347-878-3837

Business

Here are articles on Business

The future of social media: pay content, gossip management

I’m Twittering today. And I’m Facebooking. And I’m blogging. And I’m writing my newsletter and my podcast. In pursuit of building my so-called personal brand, I’m getting my name out there and sharing my brilliance with the world. Once I get some decent lighting, 2010 will see me introduce a video blog as well. Yessiree, I’m building that brand right on up. Yup. Building that brand. Look at it go. Right on up there…

What’s striking, however, is that none of this pays a cent. Not only does it not pay, but it conditions people to want my content for free. I had the audacity to pose a question to my Twitter subscribers last week, to get some suggestions for an upcoming episode. One happy person responded, “Dude, STOP ASKING US how to get stuff done and START TELLING US how to get it done!” I have hundreds of pages of free articles. I have written close to 500 pages of podcasts, all freely available, and apparently that’s not enough.

The social media promise

The theory is that social media lets people discuss my products and services without my intervention. I can now enter into a dialog with my customers, that will let me optimize my products, respond to my markets, and manage my reputation real time. The magically I’ll be successful and have a thriving business. That sounds really good on paper.

Then I think for a moment. I’ve always been able to read reviews of my products. I’ve always been able to survey my customers. And if I’m at all smart about handling customer queries and support calls, I can even optimize my products and design in solutions for my customers based on their problems. In short, pretty much everything social media can do for me, I could do in a pre-social media world. So what’s the difference?

The social media cost

One big difference is the cost. Maintaining an ongoing social media presence is a huge use of time and effort. If I were a big company, I might hire someone full time to do nothing but tweet, twitter, Yelp, Blorp, and Blubber. But as a one-man shop, I have to do all this myself. Then I have to track the responses and figure out which channels are actually getting attention (that will change in six months, requiring another full round of marketing research), and then generate content content content.

At some point, I’m apparently supposed to develop products and services, which is where I make the money. And by the way, those products and services better contain content I haven’t given away for free in the process of generating all this social media.

My prediction

Where will this go? Based on my own experience, I think social media will continue to be important as a channel for monitoring end consumer needs, wishes, and experiences using products. At the end of the day, it’s a giant gossip network, and your reputation is part of your brand, so you’ll have to manage it.

When it comes to content from businesses to customers, I don’t think it’s sustainable. The free content generation will die down over time, unless there’s a clear return on investment to it. Quality content is hard to produce. Companies that can afford to hire someone to be a web presence will do so. They’ll be able to produce high-quality content on an ongoing basis.

Small businesses and solopreneurs will gradually drop out of the fray, simply because the demands are too great and the returns too small. It takes good education and/or experience to be able to generate huge amounts of quality content, and those things are expensive. How much time should a smart, capable, good person with great writing skills spend giving away their knowledge for free without expecting a return? If there’s a demand for high-quality content (which there may not be), it will mainly be on a subscription model.

The few who manage to attract large followings will do great, of course, but that’s always been the case. And attracting a large following seems to be a function of direct marketing skill, more than high quality content creation skill.

Bottom line: in five years, by 2014, we’ll see the quality of free content dropping as the high-quality content creators turn their attention to activities that actually drive their business. Social media will remain important for reputation management, however, and as a tool for monitoring our customers and what they’re thinking.

Are people good or bad? It’s literally a self-fulfilling expectation.

I’ve noticed that underlying a lot of political discussions is a fundamental belief about human nature. Some people believe people are fundamentally self-interested. They won’t work unless paid, and helping the downtrodden is something one does to impress one’s friends. The other side believes people are fundamentally generous. They help each other and will sacrifice their own good for the sake of others.

My recent theory is that both of these viewpoints are true. Literally, they’re both true. There are psychological mechanisms that make each of these a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Self-interest usually manifests in turning everything into a transaction, monetizing as much as possible, and tracking things closely. It turns out that when you introduce money into a conversation or transaction, literally the brain areas involved in altruism, helping, and asking for help all shut down. So if you expect everyone to treat you as if they only want transactions from you, you’ll mention money or exchanges or act in ways you would act when putting together a transaction. Those actions will then actually trigger the same impulse in others. You mention money and the people you’re dealing with become more self-interested and less likely to be collaborative. So a world view where everyone looks out for themselves and everyone is greedy becomes self-fulfilling to the person who holds it.

