Inside Outside Innovation is the podcast that brings you the best and the brightest, the world of startups and innovation. I’m your host, Brian Ardinger founder of Insideoutside.io, a provider of research, events, and consulting services that help innovators and entrepreneurs build better products, launch new ideas, and compete in a world of change and disruption. Each week, we’ll give you a front row seat to the latest thinking, tools, tactics, and trends in collaborative innovation. Let’s get started.
Interview Transcript
Brian Ardinger: Welcome to another episode of Inside Outside Innovation. I’m your host, Brian Ardinger, and as always, we have another amazing guest. Today we have Henrik Werdelin. He is an entrepreneur, author, he is best known for co-founding Bark and BarkBox. He also started the venture studio Prehype and he’s author of a new book called The Acorn Method: How companies get growing again. Henrik Werdelin, welcome to the show.
Henrik Werdelin: Thank you.
Brian Ardinger: Was that not a good enough intro for you
Henrik Werdelin: Perfect. No, no, no. I appreciate it very much. I am just hot in New York. It’s a very humid here. And so, I get all aware with you being able to see yourself.
Brian Ardinger: I’m excited to have you, because we could go 30 minutes of your introduction to the things that you’ve done and that. And. One of the reasons I’m so excited to have you on the show is because you epitomize the insideoutside.io world of both startups and corporate innovation.
You’re a builder, a maker, a doer, investor. So, we could take this conversation in a lot of different ways and we’ll see where it goes. As people come into the live show, feel free to put your questions in the Q and A we’ll try to get to that as well. I thought where we could start off is how did your founder journey start? How did you get going as an entrepreneur? And how did that lead you to the path you are at today? And then we’ll get into the book and some other things.
Henrik Werdelin: I mean, I don’t think I’ve ever seen myself as a founder. I think, you know, it’s a relatively new term, this idea of identifying yourself as an entrepreneur. And when I went to primary school, I was the idiot that started the school magazine. I was the one that says, Hey, we should have a radio station and so I’ve always just found that it was relatively easy to just do things, I guess. Like it started all the way back in the like eight or nine and just stuff like that.
I thought I wanted it to be a journalist. And then I ended up working for MTV back in the late nineties. And I was lucky enough to stumble into what later became a product role. I had the fortune / stupidity of bringing into the studio of MTV and transmit an hour live for some show that I thought was good. And luckily the people there thought it was good too. So instead of getting sued or fired, I ended up getting promoted. And so, for a good eight years or so, I got to fly around on MTVs dime and build products, you know, ranging from SpongeBob to Teddy bears to making computer games. And so that is where I always felt where the whole thing started, I guess.
Then after that I started a few startups, some that were successful and we sold, and some that was less successful in that we talk less about, but I never kind of like necessarily see myself as a founder of something. I’ve always seen myself as somebody who gets intrigued about problems and try to find a way to solve those problems in a scalable way.
Brian Ardinger: And that’s an interesting point because I think a lot of founders or people who want to be founders, they approach it from the solution side rather than the problem side first. Yeah, I want to be a founder because Bitcoin’s hot right now. So, I’m going to start a Bitcoin startup. Something along those lines versus really trying to dig into what’s of interest to you, where are the problems that you can solve and then back your way into solutions and that around that.
You’ve got a new book out called The Acorn Method that journeys or chronicles this methodology that you’ve been using to help corporations and other folks spin up new ventures by themselves. So maybe talk a little bit about Prehype and then talk about how the book came about, and then we’ll go from there.
Henrik Werdelin: I was fortunate enough to be part of a company that we started that ended up selling into Facebook. And I think after that, I was trying to figure out what to do next. I think as people who have done entrepreneurial endeavors will sympathize with, you have this interesting kind of point after that you leave your startup for whatever reason.
And that is that everybody’s pushing you on what do you want to do next? Like, do you want to go to corporate? Do you want to be an investor? Do you want to do a start up again? And I think the reality is often you just don’t know, and you’re just tired. You probably often don’t want to do anything remotely associated what you did before, because you’re very tired of that.
And so, I kind of felt there was a need for this halfway house for second time founders that didn’t really know what to do with their life. And I couldn’t really call it that. So I packaged it up as Prehype and that became a network of entrepreneurs and residents that are trying to figure out what they want to do with their lives and to not sound like we’re in self-realization mode, we package it up a little bit nicer.
