Are you stale? Is your business stale?
I was in a wonderful quaint gelato shop earlier this evening – Café Gelato. I enjoyed the chocolate and amaretto gelato, and I was amazed to see the clerk there (Sara) reading a copy of “Always On.” For those who haven’t read it, “Always On” is a slightly dated but very useful book that describes the impact of the internet on marketing and advertising, from a customer perspective. 
Always On” talks about looking at the customers viewpoint, listening to the voice of the customer, and it was fairly predictive, even though it is a few years old now. 
The book does NOT explain how the Old Spice guy could put about a hundred videos on YouTube, and DOUBLE sales of Old Spice products… But the book explained how that could be done, before Old Spice executed it. The book emphasized the importance of customer-focused advertising and marketing. That is absolutely essential.
So back to the question – Are you stale? You may never want to ask the question, “Are you stale?” It sounds like a negative question. Nobody wants their business to be stale, nobody wants to be seen as unchanging, static, or inflexible. Nobody wants to be wearing an five-year-old dusty suit or dress and nobody wants to give the appearance that they are caught in the 20th century. But what about your business? Is it stale?
You might not want to ask that question either – so try asking this: “Are you fresh enough?” Think about what that means. Are you new enough? Are you current? Are you fresh? Are you fluid? Are you flexible? Are you responsive? Most importantly, are you as fresh as you need to be to keep your current customers, and deepen your relationship with them? Are you as fresh as you need to be to get new customers? Ultimately, are you as fresh as your customers want you to be?
If it is important to be fresh, and important to not be stale, how would you measure it?
This is pretty easy. If you have never asked this question before… you are stale. If your website hasn’t changed in 6 months, you are stale. If you haven’t tweeted this month, you’re stale. If you’ve never put a video on YouTube, you are stale. If you are only now realizing that Facebook has gone from 53 million users to 500 million users in the last two years… you are stale.
If you put a new sign up at a brick-and-mortar business every three years, that might be frequent enough to keep it fresh. But the internet is always on. The news cycle is always on. Advertising and Marketing is always on. The great effect that has is that 
social media, internet and all of its tentacles are a living breathing thing that works for your business 24 hours a day, every day, every week. The not so great effect is that if your business’s online footprint is stale, your octopus might as well be wearing a five year old dress.
Is that an unattractive picture to paint?
Fixing it is up to you. Painting it is up to you. It is up to you to make your online marketing and advertising fresh. Make the decision to ensure that your online presence is always fresh. Keep it fresh. Be fresh. Your customers will know, your revenue, and your success will reflect that.
DO something about your online presence. Do it today.
September 4th, 2010
Posted by
admin |
Business, Competitive Advantage, Continuous Improvement, Marketing |
one comment
There is an important equation for the competition between Google and Facebook.
Google and Facebook are both enormous companies, both are Internet companies, and both are at their core, fueled by competitiveness and greed. Sure Google has that “Don’t be evil” philosophy that was their corporate value at one point. I think Google abandoned that when they joined Verizon in the destruction of net neutrality.
But that is not the issue here.
The issue is a string of Tombstones the people erect at Google’s feet, as if Facebook has vanquished it at something. These are ironic and irrelevant tombstones, and thoroughly inaccurate and deceptive. Adam Rifkin wrote a good one yesterday on ”Why Google has no Game.” His main point was that Google doesn’t really get social engagement. His underlying idea is that social engagement is a sort of be-all-end-all of internet value.
My initial reaction was that he was wrong. I read comments on his blog like this one: “if Facebook shut down today it would not impact on my life in any tangible way. However, if Google shut down, I’d be in deep trouble!” (attributed to Kullar)
I agree with that, and would take it a few steps further.
For me – I would miss neither, but by a narrow margin, I would miss Google more, and here’s why. Google does things with the Internet, on the Internet, to the Internet and for the Internet. Facebook wants to be its own “internet.” That strategy didn’t work for AOL. Facebook is inherently more profitable than AOL because Facebook tries to be its own “internet” without the costs that AOL had in creating its own content. But that is a moot comparison because AOL isn’t AOL anymore. A better question to ask is whether Facebook more profitable than Google. Is it? No. absolutely not and it is not even close.
