Homer is a designer that can work with a client from the beginning to the end of a project. He codes, he does graphic design, and he understands common problems many sites have and knows how to resolve them. Seemed like a knowledgeable person to seek answers from. I got up the nerve to ask Homer for an interview and he was kind to accept. Last week, we had a great discussion. What did I ask?

• His thoughts on using templates. Are they evil or are their valid uses for using them? Besides my own experiences, there was a debate in the community about it as well. Ironically, Scrivs mentioned the template debate in his article yesterday.
• Should designers know how to code? We discussed showing live code to clients as mentioned on 24 Ways and the pros and cons of using that approach.
• Is Flash dying? With the iPad coming out without Flash compatibility, will designers move away from using Flash?
• What payment terms do you think is fair for the client and the designer so that, in the event the project does not make it to completion, neither party loses out?
• Is a designer’s web site a reflection of their skill and talent? What about portfolios that do not properly show the designer’s talents?

Side note: I miss creative portfolios like Dave Werner’s. I couldn’t think of the link when I was talking to Homer but I wish I had because I would have loved to know his thoughts on Dave’s portfolio.

• Do you think there is a disconnect in the pairing of clients and designers? Rarely does a designer have full reign to “design” on a project.
• In his opinion, did he think most designers could resolve problems like reducing exit and bounce rates or spreading traffic through the site instead of focusing on the front page?
• How closely should the client watch over a project? Homer gives examples on how he communicates with clients.
• Is mobile (and the upcoming iPad) compatibility something that a client should expect when a design is done?

We had an in-depth discussion. Without further ado: right-click/save as (1hr 01m)

Thanks Homer!

Don’t start an article with a false premise

“Ugly designs abound on the web, and behind each and every one of them is a “designer”.”

MySpace is filled with ugly sites that are “designed” by people who have no desire to be a designer. So are websites, especially blogs. There have been many times I hacked at a design and I liked it, but designers said it was ugly. However, I have zero desire to be a designer. I think that stating that there is a designer behind each and every website is inaccurate. Actually, I know it is. I’m proof.

It’s all a learning experience

Have you ever been warned not to do something and you did it anyway? Everyone eventually receives advice they don’t listen to. I have been on both sides of the fence. People warned me not to date a guy (for example) because they saw things I did not see. I learned the hard way they were right. I have also warned people in different aspects (for example, business) not to do something, had proof to back up my point, but the person couldn’t see what I saw. My archives are littered with me warning against something and later on down the line, it happened.

Now put yourself in the frame of mind when someone was advising you not to do something and you did not listen. Your mind was made up, for whatever reason. In the end, when it all fell apart, you had your friends and family there to support you. Perhaps you were teased about it, but hopefully they didn’t hold it against you.

That is exactly what is happening with clients, designers and the situation described in the entry. For example:

After all, a good client recognizes that you’re the designer, and that while it’s their business, you have more experience than they do when it comes to design particulars.

They’ll appreciate it when you say (tactfully) that the giant flashing banner on the home page and all that scrolling text just isn’t going to give the impression they’re after. While it’s important to listen to your clients, don’t be afraid to step up and tell them why something isn’t a good idea.

Sure, you might lose some clients if you refuse to bend to their every poorly-thought-out decision, but the clients you retain will be easier to work with and will likely give you more design freedom. These clients will also likely refer more work to you, both directly and indirectly.

So “bad” clients are the ones that don’t do exactly what the designer says? Basically what the article is suggesting that if the designer recommends an alternative idea (which I agree) and the client does not accept it, the designer should dump the client. I read the article and thought WTF? You want to know why?

Do YOU listen to every piece of advice given to you…even by experts? Absolutely NOT. Never expect from people, strangers no less, more than you are willing to give yourself. Instead of doing something stupid (yes, I said stupid), put yourself in the client’s shoes and remember each and every time someone who ended up being right advised you against doing something and you didn’t listen. Learn from that experience.

What if the designer is wrong?

I could come up with a design that would be wacky to a designer but work perfectly with my audience. I can imagine discussing the concepts with a designer and he or she politely telling me I was wrong and why he or she thought I was wrong. I would still want to go with it anyway.

Why? Because I know my audience. Very well.

