brought together 3 enterprise growth leaders to discuss Enterprise Growth Strategy:

For the Enterprise Growth Strategy discussion we went into:

  • How these executives formulated their most recent growth goals and got stakeholder buy-in.
  • How they formulated their strategy and incorporated a "growth" or experiment mindset inside a larger organization.
  • How they tactically think about working with outisde technology & vendors.


Conrad Wadowski: To get things start, let's go to Clair. Can you give us some brief background on you and the company you're working with.

Clair Byrd: Sure, so thank you, I'm really happy to be here today and talk about this topic; it's one that I think is really fun and interesting. A different way to look at growth.I'm the senior director of global enablement at Twilio. That means a lot of things at Twilio, it spans everything, enterprise growth programs to competitive intelligence to sales, training, and content. I also lead growth for a startup on the enterprise growth side as well.

Conrad Wadowski: Great. And Brianne, maybe if you can give us some background on yourself?

Brianne Kimmel: Hi everyone, Brianne Kimmel. Growth marketing previously at Expedia, most recently at Zendesk. I also advise startups on growth, product, and go-to-market strategies, so most recently working with Grabber, which is backed by Foundation Capital and HubHaus which is backed by Social Capital.

Conrad Wadowski: Sounds great. We've got some great perspectives there. And Ariel, can you give us some background on yourself?

Ariel Yoffie: Yeah. I am a growth and product manager at IBM, working on our growth engine team. What that means for IBM is that I look at mutuals that integrate with our data model and promote sales operations and growth and revenue, user satisfaction and retention.

Conrad Wadowski: And this is for the whole organization, or how does that look like, Ariel?

Ariel Yoffie: Yes, all 450-plus products.

Conrad Wadowski: That is crazy. Okay, cool, so I'm just excited for this. So the first way I wanted to start this off was actually going into the roles that each of you have, and also defining the objectives that you have. And maybe, I think that's a way to think about your roles in context. So Clair, can you maybe tell us a little bit about your objectives and how those objectives are formed?

Clair Byrd: Sure. So I think that it would be helpful to have a little bit of background on how this came to be at Twilio. Twilio is historically a very self-serve focused company. They kind of wrote the playbook for developer marketing in the self-serve growth side of the house.

They recently started shifting towards the enterprise, mainly because they've been dragged kicking and screaming upmarket. The developer marketing is working very well, so now the people whom they started talking to as hoodie hackers are now directors of engineering at JPMorgan Chase.

And so we love to be in those conversations about the organization a year ago thought that sales was an experiment, thought that enterprise was an experiment, and it has recently been proved out to be a good one. So the enterprise team at Twilio has grown from nine people to 125 in less than a year.

And so my job is to grow dollars, in whatever way it makes sense to grow dollars through the enterprise channel. So when I'm setting objectives and setting them against the corporate priorities of the business around the enterprise business, and I'm back into all of my specific program objectives from there. It really depends pretty strongly on what we're trying to accomplish that quarter from a revenue perspective, with regard to how I approach that quarter's planning. But it all ultimately rolls up to how do I grow dollars for the business.

Conrad Wadowski: And who are some of the other executives that you're kind of connecting with to get buy-in on, on your specific objectives?

Clair Byrd: So, I report directly to our CMO at Twilio. And I also have basically a dotted line to our COO and our SVP of global sales. Those are my big stakeholders; it's a pretty cross-functional group of the business. And from the perspective of getting buy-in on how we grow growth programs through product channels, I'm partnering with our head of product, our GM for the entire product side of the business as well.

Conrad Wadowski: Very interesting. And Brianne, maybe you can give us some context on how you think about goal-setting.

Brianne Kimmel: Yeah. So I think that Twilio's very similar to Zendesk in a number of ways. So, in the past two years I've been in a number of different strategy roles. So, everything from developing a competitive marketing program to most recently building a dedicated program for startups.

And the startups program started as a very simple growth experiment; it was a landing page with a promo code, that was it. What we saw was really high organic growth rates, so high number of signups, low turn on the program. So these were the data points that warranted longterm investment. And part of the strategy for the startups program is, as we move upmarket, we're building on an enterprise sales team. The enterprise sales team has a longer sales cycle. So at the same time we're building for both, so we're staying true to our transactional side of the business, which is very much product-led growth. At the same time we're also building out an upmarket enterprise team. So essentially the growth team is thinking in a transactional way, but at the same time also thinking about, you know, more traditional enterprise programs as well.

