Why So Many People Have No Common Sense - People who watch too much TV lose touch with reality

I've had an experience the other day that has shown me, once again, that too many people have lost touch with reality, have little common sense and watch way too much TV...

Regular readers of my blog will know that I have worked in TV and broadcasting for 30+ years. Because of this experience, I have no TV in my house. I threw it away ten years ago. Most professional TV people I know have no TV in their house. All professional TV people I know never watch any TV.


I know TV is bad for you. I think watching any TV at all is watching too much TV. Sometimes readers will argue this point with me. But I've never once had a professional educator nor professional in the mass media or TV business argue this point with me. I only get mails (and I get lots of them) from professionals who strongly agree. I get mails that strongly disagree from TV and game fans trying to defend their altar.


The ones who think TV is good or can be useful are, of course, fans of TV. I got one of these mails the other day. I had written, "I hate computer games of all kinds... (They are a) waste of time like TV." To which a reader replied:


Actually, computer games are proven to increase not only cognitive abilities, but even eye-hand coordination.

Then again, television is also a very useful tool, that can be used to widen experience far beyond what normal people have available. It's very politically correct to decry such things, but fallacy.

This is patent nonsense. Calling it "politically correct" is supposed to belittle criticism of TV. In recent years, calling something "politically correct" has become the easy way for people who cannot support their arguments with facts or common sense to escape rational, logical discourse. Then the writer then goes on to offer no evidence to support his claims besides saying it is "fallacy."


He also mentions that "computer games are proven to increase not only cognitive abilities, but even eye-hand coordination"!? Madness! What? What kind of a fool actually believes this (excepting if he is a fat and over-weight American couch-potato or game salesman?) 


First off, what are "cognitive abilities?"


From Sharpbrains.com:


What is cognition? Cognition has to do with how a per­son under­stands and acts in the world. It is a set of abilities, skills or processes that are part of nearly every human action.


Catch that? "How a person understands and acts in the world." It isn't rocket science to figure out that what goes on in a hand-held game like a DS or Playstation has little to do with the real world. And the part about eye-hand coordination is also nonsense. Perhaps it would be good for eye hand coordination if you wanted to shoot people in Pakistan with hell-fire missiles while you sit from your office in Quantico, Virginia.


I wonder how well, say, a guy who can score and continually win at a game console baseball software would do with his "eye-hand" coordination catching a ball or hitting one with a bat in the real world? Not too well, I suppose.


It isn't rocket science, like I said. It doesn't require genius to figure out that that sort of thinking is nonsense.


Playing computer games is only good for "cognitive abilities" and "eye-hand" coordination confined to the computer world.

TV and computer games are a vicarious experience; their relation to real world experiences are negligible.


The other part of what the reader wrote that is completely absurd is the that games "are proven" to "increase ... abilities." Proven by whom? By research funded by game manufacturers? That's like using research funded by tobacco companies to prove that cigarette smoking isn't bad for you too! And, yes, Virginia, there are still many of those! In a 2006 article on the Independent UK, research showed the benefits of cigarette smoking!


Sure! There are benefits to smoking and some good things about cigarettes! Just like there are some good things to playing computer games... But the negatives by far massively outweigh the positives and to think otherwise is just plain foolish.


You don't, though, need hundred million dollar research to stop for a moment and use some common sense to see that inhaling the smoke from burning matter can't be natural or good for you, just as anyone with a lick of common sense could see that our children becoming zombies playing computer games can't be good either.


The lowering of academic scores in American school since the 1950s speaks for itself. The startling and escalating decline in the last ten years is startling.


Sure, but don't worry. Research shows that TV and computer games are good for you.... 


Sure, research funded by big corporations show you that, regardless of what your common sense tells you.

(PS: I know some defender of games will say this, so let me cut them off at the pass: When I say, "game" I mean the typical hand-held game kids play or the average home Playstation or like system. I am NOT talking about some multi-million dollar simulator that are used for pilot training or such. As Deleuze and Guattari write, "Simulation does not replace reality, it appropriates reality. It can't replace it." I also doubt that the average home has a million dollar simulator in the living room.)

------

The Plug-In Drug (Part 2)

(This article first appeared on Lew Rockwell in Feb. 2008. Part 1 is here)

".. although you won't appear on any public wanted lists, the American Government will consider you a dangerous enemy if you try to start a movement for people to throw their television sets away... television is the Government's way to keep people subdued, illiterate and brainwashed and there won't be any thanks from them if you try to change it."

~ Andrew Taylor, UK, IT Journalist

".. Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses"

~ From Satire X of the Roman poet Juvenal, late 1st and early 2nd century CE

Removing the TV from the home is the only hope for people who still believe that living in a free society is possible. This is the critical issue when any discussing of the negative effects of television are to be considered. My previous article The Plug-In Drug appeared on this particular website as it is a place where I consider "free-thinking people" to gather. Nevertheless some readers criticized it using very curious and illogical arguments.

If you believe that our entire current political and social debacle cannot be attributed to the wide infiltration of television in all aspects of our lives, then you are truly blind. Television is the modern-day opiate of the masses, used by our rulers to provide us with the bread and circuses that keep our minds off the critical issues at hand.

