Case Study - Actor Ashton Kutcher

I've been talking for a little while about the strategy of not putting all you eggs in the same nest (talking about work and occupying a day job). That one must diversify one's sources of income because if your employer get rid of you. Then you will at least have another source of income. And you can walk out with you head high, a slight smile on your face and the assurance that your financial life is not doomed.

I am not the inventor of this principle. Far from it. But I find that so few people practice it. The standard model I see in the world is: a married couple, borrowed to their neck to get the house, two cars, two kids, an education and a dog... the American dream. Both work a day job. Both live from pay check to pay check. And both are exposed dramatically if one of them loose their job.

I'm advocating another way of life. One with no debt. But also one with multiple sources of income. And I think we are still too few living like that. But not for actor Ashton Kutcher.

The guy is not only a famous actor through his role on "That '70 Show" and "Dude, Where's my Car?" But he is also on of the most insightful investor according to David Lee, co-founder of a Silicon Valley investment firm. He invest into Silicon Valley start ups. And he takes his investments seriously. He's in there to make money. Which is good.

So the guy is clever enough to know that a job in the acting industry comes and go. And one must not rely on it. And it gets worst when you age... So he decided to... diversify. And that is exactly what I mean when I talk about the multiple revenue income philosophy. But he is not alone. I've seen it quite a few times with actors and comedians. I know one diversified in real-estate. I know another that bought an entire stores chain. One again started a magazine. And I know a singer that started a baby food company with her husband aside of her singing career.

So what is it that artists understood that others didn't in the remaining industries? They understood that work is precarious and one must see to one's self for one's future income needs. But why is it that artists understood that and the rest of us don't? Is it because they are smarter? I don't think so. Its because of the nature of their industry. It goes by the contracts. So you never know what contract will be next or if there will be a contract at all. So you plan ahead. But we, day jobbers, we are paid by the week. A steady weekly salary. So after a while we tend to assume that the regular pay check will continue to come without interuption indefinitivelly. Until the day we come to work and hit a closed door with a statement pinned on it:"OUT OF BUSINESS".

Never get asleep my friends. If you do have a day job, that's good. It is very rare these days with the state of the economy. But be smart. Think farther than that: live below your mean; be frugal; accelerate you debts payments; get at least two other means of income (without killing yourself at work). Never be dependable of anyone. That is the recepe of true freedom.

Beging for a job, that is not freedom. Sending hundreds of resumes and receiving may be two or three refusal letters, this is not freedom. Being selected (by HR), that is not freedom. That's worst. That's below dignity. And asking permission for two weeks vacation, that is not freedom.

Are you proud of the fact that you don't need your parents' allowance to live anymore? Then why are you proud of depending on your company's weekly allowance?

Get clever. Like Ashton Kutcher.

Kaizen Strategy

Kaizen is a japanese word meaning "improvement" or "change for the better".

We all want to become better people. But most lack the method. Or we go randomly about it or based on needs or worst, imperative. We also take a slack approach about it. "This year I will stop smoking". Or "This year I will start to train and put a prime on my health". And next thing you know, we drop out. Again. And we experience a feeling of failure. Again.

Sounds familiar? Don't worry, you're not alone.

So how can one improve, get better and put all the chances on one's side to avoid quitting? Simple. Lets apply the Kaizen process to our own life. The Kaizen process consist in four easy steps:

1. Plan

2. Action

3. Measure

4. Analyse

Its as simple as that. First you plan the change you want to make. Then you must take action. Your actions will bring results that you must record and measure (Which I don't). And finally you analyse the results and correct the action if need be.

But Kaizen also means moving forward step by step. So it is not designed to make big changes happen overnight. It is made to evolve in increment, step by step, day by day. And down the line the change will be huge. But you wouldn't feel it because you lived it by small increment. And this is the mistake I made all my life when I wanted to make a change.

For example, I always say that I want to have the body of a greek god. So I start to train like mad, going to the gym four or five times a week. And then, after six weeks of this regime, I stop all together. Then I have to start all again...

But if I go by increment: I will jog once a week. Then twice. Then mesuring my progress, this will give me joy and push me to jog for a third day. But this time my motivation will be propelled by results. I will WANT to do it, instead of doing it because I HAVE to do it. That's an enormous difference in perspective. And I think that it hold the key to success.

Lets start right now. I know that the part that need most improvement in my body (the part that I know that if I improve it, it will dramatically change the aspect of all the rest) is my belly and my abdominals. But for some reason I just can't seams to start working on that body part.

I have at home the abs part of the P90X training. I just can't seam to start it. But as of tomorrow. I will do one rep of on set of the first exercise on it. And record my results.

I shall apply this strategy to everything I want to undertake and accomplish in my life.

Chubby or top 10? A very interesting dating strategy.

VS

This week-end I witnessed a very interesting conversation.

I went out with two of my friends for a beer and have a little chat. My friends are considered handsome boys and have no problems in dating beautiful women. But they have both a diametrally opposed strategy about it. One of them (Eric) likes small, chubby and not too fuzzy about make-up women, but very cute ones. The other (Joseph) is attracted by tall, long hair, drop-dead beautiful top-model type women.

So came a discussion between them that I witnessed. I was moving my head right to left like I was watching a tennis game.

