I’m a photographer in the sports photography marketplace. I photograph sporting events at the youth through high school levels. (I do some higher levels occasionally, but the youth and high school level is my niche.)

The major competitor in the local market is a bigger competitor. Being small, I make the point when I bid that all of the game action photos are taken by me - not someone I hire for $10 an hour. When someone calls on the phone, it’s me or my wife they talk to. When an organization wants a bid, it’s me they get writing it, presenting it, and fulfilling it.

I saw Seth’s post as well, and agree that the small company missed their opportunity. Being small means not having 20 levels of gate keeping and procedure, so things should happen fast.

I used to work for both a very big multinational IT company and after that a big local media company. Now I’m self-employed, because I wanted to live the values of being small:

- Being my own boss.
- Being able to participate in the projects, I find is making a difference and are fun to be a part off.
- Being flexible about how, when and why I do stuff.
- Being agile in execution.
- Being fast to move on new thoughts and projects.
- Being able to share inspiration and ideas with others across company boundaries for mutual benefit.

But most importantly:

- Feeling really alive and in touch with the passion for my trade that fuels me every day.

I don’t know if I’ll ever go back to corporate life. Things may change, and the world with it. But so far I haven’t spend too many seconds looking that way.

Small is totally a weapon! Smaller can be faster, more personal, transparent and what I think is key, they can listen and change. Look at 37signals, they use small and less as a competitive advantage.

I agree that it’s easier for a smaller company to make changes and I personally have been very annoyed with the beuracracy of large companies that take forever to get something done or approved. I myself own a small company but goal is to not always kept it as small as it is. Currently we are my wife, myself and about 4-5 freelancers on call in addition we outsource administrative/bookkeeping duties to a local firm (prefer to keep it local and help the local economy). However I have also seem that their can be a danger in keeping a business “too small” out of fear, laziness, contentment with the current situation, etc. A couple of days ago I wrote a blog post addressing this subject. Small is good in many respects but would making it a little bigger help make things more secure for both family and clients?

I share the sentiments with the photographer above. I also do photography work as part of my business and while I deeply desire to perfect that craft and be known for it I can be everywhere all the time and they’ll come a day when I’ll have to swallow my pride and get another photographer to help me out.

Is their a “sweet spot” between being too small and too big? I think being a “one man band” and being a multinational company can both have disadvantages as well as advantages.

I work in a small place. To me small gives the power to the staff in a way that big can’t. We can have an idea at our team meeting on Monday and have it executed by Wednesday morning. We can be responsive to feedback from our members (I work at an association) instantly. Our CEO and VPs are accesible to everyone at anytime.

There are downsides to small - smaller budgets, huge responsibility on team leaders, harder to pick up the slack of a weak link.

[…] Godin kicked it off, and Chris Brogan follows suit: Is it a weapon or an excuse to be a small company rather than a big […]

I just started at a small place 2 weeks ago and I already feel the difference. I’m not a manager. I’m fresh out of college, bottom of the food chain, so I have a slightly different perspective than most of the commenters here. But I’m one of five total employees, so when I want to get things done I clear it with my boss (the CEO) and then it happens. Whether it’s for a client or something internal, it’s fast and responsive. I’ve worked at large/medium corporations before and even the smallest task can be an arduous process.

I wanted to download a program to effectively organize all my tasks on my PC and it took IT 3 days to evaluate and allow the install. How efficient. Bigger companies often have more resources to offer clients, but the best large companies are the ones that can empower every employee to make decisions and take action.

I do not believe small or big is the issue… It is attitude and leadership of the people in those companies.

If the attitude and leadership is really about service and truly helping those who use their services, _and_ that attitude/leadership is backed up with support to take action / responsibility to take action, then being big or small does not matter.

It is not a given that being being small “must” bring out the attitude to help customers quickly, effectively, and with a smile. Being small can help (and be an advantage), but, again, it as about the attitude/leadership of those that own/run the company (when you are small it is easy to know “who owns” the company:).

