bwagy

There are three main models (when looking at the founders point of view):

1. Build it as big as possible, expand the infrastructure/distribution/value factory, aim to make a little bit on each part in the factory.  Whole aim is around making it bigger than the founders.
2. Keep it as lean as possible, focus on the small, deliver maximum value.  Aim here deliver tremendous value to make excessive profits.
3. Build it fast to exit.  Little worries on profitability, reinvest to make profit (for founders) via exit.

Bonus Option
You are so remarkable you create a monopoly.  This adds extra profit in any option (probably mostly in the first option).

Just a few different thoughts/models on how to frame it in your mind.

#47: Listen (and really listen)
Listen to your clients, be proactive, give them a call, find out their issues, problems, even if it’s not related to you. This is where your networking can pay off you may know someone that could help them, or a blog post you have read that could.

#48: Don’t pretend
Be yourself, let your business reflect that, you are attractive, maybe not to everyone, but to a big enough group to build a business off.

And that’s it! Well from me anyway.

I wrote this about a year ago one night, when I thought what would I tell someone starting where I started, I hope it’s been of value to you.  If you’d like to read the full thread go here.

Starting out is always tough, it’s not hard though (as millions of other people have gone through exactly the same process) so most of all be prepared to listen, swallow your pride and learn.  I’d rather you became a stellar success than quitting as you weren’t prepared to adapt.

I may turn this into an ebook or short book at some stage (who knows) but if you’ve anything to add or wanted to ask me a question about any of it just send me an email to ben@bwagy.com – let me know how I can help.

Interesting announcement made late last week week, McDonalds (only in New Zealand as far as I know) has added Weight Watchers approved food items to the menu.

Copy/Paste from the NZHerald:

“It seems like an unlikely alliance, but Weight Watchers has backed three items on McDonald’s menu.

From today, New Zealand McDonald’s branches are offering three meals that each add up to 6.5 Weight Watchers’ points.

The meals, the Filet-O-Fish, the Chicken McNuggets and the Sweet Chilli Seared Chicken Wrap, are the same meals McDonald’s customers are used to. But 9000 staff in 150 restaurants around the country have had training to make the meals more consistently, with the same amount of sauce each time, so they fall within the points system.

The system allows those on the Weight Watchers’ programme between 18 and 40 points each day, which they must stay within to obtain and retain their goal weight.

The meals are served with salads and water or diet soft drinks.”

I know why McDonalds did this, easy:

• Help steer image to healthier products
• Lend some of Weight Watchers brand values (clearly at a price)
• Generate word of mouth (hey I’m talking about it)

But mostly provide an excuse for people to go into McDonalds (hey I’m getting the healthy option), really though once people are in there they will grab their regular meal.  McDonalds knows that.  That’s why they run new specials, cheap burgers because they know the biggest challenge is getting people to McDonalds – once there they can sell to them.

If you jump over to Weight Watchers Worldwide the first item on their approach is “learn to handle hunger and beat temptation” – dare I say if you are on Weight Watchers giving McDonalds the tick is totally in no way coherent with your mission.  Weight Watchers endorsing McDonalds…fail.

I don’t really need to explain this any more do I?

McDonalds: 1 Weight Watchers: -1,000,000

Give us your thoughts in the comments below…

Great… but what can you learn from that?

Maybe next step is to try stretch or break it.

That’s where the real learning is.

“The temptation to quit will be greatest just before you are about to succeed” ~Chinese Proverb

Risk Homeostasis is a theory that humans have a certain level of acceptable risk and we will seek to keep that in equilibrium.

If we take high risk in one part of our life we will seek to minimise it in another part.

For example, in a Munich Case Study two groups of taxis were monitored for accidents.  One group had ABS brakes installed, the others stayed with the regular breaks.  You would think then that the ABS guys had less accidents right?

Wrong.  What they found was the accident rate was about the same, the group with ABS having gained better braking would take other risks (ie braking late).

Have a read over at WikiPedia.  Watch my video below on RadioWammo discussing it:

It has interesting implications for all change, innovation and risk when you think about it.

Thanks to Malcolm Gladwell for the inspiration in his latest book What the Dog Saw.

I have a bit of a theory around running

The first run is completely all about what you think you can do.  It doesn’t matter how you fit you are – it’s more about how far you go till your brain says hey buddy it’s time to stop.

The second run (and this can be the very next day) you can magically run up to 1/3 even further.

It’s not that you got more fit overnight – it’s that you realise what you can do and are able to push through it.

Each run for the first week or so is just about stretching ‘what you can do’.

Then you hit your actual limit.  You run at that limit for a few runs.  Take a break.  Come back and own it.

Apply this to most things.  Your performance undoubtedly is what you think you can do rather than what you’re actually capable of.

Never, ever underestimate your potential.