Similarly, the social psychology reciprocity principle shows that when you give a gift that someone perceives as freely given, they feel obliged to respond by giving back, often in greater amounts than the original gift. So giving provides a self-fulfilling mechanism such that the person who gives freely and believes others are generous will trigger exactly those impulses in others.

What’s important to note is that this isn’t just psychological blinders, where both people interpret the same events differently. This is literally a self-fulfilling principle that plays out in behavior. If you act as if people are greedy, you’ll do things that prime their greedy impulses. If you act as if people are generous and worthy of help, you’ll actually activate reciprocal behavior on their part.

Be careful the world you wish for. You just might get it.

Richard St. John’s TED Talk on Success. Is it nothing but delusion?

I was just watching a TED talk by Richard St. John on the 8 Rules of Success. Richard interviewed 500 TED attendees to distill down eight principles. His recommendations are depressingly trite: have passion, work hard, yada, yada, yada. You can see the talk here: http://bit.ly/6VxMaC

REVISION: October 25, 2012: I may have found the recommendations trite, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t true and rigorous. I wrote this article originally making several incorrect assumptions about Richard’s methodology. My bad. My very, very bad. I inappropriately dinged him on research methodology when I, myself, wasn’t doing my own homework vis-a-vis verifying that my points were correct.

Richard writes: Hey Stever – Just so you know, I did also interview unsuccessful people and homeless people as a control group and they DIDN’T follow any of the 8 Traits that are necessary for success. They didn’t love what they do, they didn’t work hard, etc. As for the Halo Effect, many of the most successful people couldn’t articulate why they were successful. They’d say “I don’t know.” So I’d look for examples of what they’d actually “done.” I’d ask, “How often do you take vacations?” A lot would say “I don’t take vacations.” I’d ask, “Why not?” They’d say, “I’d rather work.” I’d ask, “Why?” They’d say, “I like it” or “It’s fun.” So it wasn’t like they automatically blurted out the 8 Success Traits. I had to find them through examples. And by the way, I’m not saying everyone has to be a big success. I’m just saying is if you want to succeed at something this is how you’ll get there.
Richard St. John

What follows is the bulk of my original article. I’ve edited it to remove specific examples to Richard’s situation, since it does not apply to his work. It does, however, apply to a lot of what passes for “how to succeed” literature, so the points are still useful to keep in mind.

It’s not his fault his results are trite, however. As discussed at great length in The Halo Effect by Phil Rosenzweig, when you interview someone after-the-fact about why something was successful or a failure, you always get the same answers.

That means, sadly, that such answers are meaningless. If you ask someone who’s a known success how they got that way, they’ll say it was vision, passion, hard work, etc. If you ask their friends, the friends will say vision, passion, hard work, etc. If you ask someone who’s a failure how they got that way, you’ll also get the same stories over and over. Humans seem to have built-in explanations for such things.

Most success talks miss the point by not interviewing people who had vision, passion, and worked hard, and failed. Why? Because most success studies start by identifying successful people who have already achieved success and interview them. It may be that for every 100 people who have vision, passion, and work hard, 99 of them end up burned out, divorced, and miserable, and only one goes on to be successful. But if you select only the successful ones to interview, it’s easy to conclude that those traits correlate with success.

A simpler example: every successful person in the world drank either mother’s milk or formula as a baby. Does that mean that drinking mother’s milk or formula leads to success? Not at all. It just means that pretty much everyone drinks those things as babies.

I know some very rich finance people. Their vision? Nil. Really Nil. Like, no imagination whatsoever. Their passion? To show off and impress the neighbors. Their hard work? Signing checks. It’s tough if it’s not special 24-bond paper made for smooth writing. And then all that waiting and waiting! Years of playing golf, waiting while thousands of people work their butts off so the providers of capital can walk off with the profits (that’s what “capitalism” means–providers of capital get the rewards). In short, I know many example of people who don’t have all those nice, feel-good attributes, and are even more successful than many who do.

Since Richard St. John is giving his talks to high school students, he is in the perfect position to do a real experiment to find out what leads to success. Have half of the students he talks to do the things he recommends. Have them work hard, have vision, and so on. The other half? Have them slack off and meander through life. In twenty year’s we’ll be able to see whether or not there’s a real correlation between his recommendations and subsequent success.