Why is Google more profitable? Facebook screams “We have 500 million users.” but users don’t translate directly to profitability. Google is more profiable because it is just inherently more valuable. Why? Because Google has enormous data on what people DO, around what people WANT, and around what ultimately inspires people to ACT – essentially Google knows who, what, where, when and to some extent, why people want, what they want, what they do about it, and what causes or inspires them to act – across the entire scope of the Internet. (not just Facebook’s 500 million members – but the ENTIRE internet) Facebook only has data around what people SAY on Facebook. I think Google’s data is inherently more valuable, more relevant, and I think it will only sap their energy if they chase Facebook. I don’t see any benefit for them. Where is the profitability in chasing Facebook? Particularly when Facebook is a mastadon, big, plundering, and at some point, Facebook’s sub-glacial pace and lack of creativity and profitability will doom it to extinction. Google has all that data, and as the icing on their profitability cake, they really know how to monetize their data.
I think it is all about money. Follow the money, the revenue and profits. In that regard, Facebook is not really any competition for Google at all. People have been surprised by estimates that Facebook’s 2010 revenue could be as high as $1.2b. This is so surprising because Facebook’s 2009 revenue was estimated at $800m. ON that view, Facebook has increased income by 50% year to year. That seems great, but there are two critical issues with those numbers. One is that Facebook’s numbers are unaudited. It is a privately owned company, so there’s really no hard firm way to know if those revenue numbers are accurate. The second and more important problem with those numbers is that they are only stating REVENUE… not Profits, not Income.
How does that compare to Google? A quick glance at Google’s AUDITED and reported numbers shows that Google’s Q2 revenue was 6.8b – their revenue for 2009 was $23.6b
Google’s net income was >$6.5b in 2009. That is INCOME. Profit. That is actual money that they made. Here’s another interesting statistic.
Google’s Q1 and Q2 revenue last year was about $5.5b each quarter.
Google’s Q1 and Q2 revenue THIS year was about 6.8b each quarter.
To put this in another perspective -> Google’s QUARTERLY INCREASE in revenue this year over last year is about $1.3b. To emphasize, that is the INCREASE PER QUARTER, and it exceeds Facebook’s annual revenue estimates.
Google is chugging along at a roughly 28% profit rate. Again, since Facebook is privately owned, nobody really knows if Facebook has ANY profit, or what their profit rate might be.
So – what is the Google vs Facebook equation? $ = G > F. It is that simple.
August 26th, 2010
Posted by
admin |
Business, Competitive Advantage, Technology |
no comments
I read an interesting article at Computerworld this morning: “Ready for 2020? Advice for every career stage.“
It discussed the differences between different ages of technology worker, and the different interests and abilities. I thought the article had an interesting conclusion: that different workers had different challenges to face. It went on and on about how recent graduates don’t have experience and certifications, and how cell phones are more important, etc. That is obvious. Another article I read recently in Think Big Be Big showed that mobile DATA traffic exceeded cell phone PHONE/VOICE transmission traffic every month in 2009.
It is a wired world and I recognize the differences in the newest texting generation, but I completely disagree with the conclusion of the article.
Since I started working with technology around 1982, there has been a constant drumbeat of change. Every piece of technology impacts business. Someone needs to communicate it. It changes constantly. The points where technology creates advantages moves instantly and frequently. Those change elements are constant.
The offshoot is that technology professionals have to keep a relevant skillset, develop skills for whatever is coming next, understand when, where, why and how “their” technology provides value, and understand how to communicate all of that. That means that with a common set of skills, technology professionals can be unemployment proof. These skills are the ones that provide value no matter what the flavor of the month is.
Here are 7 skills that will help unemployment-proof a technology professional:
1) A love of learning and willingness to learn.
2) An understanding of the impact that technology and business have on each other.
3) A willing acceptance of change in all its forms.
4) An ability to communicate and translate business and technology.
5) A professional willingness to do what needs to be done, when it needs to be done.
6) An ability to demonstrate and showcase your skills.
7) An ability to learn from mistakes and use that learning to prevent new ones.
If you have these, your personal professional competitive advantage will ensure you are constantly employable and constantly employed. I’m not saying that a short sighted company won’t downsize you. I’m just making the point that with this skillset, you will have other companies ready and eager to onboard you if that happens. You will provide value across the technology and business spectrum. That’s a formula for unemployment proofing.