Perhaps the designer is correct and the flashing banner is the wrong move to make but what if the client is right? Don’t get me wrong, I know clients can make some outlandish requests at times but is it right for a client to go against their gut instinct because the designer said not to?

Ever been told something was going to break very soon if you didn’t take the more expensive option, you took the cheaper option and didn’t have to replace the object for years? Did your parents suggest you should be a doctor, you opted to be a lawyer (insert occupation here) and today, you are happy with the choices you made? Each person will have many stories over time where someone told them to do one thing and, going against their gut feeling, went with their advice and regretted it. You will find hundreds of articles from writers suggesting to follow your gut instinct because who knows what is best for their company better than “you”.

This is what designers (and just about anyone who works with people) have to deal with. It’s their business and in the end, the business owner should always do what he or she feels is the best decision…even if it is stupid…so they have no regrets. There is no way to know what the designer’s suggestion will work miracles. Let’s be real: just as there are a lot of bad suggestions from clients there are a lot of screwed up designs by designers who swore their design was the optimal solution for the client.

Wisdom prevails

Now that you are in the frame of mind that people make mistakes, you are going to realize that clients will not always accept your advice. What do you do about it? Dump clients? That’s not very smart is it? With the age of social media and people sharing their experiences, do you really want your ex-clients putting on Twitter how a designer wouldn’t take their work because the designer didn’t agree with the them? Want to know how that will play out? The designer will seem like the biggest asshole because even if the client wanted floating ducks across their site, it is their right…and people will side with the client.

Since designers don’t have to put every project in their portfolio, simply remove the ones that don’t project the image the designer wants to convey. That has NOTHING to do with working with a client that doesn’t agree with the designer.

Give the client what he/she wants (after warning them of course) and let them go through the learning experience of finding out, first hand, why the design didn’t work. If you provide them with a positive experience when things do not work out, the client will most likely remember that the designer warned them on what would happen and come back to have the job done properly.

I know…why not just skip the first design and skip to the one done properly? For the same reason you didn’t listen to the wiser person when he/she warned you not to do something and you did it anyway…it’s a learning experience.

However, this time when the client comes back, a lesson will be learned and there will be more respect for the designer. Remember, respect is something EARNED not freely given. Look at the bigger picture. Instead of dumping the client, realize the client (with new found respect) will be more likely to recommend you. Word of mouth is a stronger recommendation than any other type of marketing.

Or you can take the advice of the person writing the article but I guarantee you this…unless you have other income, if you turn away those clients, you WILL eventually end up settling. To eat and pay the bills. Instead of thinking of it as settling, think of it as helping someone learn a lesson.

Let’s say you buy a house on a acre of land. You love your house, you take great care of it. One day the city informs you they need that land to build a mall and you have to move. You own the house but you don’t own the land.

How would you feel?

In the comments of that entry, I said:

Bloggers need to be smarter about their strategies and optimize the network relationship. Blog networks are going to have to evolve because (hopefully) bloggers will wise up and realize they can do more to gain better exposure. The average blogger in these networks think about the paycheck and they don’t explore all their options.

I took a lot of flack about my stance, even though it was from a pro-writer position. As a blogger, if you own the content and don’t own the domain, there is a risk that the writer could be asked to leave the domain. This is a risk the writer knows going into the deal. My suggestion for the writer to optimize their position to a greater position of strength seemed logical. Of course, writers didn’t see the bad side (getting laid off or fired) and leaped at the opportunity to earn an income. Except the bad side always occurs, it is inevitable.

Yesterday, b5media let their freelance entertainment writers go, without notice, and launched a new site today called Crushable.

We are writing to inform you of the termination of your contract with b5media Inc., effective February 16, 2010. Over the past six months, the Company has progressively made significant strategic changes to refocus and regenerate its business. This termination of your contract is needed to support the changes made to our corporate structure and business operations.

WTF Happened?