Can a corporation be “entrepreneurial?”

,

A friend of mine posted a Facebook entry saying his 30,000+ person company is encouraging people to be entrepreneurial. I replied with a remark that I couldn’t imagine a less likely place to find entrepreneurial behavior.

Much to my surprise, he was surprised that I was surprised. But that’s not surprising. It turns out that at his consulting company, they are encouraged to come up with ideas for new products and find new customers. That fits his definition of “entrepreneurial.”

It didn’t fit mine, and I took this as an opportunity to try to define why I had my reaction. Here’s my thinking about what constitutes “entrepreneurial.” Please chime in.

I think we have different definitions of “entrepreneurial.” I hear a lot of corporations use the word “entrepreneurial” as a synonym for “we’re letting you think for yourself and propose creative solutions.” While I applaud that impulse, in my mind, it should be a standard mode of engagement in business and not considered anything to be given a special name.

For me, what you’ve described is being given license to propose new product lines. It fits my definition of “new business development,” and it may or may not be entrepreneurial.

In my definition of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs (a) are free to change their business offerings, (b) have control over their business model, (c) must raise their own resources and enjoy a corresponding participation in the upside, (d) create an organization, organization structure, and its attendant policies and procedures.

Furthermore, often, entrepreneurs operate in unknowable or cutting-edge spaces. They are introducing new products without the knowledge of whether markets exist.

In essence, an entrepreneur’s product is an organization and business model.

If you can go out to Staples and propose a joint venture where you provide flat-rate actuarial consulting to any insurance company that buys more than $1000 worth of office supplies, with you (personally) pocketing 10% of the revenues, that would be entrepreneurial, in my mind.

If you had the ability to acquire smaller consultancies and attempt a “roll-up,” (without needing corporate approval) that would be entrepreneurial.

If you were to discover that restaurant consulting were more lucrative than actuarial consulting and decide to reposition your job to target restaurants based on your theories/dreams/data about the business model, that would be entrepreneurial.

If your business model is limited (e.g. hourly charging with X% overhead charged back to the parent company), if your ability to raise funds and build an organization is limited (e.g. hiring six people with completely different policies, procedures, dress codes, health plan, etc.), and if your upside is limited (e.g. you can’t create a multinational division and then take home the bulk of the profit as your own bonus), then I would consider you to be in a creative business development capacity, but not entrepreneurial.

Similarly, some people consider franchise owners as entrepreneurial. While they take a risk and share in the upside, I would call them “small business people” and not “entrepreneurs.” They generally don’t have control over their processes, capital structure, organizational structure, or brand/marketing/etc. so while they certainly do start a business with their own funds, they’re sufficiently constrained that they’re essentially employees who shoulder the risk and receive a bonus based on profits.

I don’t think there’s any one agreed-upon definition of entrepreneurship, but in the entrepreneurship circles where I travel, resource scarcity and control over structure, process, and business model are key elements separating entrepreneurial environments from corporate environments.

My psyche was just hijacked by a sweet sounding, marketing demoness!

I just received a voicemail from an amazingly sincere, genuine-sounding coaching “guru.” She went on and on about how she wants to give back to me and show her tremendous appreciation. All I have to do is visit her web page for details.

I visited. It turned out to be a long-form sales letter. You know the type: they mix testimonials with sincere-sounding stories and revelations of how the writer was poor, destitute, and reduced to eating their own belt in an attempt to find protein as they lived out of their car. Then suddenly they discovered the secret to everything and now you can have a little bit of their juicy goodness by attending their wonderful seminar for just $X hundred dollars. (Even though they’ve enjoyed a seven figure income for years, they are charging you for the information for your own good, of course.)

Halfway through reading her site, I began to feel the urge to attend the seminar. I realized that I’ve never made seven figures a year. Looking at all the pictures of the people who have attended and now blow their nose into genuine, gold leaf toilet paper made my knees quiver with a mixture of jealousy and painful feelings of inadequacy.

Then I noticed what I was feeling. I noticed the longing to attend her seminar. I noticed the inappropriately intense emotional reaction I was having. I closed the page, added her phone number to my voicemail spam box, and am adding her email newsletter to my spam filter list as well.