Can you think of other things? Do you disagree? Let me know
August 23rd, 2010
Posted by
admin |
Business, Competitive Advantage, People, Technology |
no comments
I’m a fan of Bob Parson’s charisma and his videos. I think they explain powerful, simple, intelligent ways to improve business, to succeed, and I like it that he gives advice to anyone who wants it, whenever and wherever they are willing to listen. He is also a former Marine, an 0311, I suspect – and I respect his service.
You may not know Bob Parsons, but you know his company. Bob runs GoDaddy.com. You’ve probably heard of them, seen their Superbowl advertisements, and their spokespeople. You might not know that he was also behind Parsons Technology - Bought by Intuit for $64 million in 1994.
In short, he is a proven entrepreneur.
In his video blog Episode #36, “FOUR FACTS YOU MUST KNOW (if you’re going to sell anything)” he lays out 4 secrets for creating the sorts of enormous successes he is used to building. He lays out these success secrets, but he could also explain the dark side of his secrets. they are …
FOUR FACTS YOU MUST KNOW (to make your business fail) His secrets lead directly to 4 things NOT to do.
His FOUR FACTS, paraphrased, are:
1) A business cannot succeed by being exactly like its competitors.
2)People resist changing buying patterns.
3) To succeed, Give customers compelling reasons to change their buying habits.
4)Being better is not enough, you must let your customers know that you are better.
So – these are each great ideas. I do not disagree with any of them. I think it is important to also highlight the dark side.
1a) If you are exactly like your competition, and nothing good separates you from your competition, why should anyone use your products or services?
2a) Help your customers make you their habit.
3a)DO NOT give them compelling reasons to change their buying habits once they are a loyal customer. Do not give them compelling reasons to pick someone else if they are a prospective customer.
4a) If you don’t tell your prospective and current customers why you are better, they will never know, and they will not become or stay customers of YOURS.
What do you think? Are there other business maxims that mean more when you consider their polar opposites? Why? How can you use them to help you with YOUR success?
August 16th, 2010
Posted by
admin |
Business, Competitive Advantage, Continuous Improvement |
no comments
If you are working for someone else, anyone other than yourself, your job is temporary. It may last 30 years, but it is temporary because you are working for someone else. You may lose your job. You would need a functional crystal ball or a time machine to know when your job might end.
Given this challenging economy, and the fear that comes from having a temp job in a difficult time, you may ask yourself, what can you do? This is a complex question because it is really several questions:
- What can you do to keep your current job?
- What can you do to get your next job?
- What can you do to get a new job at your current employer?
- What can you do to have the most job security?
I don’t like asking questions without answers, so here are some answers to these 4 questions. Here are my 4 brief solutions:
What can you do to keep your current job? You can be so valuable that you your employer cannot do without you. You can become the best known, the best educated, the best qualified for your job, and as long as you are not the CEO of your company, you can become trained, certified, educated and experienced at doing your boss’ job, your co-workers’ jobs. But there is more to it than that. You need to help your managers and executives KNOW that you are the most well qualified, the smartest, the most creative, in short, you need to make sure that the people responsible for hiring and firing YOU, know that you are the very best at everything that you are the best at.
What can you do to get your next job? First, figure out what and where your next job will be. Figure out what you want to do, and who you want to work for. Find out what that person or company needs, and figure out what YOU can do to contribute to their success. When you are looking for a job, it is NOT about you, it is about what you can do for someone else. Know what that company needs and be the person who can do what is needed.
Hired!
What can you do to get a new job at your current employer? Here is an important thing to remember. The company that you already work for is likely to be the best place to find a new job. There are two great reasons for this. The first is that they know you. They know your performance. They know your skills, your abilities. They don’t have to figure out anything about hiring a new employee, adding a new person to their payroll, onboarding a new person. The second reason is that for you to get a job at a new employer, your package of knowledge, skills and abilities have to be so overwhelmingly positive that you are worth the risk. Look where you are at, talk to people. Find your opportunity!
Which brings us to my 4th solution.
What can you do to have the most job security? The answer to this question is simple. Work for the one person in the world who would NEVER fire you. WORK for YOURSELF. Find a passion, develop your abilities, learn something unique and valuable, start your own company. Provide something new, something great, something unique, something creative. Figure out what gives you your own unique and personal professional competitive advantage, and figure out a way to profit from it. Charge what you are happy receiving, work at what you are proud of and carve your own niche, whether it is microscopic, or enormous.
If you know what you CAN do – your next question is, what SHOULD you do? That is an answer for another day.
