エピソード

  • The Great Social Media Quality Dilution

    The Great Social Media Quality Dilution
    2025/04/24
    Show Notes: •Quality diminishes as numbers increase. •As everyone joins in, fewer and fewer real authorities. •A guy doesn't publish directly, but is "presented" by others so you can't block his inanities. If you click on his site, there is a ridiculous training program hawked with absurd promises. He's a hustler. I block the people "presenting" him. •All those people with 17 "rules" for great leadership and charts for making decisions have never been a great leader or decision maker. If they were, why would they post this nonsense publicly. Can you see a leader with a chart or list in his pocket consulting it in the boardroom? •The there are the 'ad hominem' attacks, very popular on Facebook, where a person with an IQ 80 points lower than yours say simply, "That's a dumb question" or "You're clueless." •About 90% of the stuff that shows up on my X feed, which I don't want and never requested, is anti-Trump, often with ridiculous claim, false statistics, and posted by third parties but representing some random Democratic office holder. Have you ever considered that it's you and a terrible strategy and candidate, and not "them"? •Unscientific survey: Rabid Democrats are far more profane and obscene than Rabid Republicans. (I think profanity is the resort of the non-intellectual.) •There ARE some intellectual discussions on LinkedIn about politics, the environment, education, and so on. But they are usually interrupted and often ended by some wise ass who barges in with inanity. •One of my model train groups had to be ended because of political hostility (a train car had Trump written on the side). •There are also "cultists," for example with battleships of all things. •And then on Facebook, all the soft porn with usually Asian women in five-inch Laboutins and perfect legs. (Or so I'm told.)
    続きを読む 一部表示
    7 分
  • Panic

    Panic
    2025/04/17
    SHOW NOTES: The threshold of rational behavior and values overcome by opposing normative pressures. The rioter's justification. The battlefield. The social media and "influencers." People who have low self-esteem and seek bias confirmation and approval. Fear begets fear, panic begets panic. The "drug" of the "magic bullet." Handholds when you're confused—they may be even more dangerous. Example: Are you trading or investing? Example: Have you looked at best case/worse case? Example: Have you considered probability and seriousness? The case of the quite successful "big lady." What's the empirical evidence and observed behavior? A friend is a friend, not an expert. The three kinds of empathy.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    8 分
  • How to Make Sure You Lose Business

    How to Make Sure You Lose Business
    2025/04/04
    You can't deal with Hardly Relevant or Losing and Dying. You must be paid at least a deposit in advance. You must have "non-cancellable" under terms and conditions. You have to deal with a legitimate buyer. (I'm a buyer, I just don't have the budget.) The difference between budget and money. Don't argue over small matters and fall into the legal trap. Meet whomever is a stakeholder, especially in small businesses. Conceptual agreement ends with pouring concrete. Don't sacrifice and compromise personal issues. Don't give off "deal vibes". Always give options with value based fees. Always set DTA. Discuss outcomes not "deliverables". Create value with the buyer (that's how to increase fees). Never do a "pilot". Never do pro-bono for a for-profit. Never give a lower fee to sample your work. Do your homework. Act like a peer of the buyer.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    10 分
  • What's Wrong with Nonprofits