Serious thought must be given towards television; how it came about, by whom, and for what purpose? Before anyone can make a fair and honest assessment as to the question "Do the benefits of television outweigh the negative effects for the average person or family as a whole," once again, I strongly say, absolutely and definitely they do not. Television is the modern day disease that is ruining our minds, bodies, family, and society as a whole. It is a monstrously gross understatement to say that there is no good argument that shows that the benefits of television outweigh the negative effects on a person, family, or society.

Our societies' political and social order has become corrupted by many things. But undoubtedly the main cause and culprit is television. Television is a root cause of crime, divorce, decaying morality, and poor health; and, even worse than public schooling, it is the harbinger of a poor education. I make the last claim because most people start their children's indoctrination through the use of television four to five years before public schooling ever does.

Before I continue to attempt to get people to recognize that they've been brainwashed and to make the effort destroy the television before it destroys them, I think a brief on the facts on how television came about is in order: Television was invented in the 1920's. Yet it sat unused for nearly thirty years. It wasn't until the end of World War II that TV became prevalent in our homes. When the war ended we had hundreds of thousands of soldiers coming back home to a country where there weren't enough jobs for them. Our women were no longer needed, nor wanted, in the factories making weapons. Readers of this site know that war cannot actually bring a country out of an economic depression. The government of the USA, along with major corporations, needed to keep their profits expanding; they needed a marketplace for goods. So how did they create one? They did it by dusting off the television and cheaply putting this technology into American homes. By doing this, they could control the message much better than radio or print ever did and create a need where one didn't exist before. Television is the child of advertising. A dumbed down populace is the child of television.

In darkened rooms, with all eyes fixated on a screen, conversation frowned upon, and outside noise muffled, people were made to relax, and then mesmerized. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American homes were shown the new lawnmower, the new kitchen gadgets, the new car, and the new tract housing all at the same time. Through the use of television, our government and major corporations could control what was shown to the public. Diversity was discouraged; not only was diversity in thought discouraged, but also diversity in the marketplace has been suppressed by television. How many small mom & pop stores can afford to spend several hundred thousands of dollars on a TV ad? This situation continued and has led us to where we are today: In a society of Clear Channels and Fox TV's that are run by major corporations in bed with the central government through advertising for the sole purpose of controlling the message. And that message is meant to destroy the free market spirit, dampen free thought among the people, and crush rebellion.

To get off the point for just a moment, I believe that, in many ways, the so-called hollowing out of the American economy can also be attributed to television. The government and major corporations used television from the 1950's to the present to sell Americans products that we don't really need. They sold us an image and the idea that we had to "Keep up with the Joneses." Products that are truly needed for survival, such as basic foods, milk, eggs, bread, rice, meat, vegetables, etc., do not usually need advertising as, since they are needed for survival, they will be searched out by people.

In turn, this process means that corporations and advertisers need to always find new markets; there are only so many new cars that can be sold here in America. Few people will buy a new car every year. This, in turn, makes a situation where the corporations need to leave this country and find new markets. It is in these new emerging markets where they can sell Coca-Cola and gadgets. The advertisers prime those markets by using television to show those people what the "American Dream" — or whatever they will call it there — looks like and that dream is a new car, a new house, and new gadgets....

The corporations then must move their factories out of the USA in order to retain profit margins by selling products at lower prices in those emerging markets. This, in turn, allows for a higher profit margin on those same products that are sold back to the American consumer at a higher cost.

There are many arguments against television, so many that they cannot all be named here. So I will just point out a few.

Go back a few paragraphs to where I wrote: "In darkened rooms, with all eyes fixated on a screen, conversation frowned upon, and outside noise muffled, people were made to relax, and then mesmerized." Is there any reader who will disagree with this assessment on how television is generally viewed by the public? Doesn't everyone want silence when they watch their favorite TV show? Do they not relax and prepare for the so-called experience by readying their food, drinks and snacks? Many readers mentioned that they do not like to be interrupted while watching television. Is there anyone who can disagree with the situation concerning the watching of television that I have described above?

Consider this passage from Four Arguments For The Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander:

I asked ... prominent psychologists, partly famous for their work with hypnotism, if they could define the TV experience as hypnotic and, if so, what that meant. I described to each the concrete details of what goes on between viewer and television set: dark room, eyes still, body quiet, looking at light that is flickering different ways, sounds contained to narrow ranges and so on. Dr. Freda Morris (former professor of medical psychology at UCLA and author of several books on hypnosis) said, "It sounds like you are giving a course outline in hypnotic trance induction."

Dr. Ernest Hilgard, who directs Stanford University's research program in hypnosis and the author of the most widely used texts in the field (said), "Sitting quietly, with no sensory inputs aside from the screen, no orientating outside the television set is itself capable of getting people to set aside ordinary reality, allowing the substitution of some other reality the set may offer. You can get so imaginatively involved that alternates temporarily fade away. A hypnotist doesn't have to be interesting. He can use an ordinary voice, and if the effect is to quiet the person, he can invite them into a situation where they can follow his words or actions and then release their imagination along the lines he suggests. Then they drift into hypnosis."