This was inevitable but the way they went about it was, in my opinion, sloppy and disrespectful to their writers. It seems the company decided to change direction in regards to how they reported entertainment news. Previously, they had many niche blogs focused on single target audiences. For example, a Lost blog focusing on news about the television show Lost. If the blog excelled the traffic would become sticky…fans of the TV show. They launched stark.com which seemed to cover a little bit of everything, and they abandoned it. Today, they launched Crushable, which has a very specific target audience:

Now, a growing audience of more than 2 million young women now have a place to visit for entertainment news, intelligent content and cultural insight previously unavailable to them

Their target audience is women under 25. Their welcome entry:

Crushable–smart, funny and genuine–combines celebrity news, style and a wide spectrum of content that appeals to an engaged, entertainment-obsessed audience. Our features include a gossip reporter’s account of life inside the Hollywood bubble, and a guide to getting the Lady Gaga look, three different ways.

Yes, I realize the welcome entry doesn’t mention their focus on young women. And yes, that is a crappy welcome entry. However, the point is they have three staff members(?) listed, they did not need the niche blogs anymore, so they told their loyal writers to get out just as coldly as they welcomed their new readers. It is very common for online ventures to launch a new site thinking it will fix the problem instead of resolving the problem on the old site. In this case they are changing direction…will that resolve their problems? Probably not.

Hmmm…there is something missing…

If you noticed above, I mentioned owning the house and being asked to move the house because of not owning the land. The reason why is because Jeremy Wright (previous CEO) and I did a podcast in which he mentioned b5media bloggers owning the content and could do what they wanted to with it. In the podcast, Jeremy gave the example of a blogger writing a book with the published content and the company would not care.

Why were the bloggers yesterday locked out of their sites without giving them access to their content?

Over time, did the bloggers sign their rights away? I do not have access to their contracts but unless things changed, the bloggers should have been able to not only take the content with them but also order the content taken down (if they wanted) since the contract has been terminated. The bloggers owned the content and gave b5media a license to distribute it…according to that podcast. Let me be clear…Jeremy is no longer with the company so things might have changed…meaning the bloggers somewhere along the way signed their rights away. Which is possible, as people are notoriously known for not looking at the small prints in contracts.

If they didn’t sign their rights away…

Yes, they lost a paycheck but make the most of the situation:

1) Get a copy of the content and rebuild.
2) Revoke the license for b5media to use the content…unless you want them to continue to use the content, make some money and not pay you.
3) Never put yourself in a position of weakness again.

If you insist on not owning the house and the land, make sure you own some premium property elsewhere. Just in case you are evicted from the house…that can never be your home because you don’t own it.

This is a screenshot from the game Mass Effect 2. The game was a revelation for me because it reminded me of something I knew, but forgot along the way. See the blue and red bars? The blue bars are paragon points, for being good in the game. The red bars are renegade points, for being bad in the game. In most games, there is one bar showing the total of good and bad (completely hiding bad actions if there were more good actions).

Life does not work that way.

No one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes and most mistakes should not follow someone forever. In Mass Effect 2, they make it very clear which actions are good and which ones are bad. The player makes the choice to do bad. When I first started playing Mass Effect, I didn’t like two bars. I wanted my paragon bar to be maxed with no renegade because I wanted a “good” character (note her name – Angel). As I played the game, there were situations where I wanted to do the renegade action. For example, a bartender tried to poison my character. Going back and confronting the bartender was clearly marked as a renegade action (which I did). It became clear I had to make a choice: either play the game making decisions I did not like to have full paragon points or I played the game that would be most fun (or made the most sense) to me and have renegade points. You can see what I did.

Real life is the same way.

Goody two shoes…

No matter how good someone tries to be, they’ll end up doing something “bad”. I consider myself “good” but I still do “bad” things, depending on the situation. If someone steps to me wrong, I am not going to be a “good little girl” and take it because I believe people treat you the way you allow them to treat you. The truth: most people know when they are doing a renegade action and they have an idea, if found out, how “bad” the outcome would be. When people talk negatively online about their jobs, they have a pretty good idea that there would be a price to pay if the co-workers they were talking about read what they said. It’s cowardly, to go online and vent instead of speaking up. However, people do it every day and people get fired for it every day. Why? People foolishly believe they will not get caught. This does not change the action of saying something behind someone’s back being a renegade action.

The goodest of the good do bad things. Do you go over the speed limit? Never tell a lie? Pay all of your bills on time? Always keep your word? Ever go over budget or over spend? There are renegade actions littered within good actions. The good actions do not make up or take away the renegade (bad) ones.

