Magic words for business: Crush It!, a book worth reading

By Dan Danford, CRSP
Family Investment Center

This book was recommended by Dodie Jacobi, a respected business consultant in Kansas City. She suggested that it offers great insight into the social media environment, and is an easy read, too. If you own or work in a smaller business those are magic words: helpful and easy. I bought Crush It! that same day. I read it the next weekend.

I agreed to “lead” a discussion on this book blog because Dodie was right. Gary Vaynerchuk is a compelling character. His story is unique and wonderful. He used social media and other resources to crash one of the most exclusive parties in the business world – the wine industry. His fresh approach, enthusiasm, sincerity, and (yes) charisma allowed him to jump multiple rungs of the success ladder. That’s what any of us want, right?

And his story is not just about marketing, either. I know my way around marketing, and another marketing book isn’t necessary for my personal library. Gary’s approach blends both life and business lessons, along with a bit of Zig Ziglar or Dale Carnegie. Why Now Is The Time To Cash In On Your Passion is the book’s sub-title and Vaynerchuk clearly thinks that’s the important theme for success.

His three simple rules appear on the book’s second page:

• Love your family.
• Work superhard.
• Live your passion.

Now, the business implication is that social media and networks create the perfect opportunity to live your passion. Whether it is wine, motorcycles, or personal finance (to randomly select a few!), there is a community of like-minded people seeking expert commentary. And, since you are passionate about it, you can find an audience. Eventually, that audience can be lucrative enough to pay your bills.

Chapter Two’s lesson is that our personal uniqueness is an asset. I really enjoyed this chapter because Gary talks us through his personal story. In some ways, it’s the perfect American tale, from immigration at three years old, to eventual status as “Social Media Sommelier” (ABC News) and Wayne’s World Wine Aficionado (nightline). Like most success chronicles, it’s a great story and it makes fun read.

Chapter Three is – in many ways – the essence of this book. “Developing your personal brand is key to monetizing your passion online.” In the author’s case, that meant offering truthful information about wines in easy-to-understand terms. If you’ve ever browsed a wine store or bought a traditional book about wine, you understand how refreshing that is! You also understand why Gary Vaynerchuk has become so successful.

The point is that almost everyone has similar opportunity. We all care about different things and we all bring unique perspective to them. And we all have the ability to communicate that perspective in a variety of ways. We can write, talk, act, speak, or even create original art to share our message. And, if we are passionate enough and work hard enough, we can prosper because of it.

We'd love to have your thoughts on this great book. We've started a second blog for dicussion of business-related books, called Beyond the Bookshelf, and you can find it here. Please click on the link and comment there (same post content) if you'd like to tell us what you think about Crush It!

Here are a few questions for consideration:

1. Think about a successful person you know. In a few words, what is his or her passion?

2. How about Bill Gates or Warren Buffett? Again, in a few words, what separates them from others in their field? Describe their personal brands.

3. How does the Steve Jobs personal brand differ from Bill Gates?

4. If you achieved international success as a businessperson, how might people describe your personal brand?

Make money as an exec for rent

Fortune magazine wrote an interesting piece about how executives can market themselves as experts for rent. Temps aren't what they used to be - it can now be a much more elevated and influential position than in years past.

Read the full article here:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/15/news/economy/executives_temps.fortune/index.htm

Collaboration: Vicious group-think with a point

Editor's note: We're re-posting this, as it has been popular with our readers and we wanted folks to find it easily. Enjoy!

By Dan Danford, MBA, CRSP

The great manipulation technique of this decade is “collaboration.” This horrendously popular business term has been deployed in all areas of American life.

We hear it constantly at work, and now it is now worming its way across the nation like some dreaded crop blight or tree disease. A recent Google search yielded some 83,000,000 hits in under a quarter-second. That’s five times more than “synergy” and four more than “paradigm.” We’re talking the World Series of inane business terminology, here.

According to Webster, to collaborate means 1) to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor, 2) to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy of one's country and especially an occupying force, or 3) to cooperate with an agency or instrumentality with which one is not immediately connected.

Of those three, happy “collaborators” likely prefer the first, which sounds noble, but the bell which rings true today is the second; that is, to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy (emphasis mine). That’s because collaboration is usually suggested by the strong as an effort to manipulate the weak.

Think about it. Do cries for collaboration ever rise up from the peasant classes? Not so much. They nearly always reign down from above. “Go, therefore, and collaborate on the issue of diminishing widget sales in the direct distribution channels of our Northsouthern region,” declares Mr. Puffy, the CEO. “Help them see why I think we should close that plant.”