Now, if anyone were really honest about this, how could they say that the typical watching of television doesn't fit the same conditions necessary for hypnosis? Of course, some people will scoff at the idea that hypnosis is anything but Quack Science; for those I suggest researching the Department of the Ministry of Truth as described in George Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four or Soma as referred to in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. I suggest researching these two only if I can get those of you who still believe television is good or neutral to turn it off for a moment to bother to pick up and read a book.

The point of this is to show that television is a form of hypnosis. Hypnosis is described as "suspension of the critical factor" which expands on the idea of "increased suggestibility." A person who is hypnotized may accept statements as true that he or she would normally reject.

This may go to explain why Americans are often so ill-educated, uniformed, and uncaring about world events as well as events happening in their very own country since their main pipe of "knowledge" is an electrical device whose output is completely and totally controlled by the American government and its bed partners in the military/industrial complex. Since the fact that television is controlled by major corporations along with its prostitute Big Brother — and always will be, due to exorbitant costs — it should be self-evident that television is not neutral, is not a tool for the users, and, therefore, it cannot ever be reformed.

Do not confuse my message here. I am not an anti-capitalist. Capitalism and the free market, with all its warts, is still the best system man has ever devised, but I don't need to be homogenized to enjoy living in a free society. In fact, homogenization of thought is the very antithesis to a free society.

As I stated in my article (and confirmed by Marie Winn's book The Plug-In Drug) it is not what is on television that is bad, it is not the content that is damaging; it is the mere act of watching television that is harmful. Television is a displacement of time. It is a huge waste of time — in a hypnotic state — that implants other people's messages into the viewer's head. This makes for a bizarre state of "reality" where frequent television viewers no longer have the common sense to understand our world and true reality. One such reader made an absurd claim that "There is no scientific proof that watching television is harmful." The reader then went on to explain that scientists had not proven that digital images moving at 44.1kHz were harmful to the human eye. I won't go into it too much, but this kind of thinking is just plain ridiculous. Here's why:

Television puts people in a trance and offers up an alternate reality. People waste time watching TV and when they do, the time spent is time lost that could have been used for gaining real-life experiences. As Gary North once wrote, "Time is the only non-renewable resource." The utter notion that radioactive waves (lights) — in an unnatural color spectrum — flashing on a screen in front of someone for four to six hours a day, or more, every day, and that not having any negative effects on the human body or mind is ridiculous on the face of it. It would only take a person who has lost touch with reality and common sense, or one who watches too much TV to even consider that this practice could not be doing something, quite possibly very harmful, to the human body.

It has been obvious to most of the religions of the world for tens of thousands of years that the rays of the sun and the moon have effects on the human body and our earth. In recent years, even Western Medicine has figured it out and started using different spectrum of lights to treat many human ailments such as depression and jaundiced infants. Anyone who has ever had athlete's foot knows that white socks (yes, even white socks have a beneficial effect on certain wavelengths of light) as well as sunlight are quick cures for the ailment. Plants do not grow well under artificial lights. Light affects everything we do. The light of the moon can alter the oceans and the weather, as does the sun. It is certain and common sense that they can alter human moods. It is, quite frankly, imbecilic to think that prolonged exposure to the colored lights radiated from a television set is not harmful.

Or do some people need a million-dollar government grant to prove to them that this is so?

It is common sense that this cannot be good. The ones who fail to see that are like the type of people who need research to decide if mother's milk is better and safer than formula (as if a Nestle chemical concoction could possibly be better than a mother's milk for that mother's very own flesh and blood). That is a lunatic proposition on the face of it.

Get my point? People who watch too much TV lose touch with common sense and reality and this, in turn, leads these people to believing the most absurd notions. Of course, since only someone like Nestle would finance silly research like this, as well as buying million dollar advertising on TV to even bring it up, the people who are in hypnosis will easily accept the new "reality" provided for them by way of suggestion from television.

I've been accused of being a hippie and riding the bandwagon of the seventies by saying that television is bad for children (and that playing classical music is better than rock). To that I would say that I hope you'd read my articles more carefully and understand that I am an industry insider working in the mass media for over thirty years. Generally speaking, I make, and always have made, music-related TV and radio programs. I use this as my "authority." I do not need a ten-million-dollar government university research grant to show me what I have come to know through real-life experiences; that TV is bad and that classical music is better for small children than, say, rock, or hip-hop. Some others also have said that, by riding the bandwagon, I use this as justification to be able to brag that my child is gifted. Once again, the evidence of the damage caused by too much television viewing rears its ugly head; a cursory reading of the article I wrote would show that I never wrote what I am accused of. The Plug-In Drug speaks at length about how TV watching can cause people's ability to read and comprehend to atrophy. As I wrote, "The fact of the matter is that I reckon that, because my son watches no TV, he is actually normal. He seems gifted if only because the other kids have been made dumb because of television..." As far as my child being "gifted" due to not watching TV, I'd like to add that Richard Buckminster Fuller once said "there is no such thing as genius, some children are less damaged than others."

Another intelligent reader interestingly pointed out that, "Kids should be protected from TV with the same determination (that) protects them from child molesters. Come to think of it, viewing TV may be a form of molestation: A stranger attempts to distort a child's concept of reality, obviously without physical touching, but with carefully practiced psychological 'strokes' instead."