Psychologically manipulative long-form sales letters work really well. I highly recommend developing a knee-jerk reaction to them: delete them and consider the seller totally and completely discredited in your mind. If someone has something of value to offer, refuse to listen until they show you in a non-manipulative way. Ask for a sample. Ask for statistics. “How many of your students are now enjoying a 7-figure income? How long did it take them?” Ask for references. “Please give me their phone#s so I may call and verify.”

Anyone who claims to be a multi-gazillionaire who is generously helping you out if you pay them just a few hundred dollars is a scam artist. If you’re rich and want to give back, give. Don’t sell, give. You don’t have to do it as formal philanthropy, just offer your stuff for free. Coach Marshall Goldsmith, one of the most successful and highly paid coaches in the world, gives away everything he does for free at http://www.MarshallGoldsmithLibrary.com. As he once told me, “I have more money than I could ever spend, why should I charge people when what I care about is helping them?”

If you’re using long-form sales letters in your own business, try seeing if you can resort to selling your product on its own merits. If the answer is “No,” improve your product until you can.

It’s important to note, however, that if I send a long form sales letter, you must buy my products, make me a billionaire, pay for mansions for me, lots of  Rolls Royces, and scantily clad models on both arms. I may be outraged, but I’m not stupid…

One Price Doesn't Fit All

,

But offering lots of options can destroy the buying experience.

I’m flying this morning. More accurately, I’m waiting in line after line after line at the airport. Once, I needed my boarding pass. Then I needed my boarding pass and driver’s license. Now, I need my credit card, too. Every line brings a new, extra charge. The check-in kiosk gleefully says it costs $15 for my first checked bag. At the gate, the little headphones cost me. On board, a pillow and blanket—once free free—now cost big bucks. And don’t get me started on the snacks.

Every price tag becomes a separate purchase decision. Every purchase decision makes an impression. The airline has me asking “Is this worth it?” a dozen times during a single flight. And every extra decision risks my deciding “No.”

Any good sales person knows you want your customers crying Yes, Yes, YES! As soon as I think No, they’ve lost me as a customer.

If you offer options, do it at once.

When you have lots of little add-ons that someone can choose up front, that’s fine. Call it “customization.” If I’m buying a new Mini Cooper, I get to run the Mini Cooper customizer. It becomes a game to choose the white racing stripes, chili pepper red paint job, fancy suspension, and cool hubcaps. Will I pay extra to customize? You bet. And since it’s a one-time fantasy fest, I only have to abandon common sense once to sign on the dotted line. Now I have my cool car with lots of options, and I love the chance to go into debt for life for my new tricked out Cooper. But only if it’s a single purchase decision, where the excitement happens all at once. One purchase, and I can enjoy my car forever.

Don’t take away what used to be free.

Of course, don’t customize add-ons that are expected as part of the base product. If I had to pay extra to make sure my Mini came with wheels, it would be annoying, not delightful. But since the car comes with wheels, all my attention is blissfully on my Speed Racer fantasies.

For Goodness’ sake, never start charging for something that used to be bundled into the price. People hate losing things. When once my plane pillow and blanket were complimentary, charging extra for them stirs resentment.

You might think airlines have to start charging for the extras or they’ll go out of business. Maybe. But maybe not. If they just tacked $50 onto the ticket prices and announced that they still give “free” blankets, pillows, and checked luggage, I suspect many people would be willing to purchase. All it takes is one nickel-and-dime experience to realize that a low price ticket might be a smokescreen for an expensive bundle of travel “add-ons.”

If airlines want to offer variable pricing, they shouldn’t charge extra fees. Instead, they could frame the choice as a discount: you get $7 off your ticket if you decline a pillow and blanket. More people would take the blanket and pillow (people often just accept the defaults), so the revenues would be higher. Yet those who really care can still get the lower price. Furthermore, people would be imagining their flight with all the goodies, and would be inclined to forgo the discount since it would seem like losing that amenity—and remember, people hate to lose extras.

How many purchase decisions do your customers make?