Examples:
* While I have not bought from Zappos.com, I hear they have unheard of service (free shipping both ways, 365 day return policy, training that pays you to quit if you don’t feel up to the job http://tinyurl.com/4dumv8 ). The attitude (and action) at the company is all around the statement “Zappos.com is committed to your complete satisfaction; it is our top priority.” Zappos is not small in the revenue sense (estimate $700million 2007 sales).
* McDonalds… This one is on both sides of the fence. Since many McDonalds are franchises, they can be in the small businesses camp. Some McDonalds have a staff that is friendly, courteous, they correctly take your order with a smile, and offer assistance on any issues. And other McDonalds have everything go wrong. Again, this is about attitude / leadership: is management able to hire and train people and are they able to infect the staff with the attitude or service?
* Kroger (http://www.kroger.com/) versus Trader Joes (http://www.traderjoes.com/): Both are grocery stores. But the profile of the employee at these stores are way different. Kroger employee are unremarkable (I say this in a kind fashion; most get their job done and Kroger does reasonably well in a rough business; I mean remarkable in the Seth Godin sense of remarkable http://tinyurl.com/25p354) where as Trader Joe employees are remarkable => They have a conversation with you on a personal level, they talk about their favorite foods, offer free snacks at movie screenings, etc. Both are large companies (Kroger at $66billion 2007 sales, Trader Joe’s estimated $6.7billion 2007 sales).
* The Starbucks stores in my area: Some stores have better service than others. They are under that same corporate leadership yet the local level attitude can vary.

On reflection on the above examples, I have to ask: how many of you have worked at one company in one group that was great, fun, you felt like you were tackling important issues and your customers were happy, and, if asked by the group leader to do something, you would do it in an instant with no questions asked? Versus… You worked in another group of the same company and the environment was crappy, the customers were indifferent to you, and the attitude of coworkers were dragging you down, and if management asked you do do something you had to think about it first?

Attitude is an important element in how service is handled and delivered. And attitude will vary among people on a daily basis.

The other important aspect of “Small is a Weapon” are the naturally FLAT structures of small organization.

Chris as you mention, your president fixes paper jams.

Here’s a line from our most recent job offer letter (which was accepted):

“As you know we don’t have any official titles or provide documented job descriptions. Our goal is to remain a “flat” agency structure where each person is a leader, doer, manager and custodian. You must be comfortable in being assigned to-do tasks by co-workers that may appear to be your junior, and confident enough to give direction, strategy and feedback to those individuals that you may see as being in positions of authority above your own.”

We don’t have job titles - those are for your next job. We don’t have job descriptions, those are for making excuses, or for asking for more money without merit.

Small is the Weapon - Flat is the Secret.

Choosing to be small doesnt mean you lack ambition or cant be profitable, check out Craigslist, the last time i checked they had 17 employees. That is’nt out of laziness but by developing a great strategy and hiring what they need.

James makes a decent point about the flat structure, when i was on work placement from uni, i watched the business explode by growing into a corporate structure and mentality. People’s attitude and work ethic changed, they did less but demanded more from juniors.

I think the secret is that when you are small, your business can change to what your important customers want it to be. When its big, they cant change as quick as the customer can, to a competitor.

Anyone agree/disagree?

The other interesting thing about being small (as we are http://www.signsneversleep.com)is that, yes, we CAN provide excellent (ever exceptional) customer service, but we can’t service an unlimited number of clients. So WE get to choose which jobs we take and which customers we do business with.

When dealing with customers, I think it is a big plus. But small businesses do lack clout with big vendors, which can be a big issue.

Small is most certainly a weapon. Our PR shop is only four people and our motto is high-touch local service with global reach. It’s all about being hands on and responsive. We have a horizontal account structure, in which everyone is involved to some degree with every account, to maintain service and continuity for the client regardless of illness, personal leave or travel.

Back in May, I attended a panel discussion on entrepreneurship where the issue came up. The sentiment was that consumers have had enough with the kinds of customer-service experiences typical of large, monolithic organizations. They are ready and willing for a more customized personal approach typically found only with a smaller company. Peronalized service will increasingly become a key differentiator in the years to come.

If you’re small and your customer service is mediocre, better start looking for another job on someone else’s payroll.

I work for two small companies, at one as an intern, and one as a full time employee. In working for a small business, I have realized that the employees have more empowerment to make sure every customer is satisfied. I think using the fact that you’re a small business to justify poor customer service is ridiculous.

Know what’s funny? I get reinforcement of this allllll the time. Just now, even. Speaking with a really big company in a little bit, and they want to talk with us because we’re flexible and small.

Weapon.

Small rocks.