And so, on the top of that, we’ve built an Institute where we teach entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurial classes, and we teach at universities like Stanford. And then we have our own incubation units where we managed to build a number of relatively successful startups. Bark being one of them, but Managed by Q and Roman, other companies that come out from our building.
And then thirdly, we had a consultant arm that helped corporations build the incubation programs. And those three things allowed all us misfits to figure out where in those kind of buckets we would like to play, but also to generate a little bit of cashflow while we were figuring it out.
Brian Ardinger: It sounds like it was scratch your own itch and the scratch the itch were the folks that you had around you that were in the same mode of like, what do we build next? How do we do this? Did you have a methodology or a thought process around how you’re going to do this? Or did you just kind of experiment with different things? Threw it out there to see if it would work?
Henrik Werdelin: I think both. Right. You know, I think it used two words that I love a lot, which is experimentation and methodology. Right. I do think that we as entrepreneurs. Need to become better at building from scratch in the way that we become better is not necessarily always to kind of like have a higher chance of success. It’s also, how can we become better of stopping things that do not work?
I take great inspiration in my wife as a scientist who look at experimentation as a problem she’s trying to solve. And then she architects a way to try to solve it and experiment. Then either it is viable or is not viable. And if data doesn’t suggest her, that is viable, then it is just not like, you can’t pitch a great experiment in the scientific community, you know, like even if the data doesn’t support it, I think about entrepreneurship in that way.
So, the two things that I think I’ve spent a lot of time on is look at entrepreneurship as an academic exercise. How do we become better at building? And the way I think we become better at building is become better of doing experimentation. We are very methodical in our approach and we are methodical because we’re all very optimistic and somewhat creative people that if we don’t create boundaries and discipline for ourselves, our bias will simply just make our work on something that doesn’t pan out for a long time.
Brian Ardinger: Can you walk us through the methodology a little bit of how you decide what to even experiment on. Do you do that in your lab and then go out into the real world? Or is it case by case basis based on what I’m trying to build or what are you trying to learn?
Henrik Werdelin: I mean, why don’t I start with kind of like the fundamentals of the book, and then I can use that because I think we can go very nitty gritty. Like we spend endless amount of time on each of our different modules and so I could talk to you probably for an hour about how we do something we call Signal Mining, which is just the concept ideation. I think you had Thomas Wedell, who wrote a book about Reframing. We are very inspired by his work and like he can spend hours talking about just that.
So, on a big level, I think for corporate incubation, which I think is different than just the entrepreneurs, individuals, building companies. The three components I’m looking at is basically what is the equipment of the acorn? And if you look at what an acorn is, basically some DNA and it’s some fertilizer and it’s some rules, which is basically find a place to sprout and then grow fast and up. Those are basically fundamental rules of an acorn. Now for corporations, what they tend to do when they want to build something from zero to one, is that they go to their existing infrastructure. And it’s just very complicated for your standard innovation team, tech team, business development team to build something from scratch because your whole infrastructure is not set up to do that.
So the first component, I think what we have, what we thought a methodology for is how do you identify that talent and what is the structure that you create around them in order for them to give them the ability to find a place to sprout and then go up. And so that’s section one, section two is like, where do you have opportunity to grow? Like where’s opportunity spaces? And I think same thing like, the cool thing for an entrepreneur is that we have no rules.
I have been involved in a men’s health company, a technology company for real estate and dog toys. Right. You know, and now a corporation obviously normally has like a scope that they have to kind of work with. And some have pretty limited scope of where they can work. And some have broader. A Nike can build a hotel because they have brand permission to do that. Hilton cannot build a shoe. And so, depending on the corporation and what you have, what your brand is, what patents and licenses and whatever you have as assets, gives you a different kind of opportunity scope.
The third thing I would change is one of the things that probably is most complicated is what is the interface between basically a sprout and the mother tree? Like how do you make sure that it’s far enough away so that the mother tree doesn’t kind of take away the water and the sunshine, but it’s close enough that the mother tree can provide it with nutrients to the root system.
What is the compliance system, all those different stuff? And so, I think the talent and the organization around that, the opportunity space and the interface is probably the three components that I’ve spent a lot of time trying to figure out.
Brian Ardinger: I like that analogy because I think it does outline, especially in the corporate world, why a lot of things don’t work. Sometimes it’s too close to the core or get smushed out or things along those lines. You talk about talent as one of the core factors. How does a corporation look at either identifying or developing talent when to a large extent they’ve built their business on an existing business model and finding the right types of folks that are designed to optimize that existing business model and not necessarily designed to search or explore new business models.