What’s your product or service? Do you offer it as a series of purchase decisions? Try an experiment: create an all-in-one pricing bundle and offer discounts for unused options, rather than extra charges for extra options. Track how many customers choose to the default options, how many customers purchase again, and how satisfied customers are with their purchase. You just may find that the best way to serve your customers is to charge them more.

[Note: the way decisions are presented to people makes a huge impact in what they choose. This is called “decision architecture.” You can learn all about decision architecture in the book “Nudge.”]

Stephen Wolfram’s “Alpha” isn’t a Google killer; they’re in different businesses.

,

My friend Bob Kerns blogged about Stephen Wolfram’s “Alpha” project. The project aims to take on Google by creating a web-retrieval engine that can answer specific factual questions directly. Type in, “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” and it will go out to the Web, retrieve the answer, and tell you. Bob doesn’t think Alpha will be able to challenge Google. I agree.

I’d never heard of Wolfram’s “alpha” before, but the sensationalistic headlines, in my humble opinion, show a total misunderstading of Google’s business model.

Google is in the advertising business, not the search business. Search is one of many distribution channels they have for that advertising. It lets them offer targeted ads, because what people search for can be used to target ads to people who might want to buy a product or service.

They’ve also figured out that if they give away products that involve high information content (mail, word processors, spreadsheets, etc.), targeted ads can be delivered unobtrusively in the margins, deduced from the information a person is working with.

It makes sense for Google to develop better programs in the information-processing space than Microsoft and give them away for free, since that drives eyeballs to Google’s ads. You’ll notice Google isn’t building the G-Box 360; there’s no information content there to be analyzed and monetized.

The Google phone gets you more deeply involved with your Google platform on mobile devices. My guess is that it’s a just-in-case move, anticipating the possibility that mobile devices will develop into a big chunk of the information processing market (and thus advertising eyeballs).

Alpha may be able to answer factual questions directly, but it’s not necessarily even in the same space as Google. Factual questions aren’t likely to be very good at generating enough context to do good ad targeting. If I ask, “what is the tensile strength of steel,” you don’t have much information to use to target ads. You don’t know why I want that information.

When I Google, however, I am typing in words associated with the actual information I need. I type in broader phrases, loaded with context. If I’m searching for “steel for skyscraper construction,” it’s easier for Google to find a host of relevant ads based on the query words and on the content of the top pages matching the query.

It’s the very fuzziness of Google’s search that makes it a good business for monetizing with ads.

Cause and Effect in Current Events

, ,

Don’t be surprised when you get the expected result.

Stupidity is running rampant, world wide. It’s frustrating, because the mistakes aren’t rocket science. They’re really simple stuff. People forget their actions have consequences. Let’s explore some cause/effect you should keep in mind, through the lens of current events. Think how these apply to you, so you aren’t surprised by the utterly predictable.

(This is going to be a provocative article. If it offends you, recommend me to all your friends. The provocation may cause many unsubscribes from my list from people who would rather indulge in knee-jerk responses than think for themselves. Oops!! That sentence just lost a dozen, right there…)

Ignore the competition and you’ll lose. Detroit has been whining about how they couldn’t have forseen the current downturn. In business school in **1989**–twenty years ago–we did cases about how uncompetitive the car companies were, and how they were ignoring foreign competition, etc. Anyone who lived through the gas lines and 50+ mpg Honda Civics of the late 70s and hears Detroit complain that they can’t get 30mpg by 2020 should have nothing but utter contempt for the executives running the Big Three.

If you hit people, they won’t sit there and take it. Hello, Israel and Hamas. Are you listening? Kids beat me up in grammar school. It didn’t make me like them. And if I’d been bigger and stronger, I would have hit back. When Hamas broke a cease-fire and sent rockets into Israel, what did they expect to happen? It isn’t a matter of history, or who deserved what. Just that simple question: what did they expect to happen, other than violent retaliation? (Terrorists knocked down two of our office buildings seven years ago, and we started two wars over it, with a body count that some say is over 100,000 civilians. Clearly, if you swat someone who has more firepower, they just might swat back.)

Debt is bad if not managed wisely. Learn this: if you spend $10 today that you don’t have, how can you expect to have $12 to repay it with interest tomorrow? This only makes sense if you invest the $10 with the expectation of making $12 or more. Thinking of credit cards as free money is dumb. Thinking of a $1 trillion yearly budget deficit being used to fund expenses (e.g. war) rather than investment (e.g. R&D, research, education, infrastructure repair) is dumb.