July 29th, 2010
Posted by
admin |
Business, Competitive Advantage, Life, Marketing, People |
no comments
Fortune Magazine interviewed Jeff Bezos recently in Seattle. He drew a difference between Kindle and the iPad – “I think there are going to be a bunch of tablet-like devices, its really a different product category. The Kindle is for readers”
“Amazon accounted for about 80% of all electronic book sales last year” Amazon reported a profit of $299 million last quarter, and electronic book sales are a huge component of that. Amazon has about 600,000 books available, and sells, on average, about 24 eBooks per year, per Kindle. I understand the Kindle. (I may understand it better than investors, who have lowered Amazon’s stock since the recent Kindle price cut.) Amazon’s profit from the Kindle works like Gillette’s profit from selling its latest razors. The razors don’t matter. Sure, Gillette makes money from the latest, but the blades are the real source of profit. That article suggests it, but it is easier to understand when you realize the math behind 24 ebooks per Kindle, per year. Apple hasn’t released numbers for their iPad, but the iPad isn’t limited to books. It can download apps, music, books, and every other “blade” that Apple can make available to it.
So – back to the Ipad. 
From a technology perspective, from a capabilities perspective and from every other perspective, it is crystal clear that there is nothing unique, revolutionary or special about the iPad. I didn’t understand why Apple would build it or why users would buy it. It made no sense to me. The market slice is between Kindle, Nook, Droid, iPhone, Netbooks and PCs is razor thin. Why build and position a device between them?
Yet, for some reason, iPads sell, amazingly. Why? I’ve tried to make sense of the iPad. I’ve tried to figure out why and failed repeatedly. Is it the existing user base? Certainly that has a lot to do with it, but if you already have an iPod touch, an iPhone, an iPod, and an Apple Mac, do you really need an iPad? Conversely, if you have an app, or a song and it is already in the iStore, do you need to sell to the same user-base that’s already bought it? When you’ve seen Microsoft’s Origami succeed at nothing and it was essentially the iPad minus Apple’s marketing, when you’ve seen Dell and HP fail to sell touchpad computers in any real volume, and when you already have iPod, iPod touch, and iPhone – why put the money into development of an upsized iPod touch-like “me-too” device.
I’ve found the answer in a most unlikely place. I was amazed when it finally clicked. I was reading Eddie Alterman’s editorial in the July 2010 Car and Driver magazine. I thought it was such an odd place for digital and technology enlightenment. Shoot, it was in the PRINT version, and I couldn’t find a link anywhere to a web-version. The interesting thing were his thoughts about the iPad. He sees the iPad as the cutting edge slicing the distinctions between print and digital media. The iPad is a “convergence of print and digital values (that) will give writers, editors and art directors all kinds of opportunities to deliver more engaging, more entertaining and more useful stuff.”
The iPad is an animal that eats brand new kibble. Media wants to feed it. Media wants it to succeed. For every small-town or mid-market newspaper that has canned its entire local news group. iPad might be an answer for all the people who want media in the 21st century to find a way to be profitable. Eddie suggested how this one device acts as a shining star lighting up a dark sky – beating back the gloomy futures that writers feared. Creators of content and consumers of content can converge at the iPad. In that place it makes enormous $ense. For media that wants to feed the iPad in a quasi-desperate sort of staving off extinction gasp, iPads, Nooks and Kindle’s are magical. Still – does the iPad make sense for Apple?
Of course, and it goes way beyond Amazon’s philosophy for the Kindle. Look at it this way: If you could sell 3 million razors in the first 80 days - you might not need to sell any blades at all. At this point, I could buy a fair netbook for $300, a kindle for $169, and have two devices instead of an iPad. Those two devices would enable me to read anything, go wireless, Skype, run a bunch of programs, and generally do a dozen times what the iPad does. So, in those terms, the iPad makes no sense. Somehow, Apple sells millions of “that which makes no sense.” That makes enormous financial sense for Apple. iPad = $$$$$.
Do they truly have no competition able to compete with their marketing prowess and consumer evangelism?? Why not? What do you think the next Apple media-consumption device will be?
June 29th, 2010
Posted by
admin |
Business, Competitive Advantage, Marketing |
no comments
Mark Richtel has a great article in The New York Times today about “Your Brain On Computers.” In Mark’s article, and in another by Christine Lagorio on Inc Magazine, the following scenario is described:
Someone wanted to buy Kord Campbell’s startup for $1.3 million dollars. They sent him an email. He didn’t see the email for 12 days, and only saw it when he was sifting through old messages.