The goal to recovering from mistakes

The goal is simple, right? A person should have more paragon (good) actions than renegade (bad) actions. There is one problem: doing good does not equate to wiping away the bad. You cannot change your story, you cannot re-write history, you cannot change your past. Many people do something good to receive the benefit of clouding the bad action. For example, an employee might seem to be hard working but that is only because the worker is trying to cover the lie told that the project was further along than normal. Or a cheating spouse might get a gift for their mate to ease their guilt.

The key to recovering from a mistake is doing good; expecting nothing in return.

Doing something for the benefit of receiving something in return is not a good action; it’s a manipulative act to get your way. This is why many people fail to recover from big mistakes; their intent was not sincere. They end up reverting to the old behaviors because nothing changed, outside of getting caught.

Going back to Daniel’s situation, to recover he’d first have to sincerely apologize. Most people did not accept the statement as being sorry for what he did. However, the apology should happen when he has changed and it would bother him not to apologize, not to get in anyone’s good graces. He would also return any items he might have received in exchanged for writing the articles, especially since those articles were deleted. Keeping the merchandise (if he received any) would bother him if he sincerely changed. Eventually, doing “good” things for the right reasons (if he sincerely changes), people will leave the past in the past. The motivations behind the good actions are pure and non-selfish.

When trust is broken it takes time. There is no rushing the healing process and no guarantee the trust can be rebuilt. The best option is to not take the renegade actions unless you’re sure you can live with the outcome.

Edit: Daniel did an interview. Note how he talks as if he still works at TechCrunch in the beginning. Note he dodges with the details with what happened with the solicitation of items in exchange for articles. Personally, I think Daniel should have kept his mouth shut. So much for Andrew helping to build the kid up. Let me be clear on this: Andrew keeps asking Daniel what happened with his “exclusive” interview. /smh Doing this interview proves Daniel is too wet behind the ears to be in tech. It pains me to watch this video. On the real.

There is another article about the behaviors of the tech scene by Loren. He makes a good point about the parents making the decision on who their son is around professionally.

This method works because each city is independent of each other. The city itself has different price variables, for example taxes. The cost of doing business in the upper scale cities will be higher; therefore, the prices will be higher to make up the difference. If you think about it, not only are taxes, products and services higher so are salaries. Each city has its own economy.

Online activities do not have distinct locations like cities unless they are closed communities. For example, if a community had an income requirement and, based on that income requirement, set their prices. What I often see are business owners giving people two different prices based on their perceived income for the same product or service. In most cases, the company owner does not have higher overhead to account for to justify the higher prices.

You realize how and why that can fail miserably, right?

Share and share alike

This is The Share Era. People go online and share their experiences about everything…even things it might be wiser to keep private. If an online business owner is offering a product or service it would be wise to keep in mind that people talk, and scaling up (depending on the product or service) might hinder the ability for growth. People can share negative experiences just as easily as sharing positive experiences. Ironically, people tend to share the things they don’t like before sharing the things that please them.

Pricing by income for an online product or service would mean making many assumptions on the business owner’s part. Even if the business owner was accurate, is it a wise thing to do? For example, I am often quoted a higher price for things because the assumption is that I am rich (I’m not). Most times, I recognize the higher price and rarely, do I feel the extra price is worth it. I’m not getting a better product, I’m getting the same product for a higher price. I could see if they played the celebrity method…charge higher and give better service. I’m paying three times more, put me at the front of the list (if only to get the money faster). Give me a better warranty. Give me a reason to pay more. In the celebrity world, they pay more for better service attached to the same products and services. Greedy business owners don’t think that way. They think client with money = their potential to make more without giving more.

Let’s say I take the higher price, I’m pleased with the work, and I recommend the company to my online friends. My friends will ask me how much I paid and what service(s) came with the product or service. I tell them the price I paid – the higher price. What if I make more than my friends (especially since most online “friends” are strangers)? My friends won’t use the company because their prices are too expensive. If the company approaches my friends with cheaper prices, that opens the door to alienate their high paying client. If I find out about it, and I most likely will, that’s a wonderful blog entry, isn’t it? How I was charged more because of the assumption I make more. Without extras to fall back on, my point would be easily proven. The door is also open for competing companies to approach my friends, and myself, with lower prices and more service.

