In the many years I have been in sales I have often heard that "those old sales techniques don't work anymore with today's buyers." I heard that in the 70s, I heard it in the 80's, the 90's, the new Millennium, and today. It reminds me of the comments that "In our area," "In our market," that doesn't work. These are the two most consistent things I have heard for the last thirty five years. My answer has been and is, Practices Change Principle Never Do.
The principles of people skills stay fast no matter the practices that technology and social mores dictate. In my own career I have seen the beginning of the use of car phones, voice mail, faxes, pagers, email, text, instant messaging, and the explosion of social media. Each of these new "conveniences" seem to add hours to my day as I practice the principle of communicating with clients in their favorite method.
The argument that people have changed always makes me think of the story of Moses. This story will show you that people haven't fundamentally changed in centuries, it matters not where they were born.
Moses was out watching his flock when he saw a fire on the hillside. Being a good steward of his flock he had to go check it out before it spread and burned up his pasture. When he got there it was a single bush that was burning. He stayed to see if it would burn out when it consumed the bush of if it started to spread and he would need to put it out. It kept burning for the longest time, it didn't consume the bush, and it didn't spread, after a while he started wondering what kind of deal was this anyway. Keep in mind Moses was a busy guy, he had the flock of sheep and goats, he was married, had kids, had a father in law he was working for, he didn't have time to sit and watch a bush burn forever. Finally he asked "God is that you?" God answered "Yes, thanks for coming Moses, I had something I wanted to talk to you about so I used this bush to get your attention." (excuse the paraphrasing)
Moses, asked God, "Haven't you heard the cries of the Israelites, haven't you seen their suffering enslaved to the Egyptians?" "Why don't you do something about it God?" God answered, "I am doing something about it, I am sending you." That is when Moses panicked and starting making excuses. "But God, I can't do it, I am so busy right now, I have my father in law busting my backside taking care of the flocks, my wife has a Honey Do list that never ends. The kids are on traveling teams, call me again after the holidays and we can see if things lighten up. Just burn another bush or something then we can talk." God paid no attention to his "I'm Busy" excuse and kept closing on Moses going to Egypt and leading his people out of bondage. So Moses came up with his next excuse, "But God, I don't have any credibility there, I left there in the middle of the night to avoid being charged with murder, you need someone who has solid contacts there." God's answer to Moses, "Don't worry about your credibility, use mine, just say 'God Sent Me!" Finally Moses tried his final excuse, "God, if you think I can get up in front of people and give speeches you are out of your mind." Actually the scripture said, Moses said to the LORD, "O Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue." God finally got frustrated and told him to just take your brother Aaron so he can talk for you.
You can see that Moses wasn't the same as Charleston Heston played him, he was a man who had fears, had excuses, had a low self-image, yet God used him to change the world. Did you recognize those excuses? If you tried to recruit someone to do a big project today you would hear, "I don't have time," "I don't know the right people," and "I am not comfortable speaking to groups." People haven't changed, not at a real personal level.
When I was 19 years old I was at a convention where Zig Ziglar was speaking. He changed my life that day with a comment that shook me to my core. Zig said that "if you are an outstanding salesperson you can manipulate people into almost anything." I was thinking darn right, that is how I got through school. Then he hit me between the eyes with, "If you are very good at sales you should never ever do that."
He then explained the difference between manipulation and motivation. They may actually involve the exact same set of people skills, but the difference is in your heart. If you are moving people to a decision for your own best interest and not theirs, that is manipulation. If however, you are moving people to a decision for their best interest that is motivation. Zig's signature saying of "If you help enough people get what they want, you will get what you want," is the natural outcropping of that.
The people skills and sales training I gained from reading Frank Bettger who wrote his book in the 1920s, or Dale Carnegie, Napoleon Hill, and more of the greats who shoulders and industry has stood for decades are just as relevant today as at any time. The principles they taught have never changed, in fact the best sales training book ever written was the book of Proverbs. I challenge anyone to read a chapter of Proverbs every day for a year, there are 31 chapters so you read them almost every month. I promise you it will change your business and your life. The basic principles are found in those, it is the practices we have to adjust to. The key is learning out to change practices without losing the core principles passed down through the ages.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Should We Reward or Punish Our Companies?