Most of both articles describe the kind of constant attention deficit disorder inducing characteristics of technology. They describe email, chats, web browsing and an “electronic flood.” Kord’s electronic flood is pictured here. My personal own electronic flood that looks like this:
The thing is – EVERYONE has an electronic flood. In view of that fact, losing a million dollar email… is silly.
To clarify – It is NOT silly to lose an email. I get hundreds of emails daily; I have filters that delete many of them before I ever see them and I assume MOST people have filters and volume attached to their own personal floods. What I want to more clearly say is that it is silly to begin a million dollar deal with just an email. Email has lots of great characteristics, but it doesn’t generally have any verifiable receipt. I’m not talking about doing the return receipt requested. When you fire off an email and send a message, there is really not an adequate way to know that the person you sent it to has actually gotten it. If they do get it, you really have no way to know when they got it.
Given the electronic flood that everyone now lives with: Anyone who wants to do a million dollar deal should send a paper copy, a fax, make a phone call, send a text AND follow up with a phone call and/or a face-to-face meeting. (via Skype or whatever, if there are geographical considerations) This would be a great idea for deals done via fax, mail, phone, text message, instant messenging, tweet, Facebook, or any other type of other new or old media.
Newer electronic forms of communication are tremendously convenient, but as the saying goes, there’s no substitute for being there. If the offer is that valuable, then it merits sending in multiple communication formats – and at least one of the types of communication used really ought to be a bit traditional.
When you reach out and touch someone with a valuable message, even if it is not a million dollar offer, you have a responsibility to be certain they get the offer that you sent. If a message is valuable, spend the time to make sure it gets to the intended recipient with the intended information. Put time, effort and yourself into your communication. When a message is likely to be valuable, use a shotgun approach. Send multiple formats to ensure that your million dollar offer survives the electronic flood and then like the multiple pellets in a shotgun shell, you will have a greater chance of hitting your target.
Nobody wants to miss or lose a million dollar offer.
June 7th, 2010
Posted by
admin |
Business |
no comments
Mark Cuban is a billionaire, and is also a big fan of Reed Hastings. I am a very big fan too,
– because Reed has a strategy for competitive advantage that cannot be duplicated or beaten by any inauthentic company. Reed’s strategy is here, and also on SlideShare.
Mark points out one key element of Netflix success is that ”almost no customers leave cable for Netflix” That is important because it means that subscribers value Netflix in addition to cable. But why not? The most important competitive advantage that gets to the heart of “why.” The complete question – to be articulate – is WHY do customers value Netflix, and why will they continue to value Netflix?
Reed reveals that on slide 21 with a simple yet effective philosophy. His philosophy is to provide the best customer service. He stakes Netflix’ success on the ability to be a service of choice, to perform with and deliver to Netflix’ customers, to lead customer satisfaction across all of his current and potential competitors. He understands the amazing depth of competition coming at him from all directions. He understands where his business is going. He thinks that having the best customer service will be his singular competitive advantage.
Even if other companies never get the value of superior customer service, it would be to everyone’s advantage if they would try. It worked for Zappos, it is working for Netflix. I guess the real question is why WON’T other companies try harder?
In this presentation, Reed gives a great overview Netflix’ history of customer service leadership, and their go-forward strategy for “running fast” as he puts it. For Netflix, running fast is a race to provide the best customer service. They win when their customers win.
I like that and admire pretty much every business that uses innovation and superior customer service as a competitive advantage. Unfortunately, I suspect the effectiveness of superior customer service as a competitive advantage is only valuable because it is so rare.
How could that be changed?
June 4th, 2010
Posted by
admin |
Business, Competitive Advantage, Continuous Improvement |
no comments
Perhaps I should have said that Privacy Dies When Surrendered.
I think it is important to point out that when it is surrendered, Privacy dies. It evaporates. It withers. And privacy is essential. 
Shamable posted an interesting thought – on “Why Foursquare Will Trump Twitter.” Although they have a written an interesting article that explains what Foursquare does, and why it is useful, they are absolutely wrong. The problem with Shamable’s argument is that four-square is one more step down a slippery slope of privacy’s death. Since Privacy is essential to SO many people, Shamable isn’t right. How do we get from Foursquare to the death of Privacy?
There is a continuum between applications and the way they are used:
- Twitter= What are you doing?