Think this doesn’t happen? Wrong. It happens daily. Every day on Twitter I see people sharing their experience, it gets re-tweeted away outside their friend circle, and someone comes up saying something like, “Wow, I only paid $500. Sucks to be them!” and eventually someone clues in the original poster about the price difference. Or, after sharing their experience, someone will say, “You can get a better deal going with XYZ” which is another “friend” sharing their positive experience. Of course, once the knowledge is out the company owner charges based on biases, who is going to want to accept the higher (artificially inflated) price?

What to do?

Depending on the product or service, I recommend pricing by the hour or service. Make sure all the variables are including in the hourly/service price. If a product takes a similar amount of time, the price will be similar and not dependent on the income of the purchaser. This way, if I recommend the company, my friends will lesser incomes (or higher incomes) can get a similar deal with a similar level of service. The sharing level is equal and has more potential for growth. Also, it makes it easier for consumers to scale up or down the price. Maybe they don’t need as much or need much more. The negotiation doors are open without affecting previous or future customers.

Basing business decisions on greed will usually lead you down the wrong path.

Inconsistency = Not Good

I find a headline that sounds interesting. I go to the web site. The site name is ISeeYou (I just made that up) all as one word. However, go to the bottom of the page, next to the copyright date, it says I See You. I look on the RSS feed, it says I See You. Another example, another imaginary web site with the name widgetri in lower case letters. On the footer, it says Widgetri. Which one is the correct one? Who knows? I tend to use whatever is on the footer or the RSS feed. If that’s the wrong, I don’t want to hear about it. Make a decision and stick with it.

Why is this important? One of the goals of brand identity is for large numbers of people to have the same image of a company. Same name, same logo, same impression. Since today is Apple Day, let’s use Apple as an example. They use the bitten apple as their logo, their name is Apple, and they are known for quality hardware. It is widely felt that without Apple’s brand, the company would not survive. That their loyal users are not loyal to the products, they are loyal to the Apple brand. This seems to be true. The tablet hasn’t been formally announced yet people are waiting in anticipation and are begging their spouses to allow them to purchase one. One can’t have loyalty to a product they’ve never seen, never used and hasn’t been released.

One other big difference

Many of the large companies that are not consistent (for example is it Walmart or Wal-Mart?) started prior to the internet, meaning print media prevailed. Wal-Mart Inc. is the company name and at one time their logos reflected the hyphen. When the internet became popular, Wal-Mart had a problem. People would go to walmart.com instead of wal-mart.com and there was inconsistency with the branding. They refreshed their logo to Walmart. They are consistent in using Walmart when referring to their brand and Wal-Mart when referring to their corporate name.

You aren’t one of the big guys

Big companies have already established their brand. Nike can get away with doing NIKE and everyone knows it’s Nike and the swoosh image. Best Buy can have a logo in caps and everyone knows it is Best Buy. There is only one Nike and only one Best Buy. These companies started their brands when print media was the only option. Today, millions of people have blogs and companies want people to share their experiences with products and services on their blogs and social media profiles. Unless a site has spent the money to globally lock down their brand, odds are there is (or will be) another site or company with the same name. Owning the domain name is not enough protection against that. Widgetri could have a highly popular blog at widgetri.wordpress.com when someone else owns widgetri.com. What will set them apart? What they offer and their brands.

Keep it simple

Pick how you want your company name displayed and stick with it. If you use lower case, be consistent. If you make the name all one word, keep it that way. Just because you see other sites being inconsistent doesn’t mean their decision is a smart one. This is the age of sharing online and social networking. When it comes to your brand, especially to avoid legal issues, be consistent not only with your marketing but with the quality of products and services you provide.

Or not. You’re probably not meant to have brand loyalty like Apple anyway.

What are Marvin’s options?

Marvin has a gaming site, focusing on console and PC platforms. Marvin’s site is similar to GameSpot, JoyStiq or Kotaku. Marvin’s site is thriving. He creates quality content and his traffic numbers were increasing. In this area, he did the right thing. Let’s be honest – most sites never make it this far. To monetize his site, Marvin needs to be able to give advertisers a return on their investment (ROI) on their console and PC games. In short, advertisers would only advertise on his site because they felt he had the ability to help them sell their games or increase their exposure.