Parents when you are raising your children have you noticed that if you punish a behavior you do so to get less of that behavior, and conversely if you want to encourage the behavior you reward it? Do you think that by reversing the action and punishing the behavior it would lead to an increase? It seems that the Obama Administration does.
One of the onerous taxes in the Obamacare legislation is an increased excise tax of 2.3% on medical devices to help pay for Obamacare. Companies like The Cook Group of Bloomington, IN are quite concerned about the impact it will have on their bottom line and business. The Cook Group President, Ken Hawkins, estimates that the tax will slice $17 million from its yearly revenues starting in 2013. This has already caused Cook to stop cut back its U.S. spending now. Except for one Canton, Illinois, plant that Cook has committed to build in the home town of its founder, Bill Cook, "I've had to put all other small manufacturing plant plans are on hold as a result of this tax." Hawkins said. "It's the wrong kind of tax at the wrong time, on the wrong industry, and I think for the wrong reasons."
The device industry fought and won a reduction of the increased tax from 4.6% to 2.3% on everything from knee implants, heart stints, slings, walkers, hearing aids and more. A new industry sponsored study done by the Hudson Institute sponsored by AdvaMed, concludes that even the reduced rate will damage the industry as if it had a mild stroke. The study projects that the tax will nearly double the corporate tax rate on the medical device industry, causing it to shift 10% of its production to low tax offshore sites and shrink its U.S. employment by 11% or 45,700 workers.
The conclusion of a liberal think tank Families USA president, Kathleen Stoll, believes that most medical device companies should be able to offset the taxed-away revenues by reducing profits, CEO salaries, and shareholder returns. I wonder if she ever studied a single business class.
One of the largest U.S. device manufacturers, Boston Scientific Corp., said it would eliminate up to 1,400 jobs in the next two years and hire 1,000 new workers in China. Ray Elliott, CEO of Boston Scientific said it "discourages job creation, investment, and economic growth by limiting available R&D funds." Cook;s Hawkins said companies, such as his, will drop, or not develop, products with less profit potential. Today Cook stocks 15,000 different products, and many are marginally profitable. If new taxes cut incomes to the innovation-oriented device business he said "Those kind of niche products are going to never be done. And no one would ever know what products we never invent."
Wouldn't it make more sense to cut taxes to U.S.Companies, one of the highest corporate taxed countries in the world today, rather than punishing them? Who pays for these taxes? Each and every one of us. Through increased product cost, through lost jobs, lost revenue from those lost employees, and through lower standards of living without the miracle engine of innovation and discovery stripped by punishing those innovators. If we want to start standing in lines like Old Moscow for whatever the state produced that week, this is a step in that direction.
One of the onerous taxes in the Obamacare legislation is an increased excise tax of 2.3% on medical devices to help pay for Obamacare. Companies like The Cook Group of Bloomington, IN are quite concerned about the impact it will have on their bottom line and business. The Cook Group President, Ken Hawkins, estimates that the tax will slice $17 million from its yearly revenues starting in 2013. This has already caused Cook to stop cut back its U.S. spending now. Except for one Canton, Illinois, plant that Cook has committed to build in the home town of its founder, Bill Cook, "I've had to put all other small manufacturing plant plans are on hold as a result of this tax." Hawkins said. "It's the wrong kind of tax at the wrong time, on the wrong industry, and I think for the wrong reasons."
The device industry fought and won a reduction of the increased tax from 4.6% to 2.3% on everything from knee implants, heart stints, slings, walkers, hearing aids and more. A new industry sponsored study done by the Hudson Institute sponsored by AdvaMed, concludes that even the reduced rate will damage the industry as if it had a mild stroke. The study projects that the tax will nearly double the corporate tax rate on the medical device industry, causing it to shift 10% of its production to low tax offshore sites and shrink its U.S. employment by 11% or 45,700 workers.
The conclusion of a liberal think tank Families USA president, Kathleen Stoll, believes that most medical device companies should be able to offset the taxed-away revenues by reducing profits, CEO salaries, and shareholder returns. I wonder if she ever studied a single business class.