The television is one of the main root causes of all our problems. Bring up any subject and it can be pointed out how the television directly relates to the situation. Whether we are talking about the presidential run of Ron Paul and his campaign being ignored, and therefore, out of sight and out of mind of average Boobus Americanus or the sick state of American foreign policy, the television is, at the very least, the accomplice to the crime. It is the television that is being used as the conduit for propaganda and falsehoods that are making our society a society of ill-educated dimwits who know nothing, nor do they care to know, about the problems at hand. The television is giving the public the explanations of the problems in 15-second sound bites that are paid for by major corporations and their prostitute Big Brother; explanations that are controlled and designed to give a certain message. It is a message that is not to be discussed, interrupted, or confused.

If you wish to live as a free human being and wish that happiness upon your children, then throw away your television today. The television cannot be reformed. Don't believe me, read the books I've recommended here, and, after you do, if you still think TV is fine, then I hope you enjoy your "show."

Still, if you think what I have written is wrong, then as is your right, please ignore my warnings. I seriously doubt that any intelligent person could read the books I've mentioned and come to the conclusion that I am wrong. In fact, after reading and judging for themselves, I think most people would say that I am not enough of a hard-core anti-TV advocate. I do not write these warnings for the average person; I write them in the hopes that there are still a great many wise people around. Unfortunately, I fear that the average person is a lost cause; the grip television has on their lives is too great to ever be broken.

The central government, the controllers of the opiate of the masses, will give the average person all the freedoms they could possibly want. Just sit in darkened rooms, relax, shut out any interference, and bring snacks along. The Bread and Circuses are on air all day, every day, for their enjoyment with just the push of a button. What more freedoms could the average person want… or deserve?

Readmore..

Five Rules for Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurship - How to Become a Entrepreneur

Worried about your job? Worried about the future? Join the club. You aren't alone. In a recent survey, 34% of all Americans were found to be worried about their jobs. So if you worry, you're normal. But I think there is a big difference between the worry a business owner or entrepreneur has about the economy and the standard company employee has about the economy. And that is because the average company employee, in many cases, has no control over whether or not they lose their job. Often times, company restructuring and decisions are made and terminations decided in offices five thousand miles away by people the employees don't even know or will ever meet.

Be disruptive and rough!

Entrepreneurs, self-employed and business owners have a better grasp over their situation and more control.

I have found through people I have met, and through my own experiences, that people who are self-employed or own their own businesses are generally more resolved and more confident about their future. Oh sure, like I said, in this economy everyone worries, and that is probably most prudent, but the self-employed or people who have learned to depend upon themselves are the most happy and confident.


So, if you are a company employee and you want to get started on creating your own business and perhaps setting yourself on the road to freedom, then today's short blog post is for you.


Here are my five most important rules for becoming an entrepreneur and entrepreneurship. These are the ones that I believe are the most basic to the success of starting your own business and actually becoming your own boss. I think there might be a few more rules that are good to know but, for now, these are the "five aces" (okay, four aces and a Joker), if you will, of the game as I see them.


The five most important rules are:


1) Try new things until you find what works
2) Be persistent as hell
3) Adapt & overcome
4) Always refine
5) Focus! And become a specialist 


Simple. Now, let me break these down and talk about each one for a moment.


First off, trying new things. You've decided that you want to start your own business but aren't sure what it is going to be. Fine. Try many new things. Did you know that Bill Hewett and Dave Packard of Hewlett-Packard got together initially and decided to make a new company but they didn't know what they wanted to make? They were completely unfocused and starting out making measuring devices like thermometers... They tried many things until they found some things that worked... The rest is, as they say, history.

Hey! Someone already beat me to these great ideas!

A few years ago, I decided that I was going to open a marketing company that focused on the travel market. I came up with a few ideas and then I was brash enough to arrange a meeting with a large, world famous airlines. I was unable to conclude a deal on the initial meetings. I was told that my presentation was "rough."


That was fine with me, actually. I wasn't insulted in the least. In my thinking I was trying something new and I had two goals: first to try to get the contract and; two, to at least learn enough from the initial meetings so that when I tried again at another company I would have learned enough from the first company to be able the get the deals. I saw it as sort of a "on the job" training and there's no better training than real-world. If you think this way then you'll realize that there is no such thing as failure, just the discovery of better ways to do things as you go.


As it turns out, I didn't get the deal at the first airlines. But, after the first meeting, I learned enough from my mistakes that I was able to land several big contracts with one European National Tourism Agency, one airline from China and the contracts for national campaigns for several big airlines. I think I ran a total of 20 campaigns (large and small) after the "failure" of the first approach to the first airlines.


By the way, a full year and one half after that first approach to the first airlines, I finally landed a massive national campaign for them at the end of last year and now they seem eager to participate in another big campaign later this year! That makes me very pleased.


That's the part of being persistent: You have to be persistent, but it's not good to be pushy. Always be available and always pass on information. That way, when your chance comes you'll be available to take it. Even after the first airlines rejected my offer, I still kept in contact with them and still passed along useful information. Whenever I thought I had a "deal they couldn't refuse" I passed along the information to them... Of course, they refused on some of the "deals they couldn't refuse" but it still allowed me to stay in touch and let them know that I was available and convenient.


So, staying persistent - but not pestering - is necessary. 


The third most important point is adapting and overcoming. In the case I gave above, after the "failure" of the first presentation, I went over that meeting in my head and "learned" what was good and I kept those parts and threw away the parts that were bad. I especially decided to work on my attitude and self-fulling prophesy. I decided to make it a rule that I would envision every meeting from now on each and every time - with no exceptions - before I went into them to create a positive outcome. Even though I almost always do this, I did not do that at the first airlines company that I went to. That won't happen again. I was too cocky and not focused on the goal enough. 


Some people might think that visualizing a successful outcome is silly, but it is not. I am a firm believer that visualizing meetings with new people is a key in creating positive outcomes... Perhaps it is akin to practicing a speech before you give it. I even visualize shaking people's hands for the first time and smiling and looking into their eyes!


Of course I visualize leaving the meeting with a great feeling and smiles on the faces of all involved.


The fourth point is about refining. That has a lot to do with number three. As you go along, making your presentation from company to company, you adapt and overcome but you continually refine your message and your presentation. Did you know that Colonel Sanders used this method 99 times before he finally made the sale that has become what Kentucky Fried Chicken is today? Ninety-nine times he "failed" but he kept trying and adapting and overcoming and he kept refining until one day someone said, "Yes!"


Oh, and did I mention that Colonel Sanders was persistent? I hope that I can continually keep up the fight even after 99 people say "No!" to me. Fact of the matter is that when that first airlines said, "No!" to me I was somewhat surprised. I knew what I had was powerful and I knew that if they said, "No!" that merely meant that I wasn't skilled enough at getting my message across. I had to refine (that is, after slapping myself on the forehead).

Colonel Sanders: He who laughs last, laughs best.

Finally, focus. You must specialize. I meet people all the time who are doing this and doing that and they can't figure out why they can't get ahead. Well, it is easy: they aren't focused. 


Here's a simple real-world example: Look around you at the restaurants. There's specialization shops and then there's family restaurants like Denny's. The specialization shops serve one type of food. Say, sushi, Italian, French, steak, etc. The family restaurant serves everything.


The family restaurant has its place but I don't think many consider it delicious. It is the specialization places one goes to for fine and delicious food. I have written more about this here.


To take the specialization example one-step further, how about professional baseball players? The so-called "Utility man" who can play several positions; they can play first base, outfield, catcher... Can you name one famous utility man? I can't. And utility men usually get paid the league minimum and are gone in a few years. But a specialist? Ah! That's different. Maybe a specialist can only do one thing well. Maybe the specialist can only throw 25 hard and fast pitches and can only last one inning but can strike out three batters... Oh, a guy like that will always have a job. A guy like that will get paid millions and be famous.


What does he do? He does one thing and he does that well. This is called "The Hedgehog Concept" you can read more about that here.  


And those are the five rules for entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship.


Some people will read this and ask themselves, "Well, okay, Mike. Now what do I have to do to get started?" I suppose to answer that question, there might be a sixth rule. That rule would say something like 


"You get started by doing." 


Or, as Yoda would say, "There is no try. There is only do."

As in my example above in going to the airline for the very first time, I think it would be foolish to expect that I would have had a 100% success rate (actually have batted almost 1000 since that first time) but we must be realistic and remember what our purpose is: We want success but we will also have to adapt and overcome, refine and be persistent. Get started by doing. Learn as you go. Get advice and read books.


There is nothing stopping you from being an entrepreneur excepting your own fears, indecision and hesitation.


The world needs entrepreneurs. There's definitely an job opening there for you.


This post inspired by Jeffrey Scott

Readmore..

It Takes a Long Time to Build Trust - It Takes One Action to Destroy That Trust

"I cannot trust a man to control others who cannot control himself" - Robert E. Lee


"People ask me why it's so hard to trust people. I ask them why it's so hard to keep a promise." - Unknown


"It takes a long time to build trust. It takes one action to destroy that trust."


Are you helping yourself and your business by being a dependable, trustworthy person? Or are you making the consistent mistake of changing your mind and, more importantly, what you say, and what you tell people, for the goal of obtaining short-term profits? Or, as the old saying goes, are you tripping over the quarter to pick up the penny?

Are you building the image of a person that the people around you can trust to do what they say they will do, when they say they will do it, on time, every time? Are you working everyday to build that trust amongst your coworkers, clients, business partners and customers so that they know, that you are a 100% trustworthy person who they can depend on and, in the case of your coworkers and partners will work for and follow through thick and thin?


If you are not doing that, you are making a big mistake and you are damaging your business chances of success on the long term.


I work with a guy whom I trusted and worked hard with for ten years. Oh sure, sometimes we get into disagreements on how our business should be run, but, ultimately we are heading for the same destination so sometimes there will be differences on how to get to the goal. That's okay. As long as we are going to the same place, then it's okay to argue on how to get there; maybe he wants to take the train and I want to take the bus.


Recently though, we have been getting into disagreements because he keeps making promises to people and breaking them. I wince when this happens. In the life of a business, it's okay for a company to test the waters and see how things and new business plans float. Sometimes, perhaps even often, it's okay to stop in mid-stream and cancel projects or even completely change the direction of the company. But I don't think it is okay to make promises to people that you are going to "do this" or "do that" on Monday then, on Tuesday, tell them that you won't do what you promised.


Like I said, businesses change. It's okay to change and change your mind. Breaking promises is something that happens sometimes, but breaking promises to different people once a week or everyday is completely out of line and way over-board.


I had to have a polite word with him about it yesterday. It was a good talk.


One day, about one month ago, the boss of another famous company in Japan called me up. His business had dropped 30% over this last 12 months. He told me that he needed to do something and he wanted me to come up with a new promotion plan for his new service which was starting up in 2.5 months. He wanted me to do it because he said he knows my reputation and he needed a "quick to react" plan. That's what I excel at. Within a week of his asking, I had spoken to several of my trusted people in my buzz marketing network and arranged a comprehensive plan that ran for 6 months starting within 3 weeks! I presented it to him and he said he loved it and wanted to do it for certain.


He also told me that he needed to clear it with his staff but it shouldn't be a problem. That was a Friday. He promised me that he'd call me back that next Monday. He didn't call back. The next day, Tuesday, I sent him an email since time was critical. There was no reply. I also sent an email on Wednesday and Friday, still, no answer. The next week, I called him up and spoke with him on the phone and he said the staff were all right and he wanted to talk with the local government organization for the promotion. I stressed, once again, that we were losing valuable time. He said he understood and he promised me he'd call me back that evening. 


He didn't call.


The same thing the following week. Finally, three weeks after the first meeting, I spoke with him on the phone on a Monday. He profusely apologized for not getting back to me and then he said, "I am keen to go on these plans. I'll definitely get back to you Wednesday, Thursday at the latest."


He didn't call me back again! That's 3 times he promised to call me back and didn't. 


Now, I know everyone is busy, but too busy to pick up the phone and make a 20 second phone call? I don't believe that. 


Now some people will say, "Maybe he just can't say 'No!'" but this is a foreigner we're talking about. Not a Japanese. So saying, "No!" shouldn't be a problem. 


The plan I came up with was contingent on a few other parties getting involved. It was an organic buzz marketing solution. This means that there are two or three other companies or entities that tie up for the promotions and create a synergy to promote an entire concept to a much wider audience than if the promotion was ran by just one company.


In some of the pieces of the promotion, I talked to two of the most famous companies in Japan to become partners with this initial company that contacted me ran by this foreigner. These other two companies are huge organizations and we have done several organic, buzz marketing promotions together over these last 4 years. They completely trust me and I trust them.


They know that I am going to do what I say I will do. I know they will reciprocate; they will always do what they say they are going to do. That's how you build trust. That's why we enjoy working together.


This foreign boss who can't even call people back when he says that he's going to call? I didn't tell him to call on "Wednesday, or Thursday night at the latest" he volunteered that by himself.


Is this person trustworthy? Do I want to allow this sort of person into my trusted network of folks who work in organic and buzz marketing? Do I feel confident that this person won't piss off my other partners? Would you, dear reader, trust this person and introduce him to your trusted partners? 


No way. I don't think so.


I gave this guy a chance and tried to trust him, but now I can't. I don't want to work with him. I can't. 


I now understand why his business is down 30% over the last year. No surprise there. Does it surprise you? 


I also know that he is going to call me and, at the last minute, ask me to arrange the promotions, but I am going to have to decline. I can't depend on this guy not to make me look bad to people whom I've worked with and built a reputation of trust. I've mentioned before that sometimes the jobs you reject are just as important as the jobs you keep. Heck, if we're not going to do great work, then I don't want to do it. 

Incredibly, the "Untrustworthy meter" does go to minus eleven

Like I said, 


"It takes a long time to build trust. It takes one action to destroy that trust."


This guy has committed three of those "one actions." I can't trust him. I mean, would you?


Don't be like this guy. Build trust.


It's hard to measure the value of trust in a relationship but we know the cost of losing it.

Readmore..

Dumb Things Businessmen Do - Lesson 1: Voice Mail

I was thinking about starting a sub-series in this blog for dumb stuff that I see/hear that foreign businessmen do in Japan. Some of this stuff is amazing. But, nah, there'd be no end to it.

They say the manners and common sense of people are getting worse as the years go by, and I agree... But recently I have actually experienced some especially dumb things foreign businessmen are doing in Japan. Here's two examples:


I call up a guy up on the telephone to talk to him about business... He needs advice and asked for my help. Not being the kind of guy to say "No!" to someone asking for help, I called him back.


The phone rang and rang. I was thinking, "Oh? he isn't there." I was just about to hang up when it clicked and the robot-lady said, "Connecting to the voice mail system."


"Oh, well," I thought, "I guess I'll leave a message." 


I usually hate leaving messages because, nowadays, your number shows up on the receivers telephone so, you'd think they'd call you back, especially if they are in any kind of sales (and in today's market, who isn't in sales?). I also don't like to leave messages since I think it is faster for me to call back (as well as thinking that my business associates should be treated with respect) and, well frankly speaking, I hate listening to some of the dumb messages people leave on their answering services. You know, long and boring ones that take more than 20 seconds to get through? Need an example?


Here's silly example #1: Ones that are spoken very slowly and say stuff like, 


"Hi this is so-and-so. I... can't... take... your.... call... right.... now.... but.... if... you... leave... your... name... and... number... and a message... and... what time you called, as well as the best... time... to... call... back, I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Thank you. Please leave your message after the tone." 


Here's silly example #2 (even worse than #1): 


"Hi this is so-and-so. I... can't... take... your.... call... right.... now.... but.... if... you... leave... your... name... and... number... and a message... and... what time you called, as well as the best... time... to... call... back, I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Thank you. Please leave your message after the tone." Sounds the same as #1? Nope. Because then they'll repeat the same thing in Japanese too!

Isn't that unnerving? What a waste of time! I know you can't take my call right now otherwise I'd be talking to you and not your machine! Instead of that, how about an 4-second, "So-and-so here. Please leave your name and number and a brief message and I'll get back to you"?


Time is important. Time is the only nonrenewable resource. Don't waste your time and certainly don't waste mine.... Especially don't waste the time of business and potential business relations.


But I digress... Back to my story. I called the guy up and the, "Connecting to the voice mail system" message came on. I listened to the message and was ready to leave a very short, "This is Mike Rogers. Please call when you have time" message. But I couldn't. I was floored that this person had an even dumber and more ridiculous message than the typical example I gave you above. This person's message was:


"Hi! I'm so-and-so, sorry I can't take your phone call right now. Please call again later."


What!? This person just costs me ¥20 calling them to hear a message that they can't answer the phone and they won't take a message? Is that anyway to run a business? If that's what they are going to do then turn of the phone answering machine and save people ¥20. Think about what you are doing! If I were a potential customer, do you think I'd ever call them again? No way.


This is not just a question of ¥20! This is a question about common sense. Do I want to do business with someone who is so lacking in common sense? Probably not. 

Money is money. Money is renewable. Time is not.

Good businesses think about accommodating their clients and potential clients. This is an absolute no-no and I hope that these people stop this foolish nonsense and get serious.


Never forget, in Japan, the customer is not always right. In Japan, the customer is God. 


I wonder if God appreciates having time wasted in telephone calls... I certainly don't and I don't like to have to pay extra to do it. 


I'm sure potential clients would agree.

Readmore..

Expanding Your Business? Too Many Fail Because They Don't Get the Right Partner!

So many people have a great idea or they run a successful small business that it seems a no-brainer that they should expand and make more money with their service or product.

But when they do expand, they find that it kills their business. Of course there are a myriad of reasons why expansion of business can kill off a good idea or a great business, but I think one of the most common and avoidable errors is that these people who decide to expand choose the wrong partners.


Specifically, they choose someone they like or can get along with over the right person for the job.

Let me give you a good example. I have a friend in Hollywood who is a music producer and he does great work. He tells me that he is always looking to expand and grow his business, but when he does, he fails. He is an artist and has a reputation for being a genius creative mind. He is frustrated at not being able to expand and make more money. He wrote to me for advice and wants to know how he can take what he does and make more money with it. 


Here is how I explained this to him:


You are an artist. You shouldn't be expected to do the business part of this stuff. You need a partner.

The problem? Say a guy runs a family Italian restaurant. He thinks about making it a chain. Who does he hire? A friend who is interested in Italian food.

Bad choice.

He should hire someone who doesn't give a hoot about Italian food, but only cares about running restaurants at a profit. This person doesn't (and shouldn't care) about what kind of food it is. That is the concern of the first partner.

The first partner, the artist or craftsman here, is concerned with taste, aroma and authenticity. Most probably he is a cook.

The cook needs at least a business man to handle the books and figure out ways to take the cash intake and turn it into profits. 

The mistake that almost all people make when they expand their business (and fail) is that they hire their friends or people of a like mindset. For example, the Italian food chef will hire another guy who loves to cook Italian food (you know what they say about too many cooks in the kitchen?)

The first partner hires their friends (who are artists or craftsmen like themselves) who are great for cooking food, but terrible for handling books and financing. And that's where they set themselves up for failure.

When people want to expand and succeed in their business, they need to hire people with a different skill set than themselves; not always "pals" or "yes men" or people of like minds.

Get it?

You need to find that sort of person.

So, in summation, if you are an artist, craftsman, cook, designer, musician, producer or creator, when you want to expand your business, hire a businessman who has a coldly objective view of your work. If you want to take that mom & pop hamburger stand you have and turn it into a chain restaurant, do not hire a craftsman, hire a businessman who knows how to run a restaurant.

There have been very few people in history who could do both the creative side of business and the "business side" of business... Off the top of my head, I can think of Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Steve Jobs...

You need a good partner. Find one. 

Frankfurt Schoolgirls - Celebrity Twist

Readmore..

Need More Time? Too Much Stress? Stop Drinking!

Sometimes work just seems to get out of hand and, no matter what you do, it seems like there's not enough time in the day to get done all the things you need to. I've had this experience many times.

In fact, from the middle of 2011 to the end of the year, I felt this way constantly. I was carrying a heavy schedule and also had serious stress from dealing with partners and investors. Sometimes it seemed that I had no one to talk to.


I was doing my best to go out and make sales for my new company and, due to the nature of the business, that meant going out at night and drinking with clients and potential customers. That's really where the problem begins; I like to drink. Sometimes I like it too much.


In Japan, it is very common for business deals to be worked out, not at the office, but at a drinking establishment. I've concluded hundreds of deals this way.

I've concluded so many deals the good old Japanese drinking way that I don't even remember them all.


I also don't remember, often times, how I got home after making those deals. I just woke up the next morning, in bed, with a massive hangover. That's the problem with drinking; it's hard to be a social drinker for me. I like to drink and I like the feeling I get when the alcohol "warms me up." Especially if I am at a rock concert or dealing and meeting with music industry related people.


Even so, I've gone periods when I drank every night for months. I've also gone periods when I didn't drink at all for months. Alcohol is a very powerful drug and your body will still feel the effects of it long after you've stopped drinking. I noticed that, in the times I'd go for months without a drink that if I had even one beer, I'd feel tired the next morning. Really! Even one drink at night will have a sedative effect on you the next morning when you wake up.


If I don't drink for about three or four days, the tiredness feeling starts to go away. Seriously, that's how long it takes; three or four days. If you go without a drink for about a week or two, then you will have completely flushed the alcohol out of your system and start to feel much more energetic.


So, if you are a regular drinker, try that: one day without even a taste of alcohol will make you feel better the next morning. Two weeks will make you feel much better and younger. If you go on a raw food diet and don't drink for six months, you will lose 20 kilograms (44 pounds) and feel like you are 17 years old again. I know, I've done that. (Actually doing that again is my New Year's resolution - that is starting today!!!!)

When I stopped drinking and went completely raw food for six months, I lost 17 kilograms.

This photo was two years ago.

I want to do that again. But I digress....


This is a post about creating more time in your day by abstaining from alcohol. You really can lighten your work load and create more time by doing so.


Last year, in the middle of November, I went to work and saw an old friend of mine who was the founder of a multi-million dollar company and retired a millionaire before 50-years-old. We had a nice talk and I told him that I was extremely over worked, tired and hung-over (funny that, being tired and hung over is not conducive to efficient work and time usage). I told him that I was out with a business acquaintance of ours that we've both known for years. That business acquaintance's name is Ray.

My image of Ray Hearn as a father just kidding, of course!

Ray is a world famous concert promoter. He founded Beatink in Japan. That means he does live the life of "Sex, Drugs, and Rock n Roll" (no drugs in Japan, of course). Ray is a wild one. Wildly successful and wildly crazy sometimes. The night before I had dinner with Ray and we started at 5:00 and by 9:00 pm we had drank a few cocktails and (I think) four bottles of wine. After that, we went back to Ray's house and watched Japanese sixties Sci-Fi Horror flicks. There we drank at least another six bottles of wine. I lost count. The next thing I knew it was 3:30 am and I told Ray that I just had to go home. Ray started yelling,


"Mike Rogers you wimp! Get back here and let's drink some more wine!" 


He was still yelling when I crawled out of the house and I am sure Ray and his girlfriend drank some more (well, actually she doesn't drink that much - Ray drank more)... Like I said, I stumbled out the door and slithered down the stairs to the street. I don't remember how I got home.... Typical.


The next day I had a hellacious hangover and four important meetings to attend to.


That brings me back to meeting and talking with my retired at 50-years-old millionaire friend in the middle of November. I told him about drinking with Ray and he laughed. He knew too well what drinking with Ray was like. I told my friend about how I was burning the candle at both ends and I asked for advice on how I could open up more time for myself. He smiled and laughed and said, 


"Stop drinking."


I protested. How can I stop drinking in Japan? A country that has a culture of sales and personal business relationships built on deals made over drinks?


My friend smiled once again. He said,


"I know another extremely wealthy president of another company who had the same problem so he went to a retired businessman he greatly respected to ask for advice. The retired businessman told him to stop drinking. The wealthy president claimed the same as you do, 'impossible to stop drinking because of the ways of business in Japan.' The retired businessman said, 'Yes. That is true. But drinkers will also understand the sufferings of other drinkers. Tell your friends that you have some sort of illness that prevents you from drinking.'"


That was like a light going off in my head. It's true. I know from experience. When I had a terrible gout attack, and had to stop drinking, none of my friends pressured me to drink: they all felt really sorry for me! Really!


Trust me. Many (most?) guys who drink who are in their fifties or later have had drink-related problems or know someone very close to them who has. We do feel sorry for you if you don't want to drink.

Being a teetotaller has had a very uncool image for years! 

The moral of the story? If you want to feel better and be more productive and wake up fresher, stop drinking. If your peers pressure you, I gave you a good excuse just now: Just say you have gout or border-line diabetes. They'll stop bothering you (or they're not your friends!) By feeling better and being more alert and alive, you will get more work done in a much faster and more efficient process. You probably can't cut down all those meetings, but you can help yourself to get a better rest and to feel younger and more energetic and clear-headed if you stop drinking for a few weeks.


Now, that's how you create more time and less stress for yourself.

Nah. I stopped that three years ago.

As for me, I'm getting ready to start working the new year in earnest from this Tuesday. It takes a lot to get myself ready and mentally prepared to go out and do my best. But I have decided to do it. I want to do it for work, for my health and to help me spend more time with my family. 


I am going to eat raw foods only for a few months and stop drinking starting today. Wish me luck? Any readers out there who wish to join me for a cup of tea?


Thanks to: my dear friends Ray Hearn and Koji Kamibayashi

Readmore..