    What's Wrong with Nonprofits
    2025/03/29
    While it's true that nonprofits often fail for lack of funding, there are reasons that they don't achieve funding or that they use it incorrectly and/or inappropriately. Here's my experience from eight boards, including chairing two of them: The boards are weak. They are made up of "names" who would seem to be significant, but who provide very little in terms of governance skills, strategic viewpoint, or even attendance. The executive director/CEO remains too long. The "shelf life" of these leaders is about seven years. After that, they stop serving the institution and the institution starts serving them. They create a tyrannical "fiefdom." No skin in the game. There must be a "give or get" minimum financial contribution from the board. They can't just play with "other people's money," and many granting foundations insist on such investment as a must for grants. They are not run as businesses. There is a budget to meet, strategic goals to achieve, the mission to be accomplished. They often approve budgets with illusory revenue sources, for example. They aren't professionally run. Just because you're a "volunteer" doesn't mean you have an excuse to be unprofessional. You need to meet accountabilities, show up, and do your job. Donors are not sufficiently romanced. Donors need to be "triaged" so that the highest donors receive the most recognition. One theater, in a fit of "woke" madness, actually put donors in alphabetical order in their playbill, so that no one knew who gave $5 or $50,000. That's just dumb marketing. They exhaust funds and credit lines with no idea of how to repay. Debit kills the arts in particular. There's no room to take risks or to contract for expensive rights. Politics overwhelm the value. It was just pointed out that every member of the board of National Public Radio, accused of being far too liberal and unfair in its reporting, is a Democrat. That wasn't an accident, and they're using public tax money. They default to tactics on the board, not strategy. Instead of talking about what to create to attract more patrons or donors, they discuss what meal to serve at the next fundraiser. Every organization is a business. You need customers/clients/members/audience/contributors. You need leadership and board members who know how to run a business and meet goals and financial requirements. Oh yeah: And you need term limits to remain contemporary and effective.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    7 分
  • The Perils of Uncertainty

    The Perils of Uncertainty
    2025/03/21
    Uncertainty leads to poor choices. People seek certainty at the cost of their well-being. We have been "certain" about such horrors as eugenics and such trivialities as not swimming for an hour after eating. We've had brutal endings to cults, in Waco, in Jonestown, because conmen had convinced followers that they had certainty. We have polarization today because opposing politics or values cause adherent to be "certain" about their position and hold those who disagree as inferior. There are people taking invalid behavioral tests to dismiss others as having weak or defective profiles, and they are certain that they are superior to them. I remember when so many people had their feet burned trodding over hot coals that more EMTs had to be called. I guess their motivation wasn't sufficient—they were uncertain. BOTH science and religion try to create certainty around the mysteries of the universe, as if we could understand the unfathomable. (What do we mean there was "nothing" and then there was "something" which then "exploded"...??) In this age we need to live with and thrive on uncertainty. Solid companies such as GE suddenly crumble. Upsets in sports abound. We have gone from "global warming" to "climate change" to try to correct prior uncertainties. Can you be "certain" that your kids aren't using drugs or that your elected officials aren't stealing? I'm not calling for continual cynicism, but I am suggesting we have to live with uncertainty and be resilient and agile enough to deal with the failure of the "certain." These two astronauts who went to the space station for a week and nearly stayed for a lifetime are good examples of dealing with uncertainty. Of course, they have "the right stuff."
    続きを読む 一部表示
    4 分
  • Wealth Misplaced?

    Wealth Misplaced?
    2025/03/12
    I'm a capitalist. Socialism and the rest simply favor the few at the top, from Lenin to Hitler to Castro. Yet we do have too high a level of poverty. In the face of this we are paying athletes tens of millions a year and hundreds of millions in contracts. Connor McGregor makes $180 million annually, Lionel Messi $130 million. Juan Soto, a good hitting but poor fielding right fielder has signed a $765 million contract with the New York Mets, which is about $60 million a year, more than a million dollars a week, and that's not counting endorsements, commercials, and other extra-curricular activities. Entertainers make a fortune: Dwayne Johnson (the Rock) $88 million, Ryan Reynolds $100 million, Kevin Hart $100 million, Tom Cruise often $100 per picture. I don't doubt their talent, but I do question the proportions. I've never believed that if you build one less aircraft carrier you could improve every school. Government doesn't use "pockets" of money. But I do suspect that most athletes and entertainers, proportionally, do not contribute to charities or their communities in greater percentages than average. The same, of course, applies to business executives. Elon Musk (Tesla): His compensation reached $1.403 billion in 2023. Alexander Karp (Palantir Technologies): He earned $1.099 billion in 2023. Hock E. Tan (Broadcom): He received $767 million in 2023. Brian Armstrong (Coinbase Global): He earned $680 million in 2023. I understand that these people bring fans into the athletic venues, into theaters and streaming services, and produce products and services that are needed. But unless you've founded a company, as did Fred Smith with FedEx, Steve Jobs with Apple, or Bill Gates with Microsoft, do you deserve $500 million when someone could lead it well for $50 million (or even $5 million)? And then again, Harvard, of the huge tuition of about $60,000 per semester, also has an endowment of $53 billion. That is not an error or misprint. Perhaps it's unfair to "blame" these people in any way, and the system has created a vibrant middle class over the years. As many of you do, I pay a large amount in taxes and I am highly philanthropic. But what of money to create an equal and high quality educational system? Or to create equal and high quality medical care for all citizens? There is something wrong here. I believe that none of us has the right to consume wealth or happiness without producing wealth and happiness for others. That's not socialism, not capitalism, that's humanity.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    5 分
  • Who Is the Buyer, Anyway?