One of the largest U.S. device manufacturers, Boston Scientific Corp., said it would eliminate up to 1,400 jobs in the next two years and hire 1,000 new workers in China. Ray Elliott, CEO of Boston Scientific said it "discourages job creation, investment, and economic growth by limiting available R&D funds." Cook;s Hawkins said companies, such as his, will drop, or not develop, products with less profit potential. Today Cook stocks 15,000 different products, and many are marginally profitable. If new taxes cut incomes to the innovation-oriented device business he said "Those kind of niche products are going to never be done. And no one would ever know what products we never invent."
Wouldn't it make more sense to cut taxes to U.S.Companies, one of the highest corporate taxed countries in the world today, rather than punishing them? Who pays for these taxes? Each and every one of us. Through increased product cost, through lost jobs, lost revenue from those lost employees, and through lower standards of living without the miracle engine of innovation and discovery stripped by punishing those innovators. If we want to start standing in lines like Old Moscow for whatever the state produced that week, this is a step in that direction.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Separation of Church and State.
Where or where is that famous phrase we all know by heart "Separation of Church and State" found in our founding documents? Surely it is in the Constitution, within the Bill of Rights, isn't it? We are told it is in the 1st Amendment, is it really there?
1st Amendment
"Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibit the free exercise there of."
It never says anything about separation of church and state.
Just where did the "separation of church and state" begin? How did it become
part of our national vernacular?
In 1801 the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury Connecticut heard a
rumor that the Congregational Denomination was about to be made the National
Denomination and it worried them greatly. It was only a rumor, but they
wrote to brand new President, Thomas Jefferson. He wrote them back on
January 1st 1802 and said:
"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and
State. They need not fear a National Denomination."
We never hear Jefferson's words in context or intent anymore. Here is that letter, you can see it for yourself in the Jefferson room upstairs in the Library of Congress.
Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
Then how did we come to believe it is in the Constitution?
In 1958 the Supreme Court discussed their interpretation of the Separation of Church and State.
1958 Baer v Kolmorger
"Continuing to talk about the separation of church and state will make
people think that it was part of the Constitution."
This constant refrain has caused us to add it to our National vernacular.
Consider the warning of Dr. William James;
"There is nothing so absurd but that you repeat it often enough people will
believe it true."
Today, if you ask most Americans if Separation of Church and State is in our Constitution, and I will bet you that 90% will say that it is. It is not now, nor has it ever been. The only place it was ever mentioned was in that private letter to the Danbury Baptists telling them that the State would never force them to follow a national prescribed religious sect.
The facts are there is no Constitutional mandate for a separation of church and state. There is a mandate to protect the church from being imposed on by the State. There is a mandate to protect people of faith from being oppressed in any forum private or public by the State.
1st Amendment
"Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibit the free exercise there of."
It never says anything about separation of church and state.
Just where did the "separation of church and state" begin? How did it become
part of our national vernacular?
In 1801 the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury Connecticut heard a
rumor that the Congregational Denomination was about to be made the National
Denomination and it worried them greatly. It was only a rumor, but they
wrote to brand new President, Thomas Jefferson. He wrote them back on
January 1st 1802 and said:
"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and
State. They need not fear a National Denomination."
We never hear Jefferson's words in context or intent anymore. Here is that letter, you can see it for yourself in the Jefferson room upstairs in the Library of Congress.
Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
Then how did we come to believe it is in the Constitution?
In 1958 the Supreme Court discussed their interpretation of the Separation of Church and State.
1958 Baer v Kolmorger
"Continuing to talk about the separation of church and state will make
people think that it was part of the Constitution."
This constant refrain has caused us to add it to our National vernacular.
Consider the warning of Dr. William James;
"There is nothing so absurd but that you repeat it often enough people will
believe it true."
Today, if you ask most Americans if Separation of Church and State is in our Constitution, and I will bet you that 90% will say that it is. It is not now, nor has it ever been. The only place it was ever mentioned was in that private letter to the Danbury Baptists telling them that the State would never force them to follow a national prescribed religious sect.