Conrad Wadowski: I see. And then in terms of other stakeholders that you have at Zendesk, how do you think about those other stakeholders and how they affect the way that you set goals?

Brianne Kimmel: Yeah, so it's very similar to Twilio in a sense that from an upmarket perspective, when we think about the enterprise team we're partnering very closely with our sales team. So we're ensuring that, you know, there's a sales enablement side of things; there's also a product side of things, so understanding how our enterprise level features stack up against our competitors, which is sort of where that competitive marketing aspect comes into play. And then on the transactional side of the business, you know, we want to make sure that everything from our trial experience to our demo programs, everything is as easy to use as possible, and that's kind of our touchless funnel.

Conrad Wadowski: Got it. Okay cool, and Ariel how do you think about setting your objectives at IBM?

Ariel Yoffie: Yeah, so I think a common theme here is that we all work cross-functionally. I work across customer success, sales, support, marketing, products, management, engineering, and design. And then from there, when we're selecting objectives, we look at what the greatest business need is, and then compare that versus the feasibility. So at a big organization like IBM we need executive sponsors from each of these functional groups. And then once we have that, we assess teams, what's the effort and given our team's agile approach, we are able to quickly iterate and also prioritize based on continuously changing business environment as well as feasibility and constraints.

Conrad Wadowski: It's interesting because it seems like, you're working with a number of different teams. And kind of based on the first point that you mentioned, how does your role look like in that you're able to work with kind of multiple teams at the same time?

Ariel Yoffie: Yeah, so a lot of what we're doing is enabling the growth mindset across the entire business. So providing people with data via, we use Segment for all of our tracking and piping of data into downstream systems. And then from there, helping them divine intelligence and prescribing or doing predictive models to help improve how they use that data to do a customer engagement. And that could be specific marketing tactics, sales operations, like lead scoring, or anything across the gambit.

Conrad Wadowski: It's almost the way I'm hearing it is, you can kind of go cross functionally, these different groups at IBM, and you can say, "Hey, you know, I have this project and we're going to work on this project together," which is a little different than the approach of "Hey you know, we've got one specific objective that we're going towards." Would you say that's accurate?

Ariel Yoffie: Yeah, and it's a push and pull, and we talked about this previously, together as a group. There's a lot of data preparation that happens. Either from myself, when our team is preparing to engage with another group, we say this is a business need, here's the data that supports it, take a look. Or, on the flip side, other teams will come to us, and we always ask for that level of preparation. And then we scope it together, define it, and come up with feasibility.

**Conrad Wadowski: ** Very interesting. Okay cool. So we're going to go back around, and almost the way that I'm thinking about the rest of this session, is kind of going from that objective set to then kind of formulating the strategy, and then talking a little bit about growth and how growth is part of that strategy. And then going into it and touching on a little bit of the tactics. But kind of what we were discussing beforehand, is almost like the tactics aren't as useful unless you've covered the strategy. And so we're just kind of going to go up from the top, and then we're going to kind of go in and narrow down.

And so with that kind of context in place, Clair, you know, once you've got these objectives, how do you go about formulating the strategy at Twilio?

Clair Byrd: Well, I think that, I really like something that Ariel just said about the growth mindset, and that growth is a mindset and not a tactic or a program. So when I go about formulating an actual strategy for the quarter, or for the first half, second half, or the entire year, it really is dependent on what we're trying to accomplish organizationally, and then taking that and breaking it apart into the most likely pieces to achieve the goals.

So if we're going to try to, for example, if it's a corporate priority for the enterprise team to penetrate the financial services market, we're obviously going to tailor programs based on that goal, and then back into tactics that will work for that particular market.

I think that it's important not to think of growth as like a one-size-fits-all solution, but a custom product that you build every time for every new problem that you're faced with. And that said, I mean that's how we approach it, at least.

Conrad Wadowski: That's great. And Brianne, how do you go about the strategy, and how does that compare to Clair?

Brianne Kimmel: I think it's very similar to what you all have said. I think what's interesting, no matter what size or phase of the company, like ruthless prioritization is a really big thing. Like, I think in terms of looking at all of the projects and programs that we've recently built at Zendesk, like that comes with a decision to move and prioritize that project over a number of other things that we could be doing. So I think like, as Clair mentioned earlier, I think oftentimes this comes down to, you know, what revenue is this program going to bring back to the company? You know, how quickly can we move and what sort of internal resources is this going to occupy? So I think it always comes down to prioritization and what's going to bring the most ROI back to the business.