Henrik Werdelin: I think a segment of entrepreneurial talent is really looking for autonomy and the ability to make that thing that they have, they see from their inner eye. So I think a lot of conversation very quickly goes to what’s compensation, which I think is important, but back to your earlier point, a lot of us that aren’t understand statistics, we do not choose an entrepreneurial path because we think it’s going to make us a lot of money because we just know statistically, it probably won’t. Now, we hope, and we use that as an excuse for many of the downfalls of entrepreneurship. But like we also realized that the reality is that it might not. I find that there is much more entrepreneurial talent within large organizations than most people give it credit for.
And that if you ask anybody who sits in an organization and say, Hey, do you know any of your colleagues who might leave within the next 12 months to start their own company? They probably have a name of one or two people that might do it. And it’s often not defined by what team they sit with. It’s more so a personality trait. It’s somebody has a little bit of education. Somebody, who’s a generalist. It’s somebody who has great empathy for the user. Somebody who understand how to reframe. It’s all those different things.
The talent you can either attract by creating structures that allow hunters to go and hunt for opportunity within your space and not just the farmers that are very good at harvesting, kind of like the fruits of stuff that people in the past that made. Or you can find within and creating processes and structures that allow them to work in the way that you do.
A lot of time it is conflicting because you will hear corporations say we should embrace a culture of trying to fail, and you go like, okay, great. How many times do you ever give a bonus to anybody who didn’t make it? Zero. Right. You know, like how many free credit card spending can somebody use on Upwork to just try something out without having, going through compliance and finance? So, we say these things, but the structures doesn’t kind of like support it. And in my view, structures define the outcomes and so that was long winded version of saying that I think the talent is there. And the talent is probably more there than people realize. What they do not have the tools and the freedom and autonomy to act in the way that we can act on the outside of the walls.
Brian Ardinger: It seems to me also like a lot of what you’ve built in your successes and that focuses also around the network and your ability to bring not only existing talent to it, but the mentors, the investors, the network that can help that new idea grow. Can you talk a little bit about how you build a network and how important that is to building a new venture?
Henrik Werdelin: I do think that a skilled entrepreneur is to have gravity. You often do not have money either because you don’t have the budgets internally or because you just don’t have the capital yourself. And so, you need to use endless amount of chop and wit and trickery and whatever it is to get people to work for free for you.
You know, that could be colleagues that you’re trying to hire to work for options that might not be worth anything at that time. It might be customers of your business that you’re trying to get to work for you in the sense of like, they’ll help you kind of figure out your next feature. And they’ll give you a little bit of slack when the stuff that you’re doing, isn’t working. It’s investors, and what have you.
And gravity can come in different ways. Like you can be an outspoken red-faced guy with a Danish accent, and you can try to use that as your tool. You could be somebody who is just insanely talented and can code like the wind and use that for tools. So, it comes differently. So, I do think that figuring out, like, what is your ability to attract people is a way that I’ve tried create network. And so that’s kind of like, what is it that you have that come easy to you that comes difficult to others?
I think for the other element is to not be too needy. Network only really works if it’s two way, otherwise you’re just talking at people and I do try to use empathy as a, you know, maybe it’s cause I grew up with my mom, like I learned to use empathy as, as a tool to kind of figure out what people need. And then you help figuring out like, what is it in the path of you trying to succeed that what they need can be fulfilled and then you help them do that. And then together one plus one makes three.
Brian Ardinger: You’ve had a lot of different plates spinning at the same time. You know, whether you’re running multiple different ventures or, you know, just managing different businesses at the same time, I understand you’re pretty good at life hacks. And you’ve documented some of that stuff as well, including the fact that the, maybe how you found your wife. I’ve heard interesting stories around that. You want to talk a little bit about some of your life hacks and how you manage all the stresses of everything that you’ve built.
Henrik Werdelin: As mentioned, I like experimentation and methodology. And so I take that somewhat to the extreme. With my own life I have these eight boxes that I mentioned to a friend of mine who then wrote it off, as a post. I call it the Eight Plus One Framework. And so, I have these things, which I think holistically kind of like will make my life successful. And in short order, it’s transact, which is about making money. It’s about invest, which is about accumulating wealth over time. Compounding. It’s about the assist about helping people, courses or individuals. It’s about health, you know, keeping your mind and your body healthy. About learning, which is about becoming a better version of yourself. About family, it’s about relationships. And it’s about self-kindness.