The facts are there is no Constitutional mandate for a separation of church and state. There is a mandate to protect the church from being imposed on by the State. There is a mandate to protect people of faith from being oppressed in any forum private or public by the State.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
The Cost Of Leadership
In our world today we see so many so called leaders in business and politics who are all about themselves, their own benefits, their own rewards, their own egos. It makes it hard for people to understand that what they are showing is the antithesis of leadership. True leadership is built on sacrifice.
Sacrifice is a constant in leadership. It is an ongoing process, not a one-time payment. Many times the cost of moving forward in leadership is often financial, there is usually a temporary step back in income when you take on a new challenge of leadership. If you do your job right the finances will come, never hesitate to make a sacrifice when you know the step is right.
Leaders who want to rise have to do more than take an occasional cut in pay. They have to give up their rights. When you become a leader, you lose the right to think for yourself. Dexter Yager says "If you have a decision to make, you can never go wrong choosing the option that is best for your people over what is best for you personally." For every person, the nature of the sacrifice may be different. For example, Lee Iaccoca's sacrifice came late in his career to save Chrysler. Former South African president F. W. de Klerk, who worked to dismantle apartheid in his country sacrificing his own career. The circumstances change from person to person, but the principle doesn't. Leadership means sacrifice.
Leaders give up to go up. That is true of every leader regardless of profession. Talk to any leader, and you will find that he has made repeated sacrifices. Usually the higher that leader has climbed, the greater the sacrifices he or she has made. Effective leaders sacrifice much that is good to dedicate themselves to what is best. Robert Palmer said in and interview, "In my model of management, there is very little wiggle room. If you want a management job, they you have to accept the responsibility and accountability that goes with it." He is really talking not about management but the cost of leadership.
If leaders have to give up to go up, then they have to give up even more to stay up. Have you ever considered how infrequently teams have back-to-back champion seasons? The reason is simple: If a leader can take a team to the championship game and win it, he often assumes he can duplicate the results the next year without making changes. He becomes reluctant to make additional sacrifices in the off-season. But what gets a team to the top isn't what keeps it there. The only way to stay up is give up even more. Leadership success requires continual change, improvement, and sacrifice. "For everything you have missed, you have gained something else; and for everything you gain, you lose something." Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Sacrifice is the rule of leadership, yet nothing is more rewarding that leadership. Helping others follow a vision, helping them realize more than they ever could have dreamed of without your leadership is priceless. Of course leadership is rewarding financially in the end, it isn't what you get out of it, it is about who you become.
It's too bad so many of our leaders in name or title only have it all backwards.
Sacrifice is a constant in leadership. It is an ongoing process, not a one-time payment. Many times the cost of moving forward in leadership is often financial, there is usually a temporary step back in income when you take on a new challenge of leadership. If you do your job right the finances will come, never hesitate to make a sacrifice when you know the step is right.
Leaders who want to rise have to do more than take an occasional cut in pay. They have to give up their rights. When you become a leader, you lose the right to think for yourself. Dexter Yager says "If you have a decision to make, you can never go wrong choosing the option that is best for your people over what is best for you personally." For every person, the nature of the sacrifice may be different. For example, Lee Iaccoca's sacrifice came late in his career to save Chrysler. Former South African president F. W. de Klerk, who worked to dismantle apartheid in his country sacrificing his own career. The circumstances change from person to person, but the principle doesn't. Leadership means sacrifice.
Leaders give up to go up. That is true of every leader regardless of profession. Talk to any leader, and you will find that he has made repeated sacrifices. Usually the higher that leader has climbed, the greater the sacrifices he or she has made. Effective leaders sacrifice much that is good to dedicate themselves to what is best. Robert Palmer said in and interview, "In my model of management, there is very little wiggle room. If you want a management job, they you have to accept the responsibility and accountability that goes with it." He is really talking not about management but the cost of leadership.