Conrad Wadowski: So you know, I think one thing that's kind of interesting to bring up might be about that experimentation mindset. You know, a lot of growth kind of defines itself as kind of running experiments, and sometimes with an experiment you don't know if it's going to work or not. And so you might have set this great goal; you might have had the mindset and everything in place; how do you think about kind of incorporating experiments into, you know, which are not reliable, which you don't know what the outcome is going to be, how do you think about those types of experiments? And maybe Brianne, maybe you can touch on that?

Brianne Kimmel: Yeah I think it's a really interesting question. I think for those individuals that are on a growth team as well, that's always a hard thing. Like, training other teams or working with other teams to have a growth mindset, like that in itself can be a really daunting task, or you know, a huge opportunity depending on how you look at it.

But I think the biggest thing is really being able to size up an opportunity and you know, build very systematic tests. So I think the biggest thing is, you know, a growth team's job is to really size up an opportunity, determine what's going to be almost your MVP, so to speak, on what do we need to do, like how quickly can we test this, and then you need to be willing to essentially either continue if it's working or kill it if it's not working. So I think that's one of the jobs of a growth team, is to really be able to not only work entirely cross functionally and really build a sizeable business case.

But I think there's been a lot of times, like the startups program was an example of a good growth experiment. We saw a high number of organic signups; we saw low turn on the program. And it was low cost. However, there's been a number of growth experiments that we have killed because it didn't work the first, second, third time around.

Conrad Wadowski: And Ariel, how do you think about kind of the strategy, and just kind of this idea of experimentation at IBM?

Ariel Yoffie: So I think with a number of people who have ever worked in a large organization, there's that transformation of culture from the traditional way of doing things that may be less data-driven and much more waterfall, where you come up with an entire plan and then implement it, to being more agile and growth oriented, where basically within IBM, I mentioned this before, we use data to inform our prioritization. That's a mix of qualitative and quantitative. We come up with a hypothesis or impact statement, so we have very clear retention, revenue, usage, satisfaction goals associated with our projects. And then as we execute we're measuring our success, and continuously iterating.

And one thing I like about what Brianne said was that sometimes it's about admitting mistakes. And sometimes that's a whole process in and of itself, is saying you know what, this didn't work, moving on. Here's what we can learn from it and let's go to the next project. Because there's so much we could do.

Conrad Wadowski: And then the stakeholders that you have involved, you know, are they bought in to that idea upfront? How do you kind of mention that to the stakeholders, or how do you get them to be bought in to this?

Ariel Yoffie: Yeah, so usually when you relate things back to customer experience, and at the end of the day, all of us are more valuable when IBM succeeds as a business. So that's sort of the carrot, and on the flip side saying, when this is broken, this is the other side of that, the customer experience hurts. And really getting empathy for that pain. And making it clear, these are the problems we're solving and why they're an important problem to solve.

Conrad Wadowski: So you basically just bring it back to the customer needs and say hey this is something that, you know, we're going to be helping our customers with.

And we didn't touch on this too much, Clair, but how do you think about kind of that experimentation process when you're formulating the strategy side?

Clair Byrd: So I allocate a specific percentage of my team's ability to do anything against experiments for the quarter. Like, we try and figure out the best ways to hit our baselines, and then anything that's experimental or incremental on top of that we just resource literal time blocks against.

And depending on how big your team is, that either means like giving yourself enough time to think through and plan experiments, or it means giving one of your tiger teams, depending on how big your team is, the time and the space to build experiments and let them be what they are, which is experimental and not meant to scale, and like be okay with them not scaling.

And it's really just because for me, in my opinion, it comes down to team performance. And if you can give your team the space to experiment, then you'll have a better result for an experiment than trying to build a huge plan ahead of time for a particular experiment. So what Brianne said about MVP is I think very valid from the perspective of experimentation at Twilio as well.

Conrad Wadowski That's almost a hard thing to do, because you know, it's tough to know. You're almost, you're innovating with that MVP, and so you know it's tough to kind of know exactly what to expect up front. Is there a kind of like, a way that you think about kind of scoping that MVP? Like, is there a timeline or is there a kind of, is it kind of just budget allocation? You know, what's the way that you're scoping out those MVPs?