    Who Is the Buyer, Anyway?
    2025/03/02
    SHOW NOTES Let's stop using inaccurate terms, such as VITO (Very Important Top Officer) or "C-suite," which doesn't actually exist. Let's focus on real buyers. And that also calls for accuracy. A small business owner is a small business owner, not a CEO. That buyer has differing frames of reference and motivation from an executive in a large organization. Trust and credibility are reliant on understanding those distinctions. Titles are midleading. I've found a lot of vice presidents who can't buy, and a mid-level director who spent $250,000 with me every year for ten years. Budgets and money are two different things. A true buyer can move money from one budget to another, or create a new budget (especially important since a new client hasn't budgeted for you, someone the buyer didn't know prior, in advance). You need to convince the true buyer that moving money from an existing budget to you represents a far better ROI. If you can't do that, no one else is going to do it for you. No one is a buyer who doesn't control money with discretionary purchasing power. "I'm the buyer, but my boss has to approve," is absurd. Move on. The first sale is to yourself, the second to your client, the third for referrals, and the fourth to building that collection of income into an evergreen relationship. Always think of the fourth sale first.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    10 分
  • AMscams

    AMscams
    2025/02/24
    Usually found on AM radio, sometimes TV infomercials, sometimes online ads. They involve an "authority" you've never heard of and an interlocutor you've never heard of who's as eager as a puppy, e.g., "Media personality Joe Shmo." The issue is weight loss, erectile disfunction, leg pain, backaches, congestion, hearing impairment, of any other popular problem. There are "studies" and the suggested approach has been "clinically proved." There are eager customers who evangelize. On TV it says in small print either "hired actor" or "actual patient who is compensated for the appearance." The sidekick asks all the "deep" questions (How long have you been investigating this?)" and provides all the deep responses (wow, hooooo, impressive!). Then there are the strange warnings and advisories required by the laws: may cause permanent hearing loss, narcolepsy, kneecap fracture, suicidal tendencies, and urge to commit arson. Do not take if you are allergic to the dug (how would you know?), if you're on drugs in the form of an oval white pill, if you live above 2,000 meters, or have lost your driving privileges in Nebraska, consult your physician first. On TV there are paragraphs of small print on the screen for 3 seconds. These are present, surpassed only by the obnoxious and slimy personal injury lawyers' ads, which cause you to want to shower immediately after, at huge cost, usually in the hundreds of thousands, sometimes in the millions. That means there's a huge buying potential. People want the magic bullet over the hard work. I had a client who continually asked me how she could make millions and not leave her home. Yet as silly as that is, it's also what a thousand people on social media promise every day. What is the diabetes drugs which also promise everything from weight loss to hair growth, from virility enhancement to clearer skin, had a longer-term adverse consequence? - I know what you're thinking: They're tested, there are laws, others are using them, the media approves, even some medical authorities and intermittently supportive or at least passive about them. -That's what you may be thinking. You know what I'm thinking: The treatment for morning sickness and insomnia, two serious medical issues. The answer was approved and utilized for a decade. It was called Thalidomide. And today, we actually have an issue with measles because some parents won't vaccinate their kids against it. One thing medicine in any form can't do is fix "stupid."
    続きを読む 一部表示
    6 分