If leaders have to give up to go up, then they have to give up even more to stay up. Have you ever considered how infrequently teams have back-to-back champion seasons? The reason is simple: If a leader can take a team to the championship game and win it, he often assumes he can duplicate the results the next year without making changes. He becomes reluctant to make additional sacrifices in the off-season. But what gets a team to the top isn't what keeps it there. The only way to stay up is give up even more. Leadership success requires continual change, improvement, and sacrifice. "For everything you have missed, you have gained something else; and for everything you gain, you lose something." Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Sacrifice is the rule of leadership, yet nothing is more rewarding that leadership. Helping others follow a vision, helping them realize more than they ever could have dreamed of without your leadership is priceless. Of course leadership is rewarding financially in the end, it isn't what you get out of it, it is about who you become.
It's too bad so many of our leaders in name or title only have it all backwards.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
How to Create a List of 1,000 Names
If you are just getting started in a sales career, or restarting one, one of the first things you need to do is make a list. The purpose of a list is to get as many names written down as possible, this will accomplish many things for you. One it gives you confidence to see all the people who might need your services.
There are many schools of thought on the contact list. Some say the more the merrier, others say to only put enough names that you can really invest the time to cultivate the relationships. Personally I say both, make a huge list, get as many with contact information as possible, then score them into "A", "B", and "C" names depending on the level of activity you choose to give them. You only will be investing money on mail or marketing for them maybe once before you choose which ones you invest in, and which ones you market electronically only.
Let's start showing you how to build a big list. Anyone can create a list of a thousand names with enough effort. Keep in mind that there are many names who are not going to be the meat of your list. In this exercise the most important thing is not to prequalify the names, don't decide for them if they should or shouldn't be on your list, don't leave off those who you would be intimidated to call, if you are too intimidated you won't call them anyway so there is nothing to be afraid of putting them down on your list.
Today it is so much easier to build a big list than it used to be due to the Social Media phenomenon. If they are on your Facebook, Myspace, Linked in, or any other Social media site, put them on your list.
Who went to your wedding? The average wedding has two hundred guests, put them down. Your Christmas card list, you Church Directory, who do you work with, have you worked with at each place you have worked, your bowling league, your high school friends, your civic organizations, your clubs, your extended family, put them down. Go through your address books as well on paper, and in your phone and computers.
Some tricks, don't just try to think of people, think of them in groups. If you sit down and try to think of people you will draw a blank, if you think who was in our softball team all their faces appear in your mind. Think of them in context of places and groups and you will find them popping into your head.
Once you exhaust the lists above now is the fun part. Sit down with someone who will help lead you through this part. This is kind of a free association type of exercise. Have your partner take a Yellow Pages and you sit opposite them at the table with a pad of paper and pen. Have them start with the A's like Accountants and you write down everyone you know who is an accountant, or are reminded of by the word. Then one by one, go through every listing of jobs and businesses types from A to Z. So you should have Ambassadors to Zoo Keepers. Again don't prejudge these names, just write them down. Keep in mind, the names on your list may never be a client for you, but might know someone who would.
Once you have your list start working on putting contact information with them. Those from your social media and from your address books should have it already, put it down as you are filling those out. However, on the free association part, don't stop to get the contact information until you have finished the process of creating the names on the list. You don't want the distraction at that point. Fill in the blanks later.
Now that you have the list, you will start looking at it with a more critical eye as to who you want to start contacting and start adjusting the grading on the names. However, it is wise to get word out to as many as you have contact information on to let them know that you are in business, and how they can get with you. I would request an email in hopes at least some would return your outreach with an email to you. You can then capture theirs as well.
When you have a list, it is time to start contacting them. That will be the topic for another blog. However, one of the most important reasons you need a big list is that if you only have a list in your head, or a list of say a dozen people, you will become frozen if you get a handful of noes in a row when you start calling your list. You will naturally start looking at your list and see it half gone and fear if you call more you will be out of business before you start. If however, you get a handful of noes in a row and see hundreds of names still on it you don't care as much. With that said, if you get a handful of noes in a row, I would call a mentor to see if you are saying something wrong and tweak it.
So, get started on a BIG list.
There are many schools of thought on the contact list. Some say the more the merrier, others say to only put enough names that you can really invest the time to cultivate the relationships. Personally I say both, make a huge list, get as many with contact information as possible, then score them into "A", "B", and "C" names depending on the level of activity you choose to give them. You only will be investing money on mail or marketing for them maybe once before you choose which ones you invest in, and which ones you market electronically only.