Clair Byrd: Well I think that it really depends a lot on what the MVP is! Obviously if it's a huge, huge, huge project that's an experiment that you want to put a big bet on, then that's different than trying to do something that's really quick and fast that's based on a landing page.

I think that it depends entirely on what you're trying to accomplish from an outcomes perspective. If I'm trying to enter a brand new market, the experiment would probably be bigger, more expensive, and more complicated than if I'm just trying to increase the conversion on a landing page that I have live.

So I think that, from the perspective of scoping, I talked about, in previous appearances, where I have a process that I use that I pulled out of the kitchen, because I have a food and beverage background, which is called mis en place, which means everything in its place. Which is to like, have thought deeply enough about the experiment to understand all of like the moving pieces and the supporting channels, and all of the bits that you need to actually make it work. And then that's how I resource my time against it.

So if I know that this campaign that I want to run or this product that I want to build, even this organizational cultural change that I want to shift, requires like 55 things, I can put approximate time allocations against them and know how much time, effort, and money it's going to take to run that experiment to like a relatively okay degree. And then also it helps me get ahead of what we actually need to do, and then that's how you resource the team correctly against the experiment.

Conrad Wadowski: And I'm curious as to how do you kind of communicate that? What's the way that you do it? Is it a spreadsheet, or is it like a Google doc?

Clair Byrd: Oh yeah. Spreadsheets and Gantt charts. I have not been a really great adopter of the productivity workforce management software; I've tried a lot of different tools and for me, really, I just want to read a recipe. I want to see everything that I need do in what order at what time, laid out in the same document, so that I can understand the cascading implications of one thing changing. I think that you can use any tool of your choice, but as long as you have like a holistic understand of, if you change one things, then these things also change, then you're using the right tool.

Conrad Wadowski: I see. And so now I want to go a little more into the tactical side, kind of the teams and the tooling. And so, really curious kind of how you guys are thinking about putting your teams together and how that execution of a strategy, now that you have the strategy, now that you have the objectives all in place.

So, we'll go to Brianne actually to start with and then we'll kind of go back around. So Brianne, when you're thinking about your team, and kind of putting that team together, what's the way that you do it? Is it a specific type of group, or are you bringing in outside consultants? How do you think about team and growth?

Brianne Kimmel: I'm a big fan of in-house teams. I think it creates a lot of internal accountability. I think that in terms of really creating a solid growth team, you need a number of important perspectives. So I think for any given project, I always have a data scientist that's working with me. More specifically, depending on the program, you'll have a dedicated product marketer; you'll have a growth marketer. I think that a lot of SaaS companies have adopted more of a traditional pod structure, and I think the reason for that is it has really strong internal accountability.

So in any given meeting, you will have a different perspective coming from each function, and I think more importantly, it makes it very clear in terms of metrics. So if one person is owning one metric, the next person is owning the other, you have a strong sense of like, here is the goal that we need to achieve as our pod and as our team, and then each individual has their own kind of North Star metric that they are working towards underneath that broader goal.

Conrad Wadowski: I see. And Ariel, how do you think about, you know, the team that's actually executing against these goals? Is it a specific type of structure at IBM that kind of, IBM promotes, or is it very fluid? How do you think about the team side?

Ariel Yoffie: Yeah. So I think what makes someone on our growth team successful is that they can wear many hats. That just allows us to upscale and downscale projects, and like Clair mentioned, based on their actual return on that investment of our time. That said, I totally agree with what Brianne just said about having a data scientist. And at a minimum, having people with analytical skills. I came from a statistics and modeling background as a consultant, so that's been super helpful in getting my own data when our data scientist is full.

In addition, there was a great article just posted about user research and design, and having that perspective represented to give qualitative narrative to your story. And then on top of that we have a bunch of people who are program managers, project managers, or have that history, so that way execution is at top of mind all the time. And to Clair's point it's about knowing exactly how the chain of events are going to cascade and affect your timeline for delivery.

Conrad Wadowski: So it's kind of the theme of just kind of the teams being cross-functional. Clair does that theme kind of also play out in Twilio? How do you think about setting up your teams?

Clair Byrd: Yes. And this has not just been like a Twilio thing; this has been every growth team I've ever run. I differ slightly from the other two opinions here, that I think the biggest hangup is often creative. Not necessarily the data. Like, I think that having people who are able to take the data, and as Ariel just said, interpret it correctly, is really important in like a uniquely creative problem.