Marvin’s social network was compromised of mostly Apple users who were publicly anti-Microsoft. In comparison to his competition, if Marvin tweeted his links or shared his articles via social networking tools, they would receive the same results because the people he associates with online is in direct conflict to the content he creates. They might own Xbox 360s (which one could easily say is extremely hypocritical because, if Microsoft was “bad”, why buy the console?) but he would not get the same results (or even close) as his competitors, resulting in gaming companies advertising with the competition instead of Marvin.

If Marvin wants to align himself online with Apple users, and have a gaming site, a better fit would be to have an iPhone (cell phone) gaming site or online games like Facebook games. Of course, the income possibilities aren’t anywhere near as good as having a traditional gaming site. Let’s also consider that Marvin opted not to cover those types of games initially.

Let’s keep things in perspective. Online “friends” are usually people who aren’t your friend. You only interact with them online, you don’t see them, and unlike true friends, you cannot expect these “friends” to aid you if and when you are in need. It’s sort of like the “friend” who swears he/she is your buddy, but if you are having financial troubles, will use the excuse “my spouse won’t let me give you the money…” That’s the classic “using the spouse as an excuse”. Your true friends come through for you when you need them if it is in their power to do so, just like you come through for them. If the wife doesn’t like the friend…well, I covered that earlier. Those “friendships” don’t work out anyway. It is a complete and total conflict. This does not mean you can’t be cordial, but “friend” is not an accurate term to use. Don’t kid yourself.

Marvin had the majority of these types of “friends” online, which are cool to be cordial with, but Marvin definitely needs to change things long-term if he wants to monetize his gaming site. No one likes to throw their money away. To monetize his gaming site, Marvin needs more gamers following him. Gamers, on average, see computers and consoles as tools to do what they want. For example, many hardcore 360 players have PS3s, and they detest Sony. Gamers play where the games are. If Sony does something bad today and people talk about that bad thing this week, that’s normal. Over the top: criticizing Sony for everything they do but the person happily plays their PS3. Really don’t like Sony? Get rid of the PS3.

If Marvin had an audience more in line with his content, Microsoft, Sony, EA, Bioware, etc. would be more inclined to advertise with him.

Why not work a deal with Apple?

Logically, that makes sense but unfortunately, there is a problem. One search on AdAge (or similar sites) and you’ll see that Apple focuses on TV ads, and when they do advertise online, it’s on the big sites like The Wall Street Journal or New York Times. From that standpoint, the odds of Marvin getting Apple to advertise on his site are slim. Let’s think about why for a second. Apple users are fiercely loyal. When Apple announces an event or a new product, Apple users spread the word and are in line as soon as the product is available or are refreshing the live blogging on the event like it was their last meal. Because Apple users are so loyal, they’ve created the environment where Apple has no need to advertise heavily online. Microsoft users on the other hand, are not so loyal. Even the hardcore Microsoft users are more objective. This forces Microsoft to have to work for their sales; hence Microsoft has a much larger advertising budget, online sales being one of their methods.

But a more obvious question: why would Apple advertise on a gaming site that covers games for consoles and PC? Again, it is a mismatch between the type of site and income possibilities. There is no reason for Apple to advertise on Marvin’s gaming site, especially since Marvin would have a hard time giving Apple a ROI.

Let’s be real…

Many people don’t have reasonable success because they’ve prohibited themselves from obtaining it through their actions. I say “reasonable success” because being a millionaire isn’t the plan for most people no matter how badly they want it. However, there are people who are meant to have that destiny and blow it a multitude of ways, like not grabbing an opportunity when it arises or not making solid long-term decisions.

Remember, obtaining success is easier than maintaining it after it is achieved.

Sprinters

These people are enthusiastic and hit strong. Hyped about their project/venture they seem to be unstoppable. Unfortunately, they have no endurance. Enthused in the beginning they jumped into the project and started running without having any idea on how to get to the finish line. When my daughter was younger I’d say, “Sweetheart, would you go get me…” and she’d take off. I’d patiently wait for her to come back because she left without knowing what I wanted. Her intentions were sincere but she had no direction. A significant number of people online fall into this category. The barrier of entry for online ventures being low makes it very easy (and tempting) to dive in but, with no endurance, the person loses steam and fails to reach their goals.