Let's start showing you how to build a big list. Anyone can create a list of a thousand names with enough effort. Keep in mind that there are many names who are not going to be the meat of your list. In this exercise the most important thing is not to prequalify the names, don't decide for them if they should or shouldn't be on your list, don't leave off those who you would be intimidated to call, if you are too intimidated you won't call them anyway so there is nothing to be afraid of putting them down on your list.
Today it is so much easier to build a big list than it used to be due to the Social Media phenomenon. If they are on your Facebook, Myspace, Linked in, or any other Social media site, put them on your list.
Who went to your wedding? The average wedding has two hundred guests, put them down. Your Christmas card list, you Church Directory, who do you work with, have you worked with at each place you have worked, your bowling league, your high school friends, your civic organizations, your clubs, your extended family, put them down. Go through your address books as well on paper, and in your phone and computers.
Some tricks, don't just try to think of people, think of them in groups. If you sit down and try to think of people you will draw a blank, if you think who was in our softball team all their faces appear in your mind. Think of them in context of places and groups and you will find them popping into your head.
Once you exhaust the lists above now is the fun part. Sit down with someone who will help lead you through this part. This is kind of a free association type of exercise. Have your partner take a Yellow Pages and you sit opposite them at the table with a pad of paper and pen. Have them start with the A's like Accountants and you write down everyone you know who is an accountant, or are reminded of by the word. Then one by one, go through every listing of jobs and businesses types from A to Z. So you should have Ambassadors to Zoo Keepers. Again don't prejudge these names, just write them down. Keep in mind, the names on your list may never be a client for you, but might know someone who would.
Once you have your list start working on putting contact information with them. Those from your social media and from your address books should have it already, put it down as you are filling those out. However, on the free association part, don't stop to get the contact information until you have finished the process of creating the names on the list. You don't want the distraction at that point. Fill in the blanks later.
Now that you have the list, you will start looking at it with a more critical eye as to who you want to start contacting and start adjusting the grading on the names. However, it is wise to get word out to as many as you have contact information on to let them know that you are in business, and how they can get with you. I would request an email in hopes at least some would return your outreach with an email to you. You can then capture theirs as well.
When you have a list, it is time to start contacting them. That will be the topic for another blog. However, one of the most important reasons you need a big list is that if you only have a list in your head, or a list of say a dozen people, you will become frozen if you get a handful of noes in a row when you start calling your list. You will naturally start looking at your list and see it half gone and fear if you call more you will be out of business before you start. If however, you get a handful of noes in a row and see hundreds of names still on it you don't care as much. With that said, if you get a handful of noes in a row, I would call a mentor to see if you are saying something wrong and tweak it.
So, get started on a BIG list.
Friday, July 1, 2011
The Spirit Of 1776
July Fourth Seventeen Seventy Six was the publish date of the book on free market capitalism in Scotland. This book became the core of the thinking of our own founders who too were busy rewriting the world that same week in America. This book was "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. Today we find ourselves in dire need of returning to the wisdom of Smith and cast aside the mistakes of John Maynard Keynes.
Rather than trying to do a deep dive into the mind of Smith let's take a look at the core belief that the rest was built around. Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" that guides business in a free market has been misunderstood, and misrepresented for now more than two centuries from those who are against a free market system.
What is the Invisible Hand? In a word greed. It's a burning desire for gain, and a fear of loss that ultimately guides human nature in a free market. There are many people who will try to tell you that if not for government regulations or unions protecting us from business people we will be treated unfairly and oppressed. However, that simply isn't true.
The examples they will use is the abuses in the factories of the industrial revolution. If there wasn't a crony system with the local governments at the time, they wouldn't have been needed. If someone tried to strong arm, do bodily harm, or even kill anyone who resisted laws would have been broken and if not condoned by local politicians and police it would have ended.
The Invisible Hand is based on personal self-interest and desire for profit. Here is how it would work in a true free market system. If I was a tyrant of an employer and treated my employees horribly, underpaid them, abused them, and was a bad guy, someone would start a company to compete with me and would take away my best employees, leaving me with the most unproductive ones, dooming me to failure.