So, my teams are generally structured where you have one program lead who actually is accountable for the entire outcome of that program, with a subject matter expert who is consulting. And they have design, engineering, and content or other types of creative resources within them. And then any type of non-creative role that they need, like a product marketer, or a data scientist. But I agree with the thinking, I think, and I try to employ quite a bit of their thinking as well. But I find that the creative side is often where we get stuck. Especially in enterprises, and businesses that are larger, where the teams are much more bifurcated, where design lives over there and ad sharing lives over there, and you basically can't talk to each other, you just have to throw things over the wall.

Conrad Wadowski: So how do you go about finding this kind of subject matter expert or this outside consultant? What's your kind of process for doing that?

Clair Byrd: So honestly I try to leverage as much as I possibly can internally. It's, generally speaking, so like for example, if I'm going to run an enterprise growth campaign around growth products at Twilio, I know that there are lots of subject matter experts about growth products at Twilio, including myself and a number of people who live on the marketing team. If I'm going to run an enterprise growth campaign around account security, we have that too. Like, within the organization, you often have people who have much more subject matter expertise than you think they do, and that are willing to get involved and dedicate some of their time to really making a change in the business.

So I would say your first resource is to look internally. If you don't have that, then I, to be honest, have not come up into a situation where I've had to go externally yet for a subject matter expert specifically. So, maybe I can let one of the other ladies talk about how they would pull in an external subject matter expert into a growth team.

Conrad Wadowski: Yeah, so Ariel, in terms of external experts, is that handled a little bit differently at IBM? How do you think about it?

Ariel Yoffie: Yeah. A quick comment on what Clair said, I love when you discover that someone was an English major in college, and they love writing. That's one of my favorite things, is just to discover people's hidden talents, like she said. There's a lot of diversity of talent at these big organizations, especially at IBM. And to your point about external vendors and consultants - I see them as partners, if not part of our team, especially when we're doing joint projects or things that involve working on a particular campaign that needs to be extended or integrated with other systems. Or, for example, if we're doing a proof of concept, Segment is always on Slack and ready and willing to collaborate. And those are not just our customer success managers, but also the product team; I've talked to their CMO about how to do our marketing automation and exchanged best practices. And on top of that I have a personal network. We almost never hire because we have that wealth of knowledge across our partners and also internally.

Conrad Wadowski: I see. So basically, you kind of use your own network to find the external resources when you need them, it seems like. Makes sense.

Ariel Yoffie: Yeah, and like I said, our vendors are always willing to put us in touch with people from their company, or people from other customers. So when they hear of a similar use case to what we're trying to do, we will connect the dots.

And we do the same thing for them. When we do joint projects, we are more than happy to talk to their other people using the product.

Conrad Wadowski: That makes sense. Okay, so we talked a little bit about the teams. Now I'm also kind of interested in the tooling side. So, two different ways to kind of execute upon the strategy. Clair, can you tell us how you think about tooling? So, the software that you're buying; is the software, is it mostly built in-house? Are you looking for outside vendors? What's your process there?

Clair Byrd: So, we have a combination of the two at Twilio. Twilio as a business has a build-it-yourself mentality; that's what we tell all of our customers to do. So if we didn't eat our own dog food that would be kind of lame.

But from the perspective of my programs, we often build a lot of our things in house, and we prefer to have them in house. For example we've built a competitive intelligence analytics suite in house that we felt, after a pretty substantial audit of the marketplace, we couldn't find anything with the customization, the flexibility, the sensibility that we really wanted in that solution, so we specked it out and built it ourselves.

We've done that for a lot of tools internally. We've built our own sales demo platform; we've built a whole lot of things that most people will generally go to a vendor for, in house, because one is cultural but two, because we need that kind of flexibility to support our product stack.

So from the perspective of when we're choosing vendors, it really comes down to, what do we need out of that solution, so what are the outcomes we're trying to drive? Is there something on the market that has the level of flexibility and customization we need to achieve those goals to the best of our ability? If yes cool, then we'll open an RFP and ask for a vendor to tell us why they're the best. If not, then we'll build it ourselves. But to be fair and honest, we often end up building it ourselves.

Conrad Wadowski: That makes sense. And Brianne, how do you think about that kind of external vendor versus building in house mentality?

Brianne Kimmel: I think we're similar to Twilio from the sense that if we're able to build it ourselves we will. I'll use benchmarking as an example. So because we have over 100,000 customers, for us, like we want to build our own benchmarking tool, which is a differentiator. So for us we want to make sure that we know, you know, we're providing those pieces of thought leadership, whether it's benchmarking, whether it's best practices from any of our customers. And then when possible we'll build the tools in house.