The small-business I’ve worked for since 2003 was purchased a year ago by an out-of-state entity. They own five or six other small businesses but are now rolling everything into one — including “my” company.

What used to take anywhere between a few minutes or a couple of hours to resolve — such as database, web design & web application bug fixes — is now taking a week or longer to resolve. Somehow, this is more efficient, they tell us, but I fail to “get it.”

My point? I’m moving on to another small company, where we can respond to client and industry demands within a relatively short time. It’s not something that would appeal to everyone, but it totally works for me.

As a biz journalist, I’ve always appreciated how smaller companies leverage their assets to beat the big brands at their own game. A few I’ve reported on in the past that do this well: Eastern Mountain Sports, Equal Exchange, LUSH (not so small anymore!), and Method (ditto). Method even formalizes some “small” rules - “kick ass at fast” and “relationship retail is how we roll.” The company takes advantage of its dynamism and flexibility as a small company to capitalize on trends faster (green, design, etc.) and build more personal relationships with its retail partners. I agree; with the right strategies in place, small is definitely a weapon.

I used to feel nervous being small…now I try to leverage it. It can be a competitive advantage. People like to feel special or unique and it’s easier for “small” to pull that off for their customers than “large”. I blogged about Seth’s comment yesterday also. I think I might make it my new mantra.

I agree ’small is a weapon’ and I have been using to fight battles everyday in the business world. I think the web 2.0 movement enables small t compete with the bigs in every industry, but especially real estate brokerage. I recently wrote about Small vs Big at AgentGenius (no link, just go search the site for me as the author if you are interested).

There is so much value in a small group of like-minded individuals pushing each other everyday in a small setting. The ideas we have for new innovations keep us yearning for more time to implement.

My favorite thing about being part of a small company is that I’ve never worked anywhere that is so open to change.

We’re getting bigger, and so these changes affect more people & require more planning. I’m wondering, as we grow, if it will become more difficult to maintain this attitude.

I do think that our CEO is very entrepreneurial in his thinking, and will continue to come up with new ideas and want to put them in place, but thank you for the indirect heads up- it’s something to consider when we work towards expansion.

What else do you have if your small. Sure isn’t money to fix the problems (unless your a small money making firm). David vs. Goliath here, come on and trow lots of rocks at your bigger competition, very quickly.
Our speed, and ability to react quicker is our biggest advantage we have.

[…] see our friend Chris Brogan’s article on how being a small business is a weapon and Seth Godin’s great article on why small businesses should not […]

I work in a fairly large organization and I think there are pros and cons to both large and small.

In a small organization, it is easy to mobilize and get new things happening throughout the company and there is something to be said for that. You can do new things and don’t have the same risk if they fail (ie. the impact may not be as significant).

On the other hand, in a large organization with good leadership, the resources are there and often the ability to experiment is still possible through different pilot programs and trials. This can be extremely helpful in working through ideas that might not be feasible for a small company, but can be tried in a large organization.

I am a small publishing company. I say “I” because I’m the owner and staff. Makes for a lot of work, but the upside is exactly what you said. As a tiny press, I get things done quickly and am more able to take risks on projects and fresh ideas. This is what makes Indy Publishing so exciting.

I think in North America especially, small CAN be a weapon, but to agree with an earlier post, it comes down to the people — I have worked in a small company where the management were roadblocks and we moved at a snail’s pace compared with bigger companies.

From a consumer perspective, in my circles, people are tired of the impersonal monolithic corporations. I do think people are searching for more personal connections which are often easier to obtain when dealing with smaller companies.

In my case, not only is my gallery small (me + 4 interns) but my physical space is small for a gallery (400 sq.ft) Instead of being hindered by this I see this as an advantage - I have a well edited collection of works rather than a large warehouse-sized of everything under the sun. And the size means that every person that walks into my space gets my attention because I don’t have a back room or big desk to hide behind, like most galleries I visit.

I love how we live in an age where there is a more level playing field for smaller companies, using technology to reach audiences that would have traditionally cost a lot to reach.

When dealing with customers, I think it is a big plus. But small businesses do lack clout with big vendors, which can be a big issue.

I work for a small company and really enjoy the atmosphere. It can be informal, flexible, we get things done, we all can talk to each other and we all get along! It is definitely a unique position to be in and I wouldn’t trade it.