If I, as a businessman, abused my customers, treated them badly, sold them an over priced, poor quality product and wouldn't stand by it when it failed, someone would compete with me. When they sold a better product at a better price and stood behind it they would cause me to lose my business. I would only have two choices with either story above. One is to keep doing what I was doing and go broke, or to change, improve how I treat my employees and customers to try to compete.
So in my own selfish best interest, I would be forced to be fair, forced to treat customers and employees well for the simple motive that I want to profit. If you read Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" that is the core of it's message as well.
When anything interferes with the free market with government regulations or union meddling, or crony capitalism at the local, state, or federal level, it ties the Invisible Hand and takes away it's power to guide the process. When it is tied, the results are always less than it should be, higher prices, lower service. If you want to see how bad it can get look at our health care system in America. It has been so highly regulated for so long there is no way it could be affordable. Rather than a government take over, we would be wise to let the Invisible Hand control it to see what would happen.
Two recent examples of the destroying effect of government intervention are happening right now. One is in Arizona where the state of Arizona is protecting those who pay them dues in the Cosmetology Board to shut down eyebrow threading businesses. They are demanding that these businesses take 600 hours of courses on Cosmetology School for about ten thousand dollars to get a license to practice. However, if you consider that not one minute of those six hundred hours will teach eyebrow threading, it appears that they are simply stopping competition from coming into the market.
In Louisiana right now there is a battle going on with Florists. The State is requiring a four and a half hour test to get a florist license. The judges who test the candidates are competing florists, the results are that the failure rate on the Florist test is twice as high as the bar exam for Louisiana. Once again allowing the competition to use the power of government to keep others from entering the market.
We see crony capitalism from the smallest to largest government entity. Maybe it is time we go back to the Spirit of 76 in both small government Republic and the Invisible Hand.
Rather than trying to do a deep dive into the mind of Smith let's take a look at the core belief that the rest was built around. Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" that guides business in a free market has been misunderstood, and misrepresented for now more than two centuries from those who are against a free market system.
What is the Invisible Hand? In a word greed. It's a burning desire for gain, and a fear of loss that ultimately guides human nature in a free market. There are many people who will try to tell you that if not for government regulations or unions protecting us from business people we will be treated unfairly and oppressed. However, that simply isn't true.
The examples they will use is the abuses in the factories of the industrial revolution. If there wasn't a crony system with the local governments at the time, they wouldn't have been needed. If someone tried to strong arm, do bodily harm, or even kill anyone who resisted laws would have been broken and if not condoned by local politicians and police it would have ended.
The Invisible Hand is based on personal self-interest and desire for profit. Here is how it would work in a true free market system. If I was a tyrant of an employer and treated my employees horribly, underpaid them, abused them, and was a bad guy, someone would start a company to compete with me and would take away my best employees, leaving me with the most unproductive ones, dooming me to failure.
If I, as a businessman, abused my customers, treated them badly, sold them an over priced, poor quality product and wouldn't stand by it when it failed, someone would compete with me. When they sold a better product at a better price and stood behind it they would cause me to lose my business. I would only have two choices with either story above. One is to keep doing what I was doing and go broke, or to change, improve how I treat my employees and customers to try to compete.
So in my own selfish best interest, I would be forced to be fair, forced to treat customers and employees well for the simple motive that I want to profit. If you read Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" that is the core of it's message as well.
When anything interferes with the free market with government regulations or union meddling, or crony capitalism at the local, state, or federal level, it ties the Invisible Hand and takes away it's power to guide the process. When it is tied, the results are always less than it should be, higher prices, lower service. If you want to see how bad it can get look at our health care system in America. It has been so highly regulated for so long there is no way it could be affordable. Rather than a government take over, we would be wise to let the Invisible Hand control it to see what would happen.
Two recent examples of the destroying effect of government intervention are happening right now. One is in Arizona where the state of Arizona is protecting those who pay them dues in the Cosmetology Board to shut down eyebrow threading businesses. They are demanding that these businesses take 600 hours of courses on Cosmetology School for about ten thousand dollars to get a license to practice. However, if you consider that not one minute of those six hundred hours will teach eyebrow threading, it appears that they are simply stopping competition from coming into the market.