Deliberate get-rich-quick stupidity will be appropriately rewarded. Banks have a thousand-year history of how to evaluate good credit risks. When they write mortgages to people they would never lend to under prudent guidelines, they shouldn’t be surprised when it all collapses. And by the way, every manager involved should be fired. I’d rather have a high school student running the bank than someone with proven bad experience.

Pay current expenses with current dollars. People get so upset and angry about tax levels. Get over it, people. Borrow-and-spend is _more_ toxic than tax-and-spend; you have to pay back with interest. Unless you are spending on investment that will generate a return, tax-and-spend is a much, much healthier policy. In any event, tax vs. borrow is just a financing detail. The problem is *spend*. (And anyone who still believes either party is more fiscally responsible than the other needs to have their head examined. As far as I can tell, the Repubs are abhorrently irresponsible, while the Dems are despicably irresponsible.)

Don’t borrow if you can’t repay. See the previous paragraph. This applies to credit card holders, home owners, governments, and investment banks. If you borrow $100, you have to pay back $110 next year, or even more in following years. Borrowing gives you the illusion that you have a higher standard of living than you can afford. The world will happily correct that misapprehension.

People do what you pay them for, especially if there are no perceived consequences. I’ll let you find the examples for this one. Just look at politicians, lobbyists, and CEOs of failed banks. (Why, please remind me, are any of those people still there? Aren’t we supposed to fire people who demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt their utter, complete, and total incompetence to run a solvent business?) This applies to politicians, too. If we connected their pay and career paths to desired national outcome measures, you would likely suddenly see a whole different set of conversations in Congress.

A modest proposal for rescuing the auto industry

,

You know, I just can’t help feeling outrage, depression, and cynicism at the Big Three auto companies asking for a taxpayer bailout. Twenty years ago, we read cases in business school about how American auto manufacturers had already fallen behind foreign imports in production capability, cost structure, and market responsiveness. At the time, this was not new information.

And now, the Detroit top brass are showing up to Congress, hats in hand, for mega-billion-dollar cash flow loans that they project will last them … oh, a few months. And they’ll do what, exactly, in those few months? Why in the world should we believe that the same people who willfully ignored their competitive situation for two generations have any relevant skills, abilities or motivation to fix any of the problems? Aren’t they exactly the people we know won’t solve the problem?

Yeah, they’re saying they’ll reduce their salary to $1 until the mess is cleaned up. How generous of them. Are they taking huge stock grants instead (Iacocca did, back when he reduced his salary to $1 when saving Chrysler. That part of the story doesn’t sound as noble, so it’s often glossed over)?

Even if they’re genuinely giving up their compensation, they’ve taken home seven- or eight-figure salaries for years. They’re way, way past the point of needing another dime as long as they live. What a sacrifice, to reduce their salaries. I say they’re not going nearly far enough. How about giving back a big chunk of what they’ve been paid over the last twenty years, since it’s now apparent they did a piss-poor job at CEOing.

Startups can’t afford the luxury of incompetent, overpaid CEOs

In the startup world, we don’t have much money to pay CEOs. So we look for CEOs who are passionately committed to the success of our idea, our customers, and our company. We give them stock options, sure, but honestly, that’s not what we count on to motivate them. We count on them loving what they do enough to go the extra mile. And not in a private jet. In fact, founder-CEOs often put in their own money to fund the company and work for free until the company is proven viable.

So here’s my proposal…

I’m happy to have taxpayers bail out Detroit, but with a condition: we auction off the CEO jobs at Ford, Chrysler, and GM. The highest bidder gets the job. They receive a total compensation package equivalent to a shift supervisor at one of their plants. No stock, no options, and no bonuses. If they want better health insurance, for example, they pay for it themselves. Why would anyone take this job? Simple. It’s the chance of a lifetime to do something that almost no one in the world will ever have the chance to do: reshape an industry.

It’s pretty clear to me that the logic of “pay the CEO big money” isn’t getting competent, committed people into the position. It’s getting incompetent leeches whose main interest seems to be in feeling self-important while relieving the company of the burden of millions of dollars of vaule.