So, I look at those eight boxes and the reason why it’s called eight plus one is because they then sit down every week and I try to come up with experiments of figuring out how do I become better at each of these things? And I architect experiments for it. And so, I have a six-year-old and on the weekends we play and we sit in his playroom and a few months back, I noticed that I didn’t enjoy the playing that much. I would basically look at my phone and he would call me on it and he’d make me feel shitty. Right. So, you know, my next little session, I was gonna think, okay, what could be a better way of spending that hour?
And it sounds very vanilla, but like I grew up playing ping pong. So, I found something online where you can turn your dining table into a ping pong table. And next weekend, I taught him how to play ping pong. And now we play ping pong. It’s still an hour being used, but now I just have much more value kind of coming out of that. We both have much full value coming out of that hour than I did before. Now I do that with everything, and I run an Airtable database of my experience, and I constantly try to figure out like, how do I do that?
My wife, it’s kind of an embarrassing story. We’ve been married for 10 years and are very happy so, like she doesn’t mind me telling the story. I was single at the time and kind of decided that I wanted to find my future wife. And so, I read all the books I could about, I start sweating even more thinking about it. I started reading all the books I could about relationship therapy and longevity, and I studied dating algorithms and I tried to understand like what stats out there for, the properties that two people will have in order to stay together for a long time.
There’s a meaning of meaningful amount of research out there. And so I basically created the properties, I think about 50, and then what I couldn’t figure out was chemistry because it’s tough to put down on paper in a number like your chemistry. The thesis, as I had was basically that serendipity was the best proxy for chemistry. And so I mapped everybody I’ve ever met who had those properties. The thesis was that I would need to find my future wife amongst their friends. And I started to invite myself for dinner parties, with those people. And that the third dinner I ran into my wife, very methodical, not as romantic, but definitely thoughtful.
Brian Ardinger: Hey, but, but it works right. So the question I have around experiments is are you methodical about the experiments that you run from the standpoint of like, here’s the hypothesis and here’s what we’re going to test and here’s how we’re gonna test it and see if we’re on the right track? Or is it more from the standpoint of like, let’s reframe what we’re looking at and try something in this space and then move down the line. How methodical are you and the experimentation process?
Henrik Werdelin: I mean, like I’m both, I think, you know, like the outer points is where the interesting things lie. Like most things have happened when we built startups in big companies, for example, is that it’s so difficult to convince anybody to allow us to do anything that it has to be pretty obvious before we get allowed to do anything. And so I try to have the outer poles where I’m pretty wild in what I will try, but I am also very disciplined of killing most of it, At Prehype we have a saying, we call the default dead is dead. And that means that we assume that it won’t work. We hope that it will, but we assume that it won’t. And so that’s sometimes allow us to kind of be a little bit more crazy in what we allowed to do.
Now that could either be that we just come up with a thesis of how to solve the problem. Or as you were saying that we try to reframe what the problem is that we are trying to solve. And I’ll give you a practical example when we did Bark, I think we always felt that our business was, how do we make dogs happy? We never designed ourselves as a business that was putting stuff in a box. And so when people were asking us, when we started to think about what should our next product be, our acorn, as it were, after the box, if we had just been a company defining itself as a stuff in a box business, I think, you know, a cat box would probably have been, makes most sense.
But we are about making dogs happy and a cat box wouldn’t make dogs very happy. And so our next product was like a dental product and a membership dog park and a content division and all of these different things. So, I hone very much in the relationship with the customer I’m serving and what is the problem trying to solve for them. Then I go pretty wild in what could be the thesis. And then I get very disciplined in what is the numbers say?
Brian Ardinger: Well, let’s open it up for Q and A. We have some people in the audience, there’s a Q and A box at the bottom of your Zoom tool that you should be able to click in there. And as people are looking at that, talk us through a little bit about maybe what’s next, some of the trends that you’re seeing, you again spanned a lot of different industries. How do you go about understanding what you want to do next, and resource, and finding out what that next thing is for you?
Henrik Werdelin: I mean, like, I think I have first principles, like most other people and I think at the core, I like to work with people I find inspiring and I like, and people on problems that I think it’s interesting and that the world needs to solve. That doesn’t have to be kind of like world changing ideas, but it doesn’t have. And then I think I just have a very classic curious mind.