In Louisiana right now there is a battle going on with Florists. The State is requiring a four and a half hour test to get a florist license. The judges who test the candidates are competing florists, the results are that the failure rate on the Florist test is twice as high as the bar exam for Louisiana. Once again allowing the competition to use the power of government to keep others from entering the market.
We see crony capitalism from the smallest to largest government entity. Maybe it is time we go back to the Spirit of 76 in both small government Republic and the Invisible Hand.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Courage of Conviction
Conventional wisdom tells us that we should not talk about money, religion, or politics in polite company. That message is even more ramped up when it comes to business. It is foolish to burn bridges with potential customers taking a position on these controversial things and turning someone off who may not do business with us because of it.
During the entirety of my career I followed this thought process with a passion. I took it to the extreme and wouldn't tell anyone I followed Purdue sports to not turn off any Hoosier fans. I wouldn't wear facial hair because there is a certain part of the population this turns off. Vanilla and safe were the goal.
Why today, have I thrown that completely out the window? Because there is a huge difference between having integrity, character, conviction, and courage.
We should always strive to have integrity, we should teach our children to as well. Integrity is not doing something wrong, not cheating, stealing, or misdealing. We should all have integrity. For instance if we saw three big guys beating up someone, we can have integrity just by not taking advantage of this situation. However this isn't enough. We need to step up and show character and stand up and do right. Character will require us to get involved. Character requires courage, courage to take a stand, to take a personal risk. Character could cause pain to come to you because you had the courage to step into the fray. But it requires that you do what is right, not just know what is right.
When you see something happening that you believe is wrong, something that you find yourself under conviction to stand up against it. Then it requires that you have the courage to take the risk of personal harm, be it nothing more than financial harm, to show your true character and step into the fray, to say "this is wrong!" To do something about it.
If you are reading this, like many I know, you cheer from the sidelines, you watch others speaking out, and are glad they do, but fear what might happen to you if you joined in the chorus. Let me ask you to consider moving from integrity to character through courage. Take the risk, step out, follow the example of our founders and become a leader in your sphere of influence. You may lose some "friends", you may have some question you and chastise you, but you will feel good knowing that you are a person of conviction with the courage to speak out, and make a difference.
In my opinion, our freedoms and liberties, and those of our children and grandchildren hang in the balance. Let's roll!!!
During the entirety of my career I followed this thought process with a passion. I took it to the extreme and wouldn't tell anyone I followed Purdue sports to not turn off any Hoosier fans. I wouldn't wear facial hair because there is a certain part of the population this turns off. Vanilla and safe were the goal.
Why today, have I thrown that completely out the window? Because there is a huge difference between having integrity, character, conviction, and courage.
We should always strive to have integrity, we should teach our children to as well. Integrity is not doing something wrong, not cheating, stealing, or misdealing. We should all have integrity. For instance if we saw three big guys beating up someone, we can have integrity just by not taking advantage of this situation. However this isn't enough. We need to step up and show character and stand up and do right. Character will require us to get involved. Character requires courage, courage to take a stand, to take a personal risk. Character could cause pain to come to you because you had the courage to step into the fray. But it requires that you do what is right, not just know what is right.
When you see something happening that you believe is wrong, something that you find yourself under conviction to stand up against it. Then it requires that you have the courage to take the risk of personal harm, be it nothing more than financial harm, to show your true character and step into the fray, to say "this is wrong!" To do something about it.
If you are reading this, like many I know, you cheer from the sidelines, you watch others speaking out, and are glad they do, but fear what might happen to you if you joined in the chorus. Let me ask you to consider moving from integrity to character through courage. Take the risk, step out, follow the example of our founders and become a leader in your sphere of influence. You may lose some "friends", you may have some question you and chastise you, but you will feel good knowing that you are a person of conviction with the courage to speak out, and make a difference.
In my opinion, our freedoms and liberties, and those of our children and grandchildren hang in the balance. Let's roll!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