Unfortunately some never take off at all

These people never “really” get started. The attempts are there, but they don’t “do” anything. Some people see success, are briefly inspired by it but when they get a taste of the work involved, the desire fades and disappears. For example: Mary lost 30 pounds and looks great! You decide, inspired by Mary, to lose your potbelly. Except, you never lose a pound and never seriously attempt to. Another example: Henry wrote a book. You decide, inspired by Henry, to write a book too because you’ve always wanted to! Except, the book is never written. The project never moves past a cool idea.

Long-distance runner

These people realize they need to keep the same pace going through the entire journey. They need to keep ahead of most but not too much to wear themselves out so they don’t have enough energy to finish a race. With online projects/companies the “race” isn’t over when success is achieved, the success has to be maintained and many times the work is harder maintaining success than trying to achieve success. If you achieve and maintain success, you’re lucky because most people that make it this far quite frankly get stupid and think they don’t have to work anymore, particularly if they look around and see no “real” competition.

If you want a successful site/company you must realize three crucial points:

1. Sprinters are nothing to worry about (they throw themselves out of the race).
2. If you don’t have consistent endurance (discipline) to run the race you won’t win.
3. If you win the race (achieve success) then the real work comes maintaining it (beating all the people who will want to race you).

Of course, knowing which person you are will determine the odds of your success. That’s why understanding and knowing who you are plays an important role. If I am one to procrastinate starting projects, a short-term fun project would be better suited for me than a “this is what is cool right now” long-term project.

Let’s look at an example…

Marvin wants to start a new gaming web site. He wants that web site to earn $50,000 within 18 months. He made a list of topics he wants to cover. He decided on a posting schedule. He read many productivity articles and decided to write articles in advance. He made sure to have the tools recommended to get things down quickly yet efficiently. He made a list of potential ad network and advertisers. He was able to do this from previous sites. Microsoft, who invests heavily in online marketing, was one of the companies he made considerable income from in the past. He made sure to make a note to keep up with contacts with Microsoft while networking for other prospective sponsors. Marvin carefully picked out the content management system he wanted to use, the design, and he made special care to pick hosting he can grow with without having to worry about his site being turned off during traffic spikes.

Marvin put his plan into action. He started writing articles. He started Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace accounts. His friends’ lists were growing. Soon, his articles were being linked to and his traffic numbers increased. The productivity articles he read were spot on because he efficiently produced content and reached his goal.

When his traffic numbers were high enough, he began to approach Microsoft about sponsorships, game betas, etc. He also approached Sony, EA, and other console and PC game developers. The response wasn’t what he hoped. Most of them didn’t respond at all. After exchanging emails back and forth with someone from Microsoft he finally received an answer as to why they would not advertise with him as they had done in the past. The contact at Microsoft said that he did not feel Microsoft would receive a decent return on their investment due to the community views of the site.

Marvin was confused. His content was quality and unique. He didn’t understand what the Microsoft contact was talking about. Frustrated, he talked to his wife. She thought about it for a moment, and gently explained that Marvin connected himself closely with Apple lovers. Not only were they Apple lovers, they were Microsoft haters. She pointed to Twitter updates and links by those he interacted with most on Twitter, Facebook etc. There are applications that make this very easy to see. What was clear was that the people he interacted most online were pro Apple and Microsoft haters. Marvin pointed out that his articles received decent comments and he protested because he is a happy PC user. His wife pointed out that he also has a Mac and it doesn’t matter he enjoys his PC. His friends are anti-Microsoft. They would be throwing money away advertising with him.

Guilty by association

If you’re paying attention, you’ll realize that Marvin lost advertising revenue from Microsoft and PC game developers. His online connections limited him to console game companies only and realistically only console game developers that do not make PC games. His once attainable goal of $50,000 in 18 months is no longer attainable. By associating with people who were in direct conflict with what he wanted to achieve, he stumped his own growth.

What the Microsoft contact noticed is that his tweets about his articles could not possibly be well received by his friends, limiting the share value. Why invest money in Marvin’s site when sites such as Team Xbox or GameSpot exist? When writers tweet their articles their friends are on board because they are of like minds. The friend value and the odds of ROI are much higher advertising elsewhere.