And so often what happens is that, you know, I’ll give you an example, take this data. We talk about virtual events. And one thing that I suddenly realized was, well, events are not necessarily just defined by what do you do with them? It’s also what you do not do. And one of the problems with an event like this is I’ve gone full screen because you don’t have enough discipline to not look at like all the other windows. Have I not? And I think that I share that with a lot of other people.
So, an event like this is not an event because I can hear my dog bark. I think about my next meeting. And I have like seven taps in Slack and everything else going on. Whereas if we had met on stage, I would have put my phone out next to it. I’ll be in a dark room, like, you know, with lights on. Yeah. And I will be very concentrating on this conversation. And so suddenly I kind of got to, well, that will mean two things for the events that I’m involved in.
One is that I think a huge one, this is actually less of an event and it’s more like live broadcast. Yes. So, we need to move more towards like, you know, making TV shows. Then we should try to kind of create like replicate being a South by Southwest. That’s one route. The other route is to figure out like, how do we deprive people from other sensatory inputs. And there, I started to spend a lot of time in VR and AR. I have no insights, but my thesis is that Microsoft, Apple, and Facebook’s going to come out with new devices this year. And because we’re all remote and we’re all lacking digital intimacy, we will try to adapt. I’ve started to go to all these virtual meeting rooms in VR.
And you know what? It’s actually fascinating. Again, it’s not there yet, but it’s like, it’s like dial up internet. You can see, give it a little bit longer and it will either…and so I take a mixture of being involved in a lot of things, see the problems that they face, and then just being very curious and immersive and trying to figure out what could be opportunity spaces.
Brian Ardinger: It’s interesting to see how the technology will catch up. Obviously, people are using Zoom and they’re using Zoom in ways that was not intended per se. You know, it was designed as a way to meet in a corporate environment. And now you’re seeing the flaws of using this particular tool in other settings, whether it’s a virtual happy hour or things along those lines. I saw one today, I think it was called Online Town or something where they’re trying to replicate in the technology where you’re in a room. And based on where your avatar is in that room, you hear different things. So, you could actually have a side conversation just like at a conference that happens based on proximity of your avatar in that.
Henrik Werdelin: And I think sometimes what we then happen to do is that we try to just kind of like extend what we did..
Brian Ardinger: And replicate the real world.
Henrik Werdelin: And it doesn’t often work, you know what I mean like I find that that concert they had on like a few weeks ago where they had 17 million people show up, like, but the nice thing of that concert was that that was in a game in mind. And so suddenly like, the musician didn’t have to just say, they could do all this crazy shit. Right. So, I mean like the world is not linear, right? Like it jumps in weird step functions. And so, it will be fascinating, what the next few years going to bring on that point.
Brian Ardinger: That’s a good transition. So obviously the world’s changed, disrupted. We saw this coming a lot of technologies in that, were on the path of disrupting the world and business models, but COVID kind of accelerated a lot of that stuff. What’s uplifting or positive in the last couple months that you’ve seen that, how the world’s changed and where you see it going?
Henrik Werdelin: I mean, like I try to see uplifting things, most places, right. It’s obviously tough. Right. You know, like a lot of people are losing their jobs and a lot of people are dying. And so that is tough to be uplifting about. I do think that we were, there were structural changes happening already that I think a lot of us thought would take 5 to 10 years and I think they suddenly took five weeks. I don’t think that Hertz got killed by COVID. Hertz got killed by Lyft and Uber and it taking two hours to get a freaking car and like endless amount of paperwork in an airport. Right. And so, I think that’s like, I think people who are knowledge workers for the most of them doing just fine people who are not having a really difficult time.
And I think as a community member, that will be our problem to solve too. I don’t want to sound too high hope because I think that will take a long time and that’ll be very difficult. From, you know, being like more optimistic, you know, I think there’s a lot of exciting things that are the now happening that we have to figure out. I think a lot of the digital transformation that was growing, it’s just really accelerating. A lot of the direct to consumer business, like we see, we have a lot of problems for sure, but like demand is fine. In terms of like a silver lining, I think remote work is now suddenly not considering you taking it, which I think makes a lot of us kind of like, very curious about where we then will spend our time.
I think we’re pretty efficient because you don’t spend an hour just to spend an hour on Zoom. Right. When you’re done with your conversation, it’s over. And so I think there’s a lot of like these interesting dynamics and I think, you know, like New York, which is a city I love a lot, like, it’s obviously hurting a lot right now, but like, you know, maybe some of the grit that attract us all here.