In the community, it’s “let’s gather a group of social agencies to collaborate about neighborhood floral disintegration. Perhaps we could jointly commission a study to determine possible solutions,” intones Pansy Marigold, owner of the International Floral Studies Group. Blah, blah, blah, blah.

I loathe manipulation. Manipulators think they are smarter and sneakier than all the rest of us. They devise grand schemes to feather their own nest, and then coerce others to pay. They are bullies with velvet gloves. Collaboration is their tool of choice. “Everyone gets a say,” they’ll explain, but results are known far in advance to anyone with a brain. Ask around the office; manipulators think they are smarter, but they’re not.

There’s a sign on my desk declaring “none of us is as dumb as all of us.” The simple fact is that collaboration is often a management technique designed to exploit group dumbness. Most times, the lead collaborator has an agenda and a desired result. Others in the process are unwitting co-conspirators. They show up, hoping they can add data, or resources, or wisdom (or, with any luck at all, humor). Wrong. They are, in fact, adding dubious credibility to both the agenda and result.

Collaboration as intellectual endeavor? Maybe it could happen. When two university scholars gather at Starbucks to discuss research. Or when Bobby Flay and Rachel Ray conspire to create some new dessert for the Food Network. On ESPN commentators engage lofty discussions over the merits of a Wildcat offense in the NFL. (Though a friend just emailed that last weekend he heard a broadcaster suggest that two bruising linebackers "collaborated" on a tackle. I kid you not.)

Intellectual? Not today. Collaboration is a transparent and weak management tool. The suits want us to think we have input, so they put us in a group and guide us to their goal. But we have a secret weapon. Any of us are smarter than that group of us. As a tool, collaboration is dull, clumsy, and ineffective. Manipulators beware: we’re on to your hollow game.

Collaboration: Vicious group-think with a point

By Dan Danford, MBA, CRSP

The great manipulation technique of this decade is “collaboration.” This horrendously popular business term has been deployed in all areas of American life.

We hear it constantly at work, and now it is now worming its way across the nation like some dreaded crop blight or tree disease. A recent Google search yielded some 83,000,000 hits in under a quarter-second. That’s five times more than “synergy” and four more than “paradigm.” We’re talking the World Series of inane business terminology, here.

According to Webster, to collaborate means 1) to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor, 2) to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy of one's country and especially an occupying force, or 3) to cooperate with an agency or instrumentality with which one is not immediately connected.

Of those three, happy “collaborators” likely prefer the first, which sounds noble, but the bell which rings true today is the second; that is, to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy (emphasis mine). That’s because collaboration is usually suggested by the strong as an effort to manipulate the weak.

Think about it. Do cries for collaboration ever rise up from the peasant classes? Not so much. They nearly always reign down from above. “Go, therefore, and collaborate on the issue of diminishing widget sales in the direct distribution channels of our Northsouthern region,” declares Mr. Puffy, the CEO. “Help them see why I think we should close that plant.”

In the community, it’s “let’s gather a group of social agencies to collaborate about neighborhood floral disintegration. Perhaps we could jointly commission a study to determine possible solutions,” intones Pansy Marigold, owner of the International Floral Studies Group. Blah, blah, blah, blah.

I loathe manipulation. Manipulators think they are smarter and sneakier than all the rest of us. They devise grand schemes to feather their own nest, and then coerce others to pay. They are bullies with velvet gloves. Collaboration is their tool of choice. “Everyone gets a say,” they’ll explain, but results are known far in advance to anyone with a brain. Ask around the office; manipulators think they are smarter, but they’re not.

There’s a sign on my desk declaring “none of us is as dumb as all of us.” The simple fact is that collaboration is often a management technique designed to exploit group dumbness. Most times, the lead collaborator has an agenda and a desired result. Others in the process are unwitting co-conspirators. They show up, hoping they can add data, or resources, or wisdom (or, with any luck at all, humor). Wrong. They are, in fact, adding dubious credibility to both the agenda and result.

Collaboration as intellectual endeavor? Maybe it could happen. When two university scholars gather at Starbucks to discuss research. Or when Bobby Flay and Rachel Ray conspire to create some new dessert for the Food Network. On ESPN commentators engage lofty discussions over the merits of a Wildcat offense in the NFL. (Though a friend just emailed that last weekend he heard a broadcaster suggest that two bruising linebackers "collaborated" on a tackle. I kid you not.)

Intellectual? Not today. Collaboration is a transparent and weak management tool. The suits want us to think we have input, so they put us in a group and guide us to their goal. But we have a secret weapon. Any of us are smarter than that group of us. As a tool, collaboration is dull, clumsy, and ineffective. Manipulators beware: we’re on to your hollow game.