What would probably be a better match for Marvin is to review iPhone games. Would he be able to make $50,000 in 18 months? Most likely not but his audience would match his content. Something is out of whack. It is up to Marvin to figure out what it is.

You can’t escape it…

To have success you have to be able to make the right decisions and maintain it. Perhaps Marvin selected those people to increase his traffic short-term but in the end, he ended up diluting his ability to earn money long-term. Unfortunately for Marvin, it will take months to undo his error. Advertisers aren’t stupid. Marvin will have to change the core people he interacts with and permanently keep it that way. Otherwise, he’ll lose advertisers again. Companies are very used to people jumping through hoops for money. This is not something that can be undone easily. In the end, he wasn’t productive in achieving his goals, was he?

Pick your friends, offline and online, wisely because they are a direct reflection of you.

Why do most start-ups fail? Same reason why many commercial bloggers do not have the success they would like. Unrealistic expectations. Everyone isn’t meant to have their own business just as everyone isn’t meant to be a doctor, lawyer, police officer, etc. A startling number of people enter into the commercial arena with zero business experience, and without the inclination to take some classes (gain some knowledge) to help them excel.

To complete my degrees I had to finish a series of classes called Critical Thinking. The classes forced students to consider all the issues in a situation and prompted the student to be creative in their thought process. Many of students failed those classes. Seriously, they were tough. We received questions like this:

Lab technician Jim collects a culture from a patient on which the doctor previously operated. Jim carefully collects pus from a wound on the leg of the patient using a toothpick and then, seeing another wound on the face of the patient, washes the face wound with iodine and, using the same toothpick, collects serum from that wound. Jim drops the toothpick into a tube of nutrient broth, puts the name of the doctor on the broth culture tube, and takes it to the lab on the way home from work. List the mistakes Jim made.

Or:

Two airports A and B are 400 miles apart, and B is due east of airport A. A plane flew from A to B in 2 hours and then returned to airport A in 2 1/2 hours. If the wind blew from due west with a constant velocity during the entire trip, find the speed of the the plane in still air and the speed of the wind.

Let’s not forget:

Although 95% of the crust of the Earth is composed of either igneous or metamorphic rock, 75% of the exposed surface of the continental crust is sedimentary rock. This is because

a. erosion of surface soil and rocks has produced a veneer of sediments over most of the Earth, and lithification of these sediments has produced sedimentary rock strata
b. the temperature of the Earth increases downward, leading to the creation of vast amounts of igneous and metamorphic rocks
c. oceanic crust, which covers about 70% of the Earth’s surface, is largely composed of igneous rocks, such as basalt, which forms at oceanic ridges
d. constitute such a small percentage of the surface of the Earth that they contribute much less material to the surface than do physical and chemical precipitation of sediment

Each class the questions were harder but the point was to make the student “think” about the situation and not pick what might appear to be the obvious answer, to avoid skipping steps in the thought process and to do the work necessary to achieve the right answer (because there is only one right answer). Eventually the questions moved to business related situations, which again, had one optimal answer. Knowing the answer (exit plan) doesn’t mean the pieces can be put together to form the question (product or service that will gain the exit expectation).

This is why people who have an exit strategy in their mind tend to fail before they get the company strong enough to be considered a realistic option for sale. The person has the end goal (exit) on their mind and most likely will do everything possible to quickly achieve that goal, working backwards to form the product or service.

Making the product or service meet their exit plans instead focusing on making their product or service a strong competitor in the market, justifying their exit projection.

Ok Tyme, what’s your point?

Continuing the co-founder/partner series, don’t partner with someone who has the focal point exiting instead of creating. Your business will most likely fail and you will frustrate yourself.

Think of it this way: when a couple has a child do they focus on the child being grown and out of the house or do they try to do their best to raise their child right, cherishing the moments they have while their child grows? It is the same with a business. The person with realistic expectations will look forward to the business growing as a parent wants to experience their child grow up.

Try to find a partner with critical thinking skills. They have minimal chances of having unrealistic expectations because they view the situation as it is, not how they’d like it to be.

Don’t settle for anything less.