Like some of the little bit of like the quirkiness that you have to be pretty crazy today to move to New York. Right. I think some people will. And I think, you know, like that was kind of like what made New York to start within. So, I’m sure I’m like in all the misery and all this difficult stuff happening. They’ll be positive things. But I think to start with, we have a society that just love difficult challenges that we have to fix.
Brian Ardinger: Well again, if anybody has any final questions, put that into the box. I guess my last question, walls around, what do you see as the, the new next skillset that people should be building? Is it entrepreneurship skills, entrepreneurial skills? What do you look for when you look for a founder, for example? What do you look for in a person that you think can build the next, the next thing, whatever it is, what are the things people should be working on?
Henrik Werdelin: Well, I do look for, I think you mentioned some of them before. So first answer to your question, yes. Totally. I think entrepreneurship is one of the only real skills that we can teach ourselves that have real longevity. And that’s because in my world I see entrepreneurship as the ability to identify a problem and then build a scalable solution for it. And that is not anger to engineers sitting in San Francisco. I think that is a task that we can all use, all skills that we can all use, and that can apply to a lot of different problems. So, in fact, I see one of the reasons why I’m still an entrepreneur is that I’ve been offered jobs sometimes that are very attractive, but I’m not sure that I want to compete against the 20-year-old version of myself against those jobs.
I feel that the only skill that I can really, if I can hone that, that is very difficult to replicate, is that of identifying problems and find solutions to scale them? The solving of them. And I think if you worry about robotics and computers taking your job, which I think a lot of us probably should, that is probably one of the last things where we have to worry.
And so, I think entrepreneurship is a superpower and I think that a lot of it is something people are born with, but a lot of it can be taught and we should all learn how to do that. One of the things that I’m looking for in skills, you know, we talked about gravity, we talked about empathy. We talked about being a generalist, but I think specifically the last thing is this ability to be able to do many things, specialization is really a skill for, for scaling stuff.
I find a lot of interesting stuff happen when you try to look at solving kind of like a lot of different problems. And so, one of the things that is when I start a new project and I have to learn how can I use the basics myself. And so I think if there’s one skill that I would allow, that people kind of like lean more on to is instead of thinking, I want to build something, but I need an engineer and a designer and a project manager and a business developer and somebody who knows Ad words.
I mean, like, go on YouTube, watch a video about it and tinker with it. And then I’m sure that you will probably find out a better way of doing it for yourself than somebody that you hired to do it.
Brian Ardinger: That’s a fantastic point from the standpoint of used to be 10 years ago, you did need to, if you want to be a technology company, you had to have a technology person behind you and that. At least to start even, to spin up some experiments, but nowadays with the no-code tools and Airtable, you mention other things along those lines, it really is this age of impact for everyday individuals to quickly get up to speed. And because the world’s changing so fast, you’re not going to be that far behind. If you have to learn a new tool in the first place.
Henrik Werdelin: I mean, and this of course is pretty specific to non-hardcore engineering. You know, which, I mean, like, there are a lot of stuff where you just need to be very good at that, but all the stuff that I feel like BarkBox is a very large business now and it requires you to be able to like pack a top and box, right. And write Happy Holidays with two L’s on 200 them, which I did in some of the first years. And that doesn’t require a lot of specific skills.
Brian Ardinger: Henrik Werdelin, I really do appreciate you coming and sharing your journey as an entrepreneur and as a founder and as a person who’s continuing to make dents in the world. So, I appreciate you coming on Inside Outside Innovation. If people want to find out more about yourself or the new book, The Acorn Method, what’s the best way to do that.
Henrik Werdelin: I mean the best ones is probably go on Twitter. I’m @Werdelin and the book is available on Amazon. Just search for The Acorn Method.
Brian Ardinger: Well, thank you again for being on Inside Outside Innovation, look forward to continuing the conversation and best of luck to you. That’s it for another episode of Inside Outside Innovation. If you want to learn more about our team, our content, our services, check out InsideOutside.io or follow us on Twitter @theIOpodcast or @Ardinger. Until next time, go out and innovate.
FREE INNOVATION NEWSLETTER
Get the latest episodes of the Inside Outside Innovation podcast, in addition to thought leadership in the form of blogs, innovation resources, videos, and invitations to exclusive events. SUBSCRIBE HERE
This post contains affiliate links that may earn Inside Outside a small fee on purchases originating from them. They do not influence editorial decisions to include mention of any products or services in this article or add any cost to the customer.