- Foursquare = Where are you?
It isn’t going to be long until there are other killer apps that answer:
- What are you spending on?
- What do you want? (enough that you’re willing to spend for it)
- What do you have?
- “What do you hate?” (which may already be encompassed by Yelp)
- “What will you lie about – or – what have you lied about?”
- “What will you cheat on – or what have you cheated on?”
Microsoft probably missed an opportunity when they didn’t build “Where do you want to go” years ago when they used that phrase as their slogan.
So – here’s my point. Telling people… telling EVERYONE where you are, what you want, where you are going, what you want, and where you want to go… is like Orwell upside down.
There is no need for 1984 big-brother type government apparatus in a world where everyone abandons, surrenders and advertises the elements of their lives which they optionally could keep private. It would get VERY difficult for the Secret Service to meet their primary responsibilities if the President started using Foursquare on his blackberry. Imagine seeing things like this on Twitter:
BarackObama: I’m leaving the White House on Marine 1 headed to Andrews AFP on @foursquare!
BarackObama: I’m new Mayor of Washington D.C. “5-Guys” on @foursquare!
If it is so obvious why there are privacy issues for a public figure, why does everyone else want to advertise what they’re doing? When there are enormous downsides to giving up our publicity – aptly displayed by sites like “PleaseRobMe.com” explained in this Denver Post article. I was amazed to read that one of the people who’s information was shared on “PleaseRobMe” was interviewed and said that
“the power of wanting to share where you’re at and what you’re experiencing at the time is going to trump most people’s wariness.”
HUH? He is saying that people WANT to surrender privacy. People WANT to? Really? Why is that? Well, it is because sharing where you REALLY are, is real. I’m a big fan of Jesse Schell. He points out two important factors in his presentation:
1) Life is becoming very much LIKE a game and perhaps, life IS becoming a game
2) Because of everything simulated in our lives, authenticity has enormous value.
We have to be careful about surrendering privacy because surrendering privacy is surrendering liberty. Bruce Schneier explained it in one of my favorite articles in Wired a few years ago. He wrote in a simpler time, in a Pre-twitter, pre-Foursquare world. What he wrote is more applicable every day:
“The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy.”
Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. When we surrender our own privacy, it dies. When privacy dies, Liberty may not be far behind. I’m not going into a future-courtroom where foursquare provides an alibi, or destroys one. The agents who killed Mahmoud al-Mabhouh – the Hamas operative, Assassination Tango would NEVER have checked in. Just imagine: @Gail arrives in Dubai on flight AF526 on @foursquare!
My argument is that Foursquare is not going to “trump twitter” as Shamable suggests. Both are components of privacy’s self-inflicted death. But people are not going to give up their privacy when they realize the enormous value of what they are surrendering. Privacy is a fundamental right. If you look at the Orwellian nightmare where War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength, foursquare is an example of… Privacy is Public. But it isn’t. It really isnt.
March 1st, 2010
Posted by
admin |
Life |
no comments
I was reading Kyle Lacy’s guest post in Dan Schawbel’s Personal Branding Blog this morning. In it, Kyle talks about reading Seth Godin’s blog post: “Sing It”. That feels like a horribly derivative place to begin. But neither Kyle nor Seth focuses on the right kind of Passion.
Passion is essential and it is elemental. Passion comes through crystal clear in writing and in life. Passion pushes words out like the Old Faithful geyser – prolifically, frequently and most of the time it pushes them in the same
direction, with great forceful power. Passion is fire below the geyser. Without passion, writing becomes a slow dripping faucet, simply irritating listeners, creating nothing but distraction. That provides zero appeal for the writer, and translates to zero appeal for readers. Without passion, ANYTHING you do will work in sort of the same way. Think about that. Without passion, you are just going through motions that you don’t even care about.
Passion is essential, necessary and sufficient. It cannot be simulated or faked and like Tom Cruise said about Porsche in “Risky Business”, there is no substitute. Kyle writes in his blog post, “Devote time and energy to the process and you will experience return.” That is wrong because it misses the point. I think it is important to:
Find a process that inspires you so that time and energy flow out with passion. Find a subject that stokes the creative fires under your personal geyser until the pressure forces your ideas out – repeatedly, powerfully and prolifically.
February 18th, 2010
Posted by
admin |
Business, Competitive Advantage, Continuous Improvement, Life |
no comments