By having people ante up real money to take the position, we would quickly narrow the playing field to people who genuinely care, are excited by the opportunity, and who are being driven by the challenge or the love of the industry, not by personal greed. And remember, this isn’t the string bean industry, it’s the auto industry. There are many superbly successful businesspeople in the world who are passionate about cars as an industry. I’ll bet we would be surprised at the number of excellent candidates who stepped forth.

I’ve had enough with this absurd logic that says, “you can’t motivate people unless you pay them.” That’s bull pucky. It may be true for assembly line workers, because those jobs are mind-and-body-numbingly dehumanizing, but when it comes to C-suite jobs, I’ve met hundreds of people in those jobs whose motivations have everything to do with passion, challenge, creating, and doing a job well-done. Most of them are already rich enough that they don’t need to work, anyway.

In fact, even Warren Buffett acknowledges this. He points out that the CEOs of Berkshire Hathaway subsidiaries are extremely successful, already independently-wealthy people. They don’t need money and aren’t motivated by it. That’s why they do such a good job.

The least we can do is take Buffett’s example and get CEOs motivated by passion, superb skill, and challenge to turn around an industry that’s had none of the above for a long time.

Be Thankful; It’s All in Your Mind

Be Thankful; It’s All in Your Mind

(A Financial Tailspin sucks! Don’t compound it.)

We’re going through some … interesting … times, financially. People feel insecure, established institutions are in desperate need of bailout (funny how attractive socialism becomes when you’re the one who needs the handout) and the world economy seems to be teetering on the brink. Now’s a great time to realize: it’s all in our minds.

I mean this quite literally. Have you seen “Money as Debt?” It’s an excellent 47-minute video on where money comes from. It tells how our current system came to be. It highlights flaws in the system and offers some alternatives, all with a tasty dose of conspiracy theory thrown in here and there(*). You can watch the video here: https://www.steverrobbins.com/r/moneyasdebt

Money is literally nothing more than an idea. It’s a promise we make to deliver a good, a service, or more money at a later date. Why is Bill Gates a billionaire? Because the rest of us agree that he is. We also agree to give him our stuff if he gives us enough money. But it’s all an agreement. Because it’s an agreement, we take action on it, and it’s our actions that have real-world consequences.

“Don’t worry, be happy.”

Bobby McFerrin’s song, “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” is right on the money. At any given moment, you may or may not be able to control what’s actually happening around you. But you can always choose your attitude about it.

I was in a meeting earlier this year, discussing a key feature of entrepreneurship: the ability to see opportunity where others see problems. Just for jollies, I decided to try spending a week deliberately asking, “Where’s the opportunity here?” every time a problem cropped up. Every single time I asked the question, I was able to find an answer. Often, in mere seconds.

The housing bubble gave many time in an elevated lifestyle

Then I asked, “What’s the upside of the financial crisis?” You know, one answer is this: millions have had the chance to live far beyond their means for many years. While we don’t much care for the consequences, at least they got to enjoy a standard of living they couldn’t have otherwise afforded. I’m serious about this, by the way. Of course it’s natural to be upset when losing your job, your credit, your home, or your car. But being upset won’t change anything. It will just make you feel bad. You can also choose to feel thankful that you had those things to begin with.

Be a Thanksgiving Gratitude Geek

Are there problems in the financial world right now? Yup. And we can live through those problems giving all our attention to the downside or giving all our attention to the opportunities and the upside.

My suggestion to you: spend this Thanksgiving dwelling on the upside. Ask yourself, “what do I have to be thankful for?” and make a big long list. Help everyone around you do the same thing. They say what we need is more optimism in the economy. Optimism isn’t something “out there,” it’s one of the few things we have control over. So let’s exercise that control and see the glass as 10% full, not 90% empty. Because we can’t always change the outside reality, but we can certainly choose our inner reality.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving. Here are some of the things I’m thankful for:

  • Friends and community
  • Hot running showers
  • Democracy
  • My four-year-old iPod that still works great
  • The chance to teach high school students at an after-school program
  • Zipcar
  • My podcast
  • Friends and community

(*) I love conspiracy theories! I always like to remind myself that just because someone’s paranoid doesn’t mean the conspiracy doesn’t truly exist.