I think what's interesting is we do have an apps marketplace, so if we're going to partner with, I'll use Segment as an example, if we're going to partner with Segment, like they're both a partner and a vendor. So I think for us, we will work with companies when we have to; however, for the most part, we will try to build in house.

Conrad Wadowski: Yeah. And Ariel, what's your mentality on that side of the equation? Are you more on the build side versus the buy side? How do you think about it?

Ariel Yoffie: Yeah. I think this comes from lots of lessons learned, of being part of an over 100-year-old company like IBM, and our mentality as a growth team is never build it if it's available outside. And that's just because over time,for our needs, the maintenance and ongoing operational cost that ends up happening over time becomes way higher than if we had just hired the external vendor to begin with.

In addition, over time, when you first build the product with all their customizations in house, you think you fully understand the customer needs and what they will be forever. And then what ends up happening is that's what ends up staying, whereas a company that we work with externally, their whole job is to update the product to accommodate the evolving user needs. And it is much effect for us, especially when we're as huge as the 380,000 people at IBM, to hold accountable but also trust our vendors to build products that are flexible and usable and extensible for us.

Conrad Wadowski: Ariel just to touch on that, so how do think about vendor lock ins? So let's say you're working with a vendor, and you mentioned kind of using Segment, is that a way that you get around that? You know, how do you kind of work with vendors but still be flexible?

Ariel Yoffie: Well yeah, like we were talking about when we were in the green room here, whenever we are selecting a new vendor, the first place I go, is do they integrate with Segment? And if they are not a Segment integration, which houses all of our data, it's like the equivalent of, if we were to select a vendor that was outside of the Segment ecosystem, it's like saying I'm moving to a city that doesn't have plumbing. Like, I don't want to have to do the work of connecting a sewage tank and getting all the drainage and all of that.

Conrad Wadowski: Ooh!

Ariel Yoffie: Yeah!

Conrad Wadowski: Gory details.

Ariel Yoffie: I fear then plumbing, but it's that level of necessity for us.

Conrad Wadowski: Very interesting. Okay cool, so we've got some pretty interesting views kind of going from the strategy more into kind of the tactical and process side of things.

You know, if your audience is someone that is starting a growth team somewhere, or kind of wanting to create change in another organization, I kind of wanted to just see if you guys can give like one takeaway or one piece of advice that you'd give to that type of person. And Clair, can you give us what your thought is?

Clair Byrd: Of course. I want to hearken back to something I think we've all said in pieces, which is that growth is not a tactic, it's a mindset. And that if you're building something new, just start with one thing. Just start with something. I think that lots of people get stuck thinking about growth as this like, giant, huge program that has 11 million tendrils in all parts of the organization, but really it just starts with one smart experiment. And I think that taking the challenge of growth and breaking it down into a bunch of tiny pieces makes it seem much more attainable.

And then with that in mind, be creative. You know your customers best; do what you think is best for your customers, and don't try to slap like a growth hack that you read on some blog onto your ... Obviously use it as inspiration, but customize it so that it makes sense for your people. I think that that's the biggest, most important thing from my perspective.

Conrad Wadowski: That makes sense. And Brianne, what's your kind of takeaway to that one person?

Brianne Kimmel: Yeah, I agree with Clair and I think, we're in a really interesting time, where I think for marketers we need to start with a strategy. I think it's very easy to get distracted by new tools, and we want to try all of them and we want to have, you know, try all of the new, like new name startups. However, I think definitely start with the strategy, and then from there figure out what can you build in house, and then when necessary find the right tools. I think tools should be the last part of the equation.

Conrad Wadowski: That makes a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense coming from the enterprise perspective. And then Ariel, what's your kind of parting advice?

Ariel Yoffie: You really can't convince everyone that growth is important and applying these tactics. Like I said IBM is 380,000 people; if I spent one day with every person, it would take me 1,000, or 40 years to reach everyone.

But what I do is I find those people who just start to believe, and I nurture that relationship and really celebrate when we are able to deliver projects together. And then they become my advocates. And it's sort of applying growth hacking to, and getting virality within an organization, to get that momentum. And then once people have heard enough about that success, it just becomes infectious.

Conrad Wadowski: So I see a little bit of a theme here, it's kind of like getting that win and then using that win to kind of spread in the organization.