Eric said that he prefer the short and more... discreed ones because he feels that they are more true, close to their heart and they tend to be more "giving women". They have more consideration on what their partner feels and wants to make sure that he is happy. They are women that puts value on one's innerself and are not attracted solelly by the physical aspect. "And", he says, "as an added bonus, since they are women that are somewhat less popular with men, you get the benefit that your're girl won't be hit on each other minute thus the temptation to jump the fense is less."

"Non sense!" Said Joseph. "I like drop-dead women because they tend to be more sure of themselve, know more what they want and are not affraid to go get it." He continued "when they get out with a guy, you can be sure that the guy is special because there is so many fish in the ocean that they are very careful in the picking. Thus when they end up with a guy, in the girl's head, its the one and for the long term." And he concluded "and the added bonus is that they are hit on so much that they get immuned against it. So I know that when my girl has a girls night out, she's there for the fun, the dance and that's all."

Eric: "Wait a minute. Are you implying that when the chubby kind women goes out, she is more prone to be unfaitful?"

Joseph: "No. What I am saying is that the chubby does not get hit on as much as the model. Therefore when she gets hit on, it affects her much more than the model and thus creates a more dangerous situation for you."

...

And the conversation went on... on sports, women again, politics, women, philosophy and then of course... women.

But what I got from my friends conversation is a very interesting "insssurance policy against cheating" strategy in dating . Lets recap. If you date a more natural woman, you are less likely to be cheated on because since she gets less offers, the risk is less. The downside to this (according to my friends) is that this strategy can backfire if the woman actually gets hit on. Since it is more "rare" (once again according to my friends) for her, the temptation to give in will be higher.

On the other side if you date models, they get immuned against flirts. Therefore you get more chances that she will be fateful if you're THE one for her. The downside of this is that if you are not THE one for her, or if she wants to get even with you for some reason, or she wants to hurt you in some ways, then she just have to go out and roll her hips a little, and you're history in no time.

Which strategy is best? Honestly in this case I don't know. Both have their pros an cons.

But what is interesting is that it gives an interesting hint on the hidden computation part of our brain when it comes to relationships. Because my friends had this conversation very genuinelly without back thoughts. They were not aware that what they were verbalizing, is their internal premisses of odds calculations in a relationship. Odds of being cheated on or not... And in some ways, it affects their choices of potential dates.

Of course one has to realize that this is an over simplification of relationships and women characters. One must not take this to the letter and apply it as is.

But this is nevertheless interesting... for a Strategist.

Links of the week

John Stossel Fox Business: Atlas Shrugged - Part 1

John Stossel Fox Business: Atlas Shrugged - Part 2

John Stossel Fox Business: Atlas Shrugged - Part 3

John Stossel Fox Business: Atlas Shrugged - Part 4

John Stossel Fox Business: Atlas Shrugged - Part 5

John Stossel Fox Business: Atlas Shrugged - Part 6

Hank Rearden state of mind

Just watch this video from Atlas Shrugged.

Hank Rearden comes back from work. He poured the first drop of the new Rearden Metal. A colossal achievement for human kind. And he decides to give a gift to his wife made of the first drop of the first pouring of the Metal. And look at he reaction.

I can't help but to feel lonely has he is. For that's exactly how I feel with my own family and significant other.

Henry Rearden comes home.

Book Review - Killing Giants

Tales about little guys who overcome huge odds to defeat a gigantic person, business or army are as old as time. People love underdogs and want to see an upset, writes branding expert Stephen Denny in the introduction to Killing Giants, which outlines smart and often sneaky strategies small firms can use to tip the odds in their favor when they are competing against an established competitor with deeper pockets.

Small firms are nimble, creative by necessity and often willing to do things that huge corporations can't - or won't - do to capture clients. These can include taking advantage of the marketing and advertising an established firm has done to develop a product and nurture a market for it, by convincing customers at the point of sale that your product will better meet that need than will the giant's.

what makes Killing Giants a useful and entertaining book are its case studies. Each chapter describes a situation, such as lauching a new, but different, product in a highly competitive market (cleaning supplies, candy bars, an airline); conceptualizes a strategy (fighting dirty or polarize on purpose), and gives examples of small companies in that situation and what they did to manoeuvre their way to snatch the giant's customers or successfully carve out their niche.

As Denny notes, not every case will apply to your situation, but some may be dead-on. They'll all get you thinking.

Souce: Laura Ramsay, Financial Post.

Case Study - Cyril Ramaphosa

Born in a black township in 1952, Cyril Ramaphosa rose to become South Africa's leading trade unionist, switching to politics and then to business after the end of apartheid. He became one of the country's richest men, and is still occasionally mentioned as a possible future president. Nowhe is the face of McDonald's in Africa's biggest economy.

Mr Ramaphosa, who once said his favourite meal was a fish with salad, will own and run all the American burger giant's operations in the country, including 132 outlets. He will have a 20-yearfranchise and a mandate to "turbocharge" growth. The price of the deal has not been revealed. Since opening its first restaurant in South Africa in 1995, McDonald's has struggled against fierce home-grown competition. Famous Brands, its main rival, has more than 1100 outlets, operating under such names as Steers, Wimpy and Mugg & Bean.

Mr Ramaphosa, a lawyer by training, founded the National Union Mine-workers, building up to become Sout Africa's most powerful union. He helped bring about apartheid's peaceful end as one of the African National Congress's main negotiators, By the time he was elected to parliament in the country's first fully democratic elections in 1994 he was already being tipped as Nelson Mandela's likely successor, but he lost out to Thabo Mbeki.

He promply resigