❤️

Based on what he wrote in "The Art of the Deal," my guess is that generating controversy was a strategic decision to get free unpaid media. To those, like me, who have long maintained that all publicity is not good publicity, I have to consider how to parse "good publicity" from "effective publicity toward a desired end in a Jerry Springer age." Also, we have to consider that much of his life was spent supporting candidates like Hillary Clinton, and not spewing a caricature of what is being passed off (inaccurately) in the media as "conservative rhetoric." While I do think his next USSC pick will lean more conservative, I don't think future appointments are a lock, especially if he feels the need to confront the GOP about... anything... literally anything. I don't even think he was serious about a wall. First, it won't solve the problem he says he wants to solve, and second, it will be more expensive than we can afford -- and Mexico isn't going to pay for it. So, for someone who desires more progressive policies, Trump probably is naturally closer to you than me in that area, assuming he is moored by any cohesive governing philosophy at all (which is not a given). However, even if you believe the best stories about his character and behavior regarding things that matter to both of us -- marital fidelity, respect for women, etc, it is still a tough pill to swallow. The worst stories would be disqualifying, but they would have been for Clinton as well. This is just the reality we have to deal with now. I heard on the radio this morning from a liberal dude that wrote to a more libertarian dude about the difference between him and a Trump supporter. I thought it was insightful. He said to the trump supporter, "I took Trump literally, but not seriously. You took Trump seriously, but not literally." There is much that he has said that cannot be taken literally (especially for all the times he contradicted himself). And much of it is just a starting position for negotiation -- something he claims to be good at. We'll see. As should be the case regardless of who is elected, we can and should support the policies that are good, and oppose those that are bad, and work like the dickens to ensure the Congress is empowered with the wherewithal to hold the executive in check when he goes beyond his appointed duties. I'm with you, friend. We'll figure it out.

I am sorry that anyone subjected you to personal insults as a means of delivering a "rebuttal." People can be disappointing, but that is often the result of higher expectations you have for people in general, and better examples that you provide. They both actually do you much credit. I fear becoming a cynic. I echo your call to build bridges. I do not have much hope for it coming from political candidates, though. In fact, given what we've seen so far (and we saw an example of it in Bush v Gore), the minority party rabble-rousers will likely seek their own advancement by getting attention exacerbating the wedge that already exists, playing into the worst fears of the "losing" side that they've been had. "They hate women! That's why they didn't vote for one!" or... "They don't listen to us! Which is why they rigged the system so our voices wouldn't be heard!" See how it works? Every unfavorable outcome has an explanation that confirms the worst about their opponents. Not one of the professional muckrakers cares for you, personally, as much as your neighbors do (including virtual ones from afar). In other words, if bridges are to be built, it must be because the people stepped out of the shadows of the candidates and stopped asking the candidates to lead them in areas they were never equipped or incentivized to lead.

Well said, Lewis.

Where would CRM fall in here, or what I've heard referenced as "inbound marketing?"

Hi, Jay - I find that's true for a lot of authors. Sometimes it's brief and subtle enough to avoid distraction, but sometimes I want to call out, "Enough already! It's beside the point. Move on!" And I guess that's really the rub. If it's germane to the point the authors are making then it's completely appropriate to bring it up. However, if they're not prepared to make a strong argument for something that is so clearly arguable, or if their shtick is to make insinuations instead of arguments, well... I appreciate that far less.

Hey, Lewis - You bring up some very important questions that many of us have had to wrestle with in our lives. The very first of these is the question that defines a philosopher: What is truth? Implicit in that question is, "What is right?" and "How ought I behave?" It may not surprise you that I am not a relativist. I don't believe that truth is something that everyone decides for himself and that anything that coincides with someone's own version of truth (which is literally anything) is just okey-dokey. The truth is what it is. We may or may not like it. We may or may not reject it. But our rejection of it does not change it. From that, morality is what it is. I may know it. And when I am more sure than I'm not that I know it, it is my aspiration to defend it even at the expense of my prosperity -- though selfishness is a tyrant that can be very difficult to overcome. I may not know what is the right thing to do, or else I may not be sure that I can defend it rationally. In these cases, silence and humility are good companions. But sometimes, when time does not permit sober reflection, when you're standing there alone needing to make a choice only you can make, knowing that what you decide is going to define you, you have to make a choice. It may be a good choice, it may be a bad choice. The bad news is that there's a strong chance that, even though our self-interest and the right choice may be aligned, self-love tends to distort our view of the world, and our nature forces us to, more often than not, justify what we do in favor of our self-interest than realign our values in favor of universal, objective truth. The good news is that there is Grace. There is Forgiveness, if we are made to be open to It. So to answer the question more directly: We ought to try to do what is right, regardless of the worldly consequences. We ought to seek and adhere to Truth, insomuch as we can ascertain what it really is. Come what may. But that isn't our nature. Our nature is selfish. We prefer easy. We prefer the applause of a world we can see, hear and touch over the applause Someone we must trust exists, Whose handiwork we can see, but Whose person we cannot. For most of us, much of the time, this interferes with our judgment, and we make bad choices. Our best chance for success in this world and the next is that we be aware of this, and that we go forth with this knowledge in humility, seeking the companionship of those who have been through the fire and have been made wise from it.

Hey, Lewis - I don't mind at all that Seth Godin or anyone else writes about politics, morality, or zoology on his blog. His blog, his choice. After all, some of the best things I read from Seth is when he tackles some seemingly obscure issue and ties it into something else that would otherwise seem to be unrelated. Done successfully, the point turns out to be both profound and interesting. However, as is true with anyone who publishes opinion (including you and me), once it's out there, others can (and probably will) deconstruct and criticize it. When using my blog to do so, I first seek to be intellectually honest. Then I see if I can add to the discussion. I then consider if it's relevant to my audience and if I can articulate my position in a way that they will also find interesting. Irrespective of my decision to post, sometimes I can, and sometimes I can't. God knows this certainly isn't the first time I've disagreed with someone and chose to write about it here on this blog, and it won't be the last. However, none of it detracts from the respect I hold for those individuals (including Seth). In fact, in this case, it is because of that respect that I chose to write about it.

Hey, Lewis - Supply and Demand are always at work. It's not just a good idea, it's the law. :) That's not to say that in a free market people always demand what will best benefit them, but history has shown us that it has a better record than any other system. Like I mentioned to Sarah, high-value marketers might find it useful to construct clauses that reward success. The key there is to ensure you're measuring the right things, which is what they're going to have to do as part of their jobs anyway, for the business.

Thank you, Sarah. The beauty of freedom is that people are free to accept or reject any offer, based on individual needs at any given moment -- whatever they are (after all, some people might prefer to work at a small business environment and would be willing to make sacrifices in pay to do so). I don't care what anyone says... every person is in sales. Every. Single. One. Marketers more than others. Your suggestion to "revisit" their pay in 3-6 months reminded me of that. To pull it off takes negotiation and definitions... "Sure, Bob. Let's revisit my pay in 3-6 months, but in return for my accepting a lower salary now, let's talk about how my performance will be evaluated and how I'll be compensated by exceeding my success metrics."

Jay - It's true that people should be able to prove that they're worth the money they command, but what do people look at as evidence that they're worth that kind of money? 1. Experience 2. Degree 3. Awards And I'm not sure what the order typically is, in this industry (though I'm sure there are all types). Certainly after the hiring, the person has a certain amount of time to prove value, but before the fact it's just difficult, because it's hard to predict how and how much anyone will be able to contribute productively to an enterprise in a constantly changing environment.

Beth - As long as the market is allowed to adjust as it should (i.e., no government intervention), prices and supply will reach a natural equilibrium. Talented folks who can make more money in different ways may decide to do so, and the people who are willing to work for less (and who may or may not be as talented) will jump on it. The real opportunity is for the marketing zealots and the enterprising individuals who are dedicated to the things you wrote about. As they demonstrate their value, they will be able to fetch a higher salary. Assuming a competitive market, those who hire the mediocre will (again, barring government intervention) witness their market share evaporate.

What Russell said.

Lewis - By far this is my favorite award. Thank you!

Funny.

One of my favorite examples of this type of thinking that defies all reasonable explanation is the message (delivered by snail-mail or through an Internet portal via internal promo or email) "Dear Valued Customer." Then it proceeds to tell me about something I don't really care about. Some of the work involved with generating relevant communications can be difficult. But if I'm so "valued," wouldn't they at least know my name??

"Why would companies that usually don't consider innovation, start doing so when recession comes? Struggle to survive, maybe?" Luc - Great question! It sounds like the first struggle is to overcome the lack of consideration. Companies should ALWAYS consider innovation in EVERY ASPECT of their business. This doesn't necessarily mean new technology, but it could mean new processes that facilitate better efficiency or effectiveness. That way, when a recession comes, they don't need to scurry around like rats looking for ways they can survive. Different companies have different challenges with this, depending on the area that requires innovation. Legacy systems, legislation, contracts, etc., might prohibit it or make it extraordinarily difficult. However, if they're always striving to and ACTIVELY looking for ways to improve, when they come across hard times, they should be better equipped to make the case for making tough sells and tough choices.

Gannon - I'm glad you picked up on that. That would surely be a value-add for the students.

Here's another article for your perusal: http://tinyurl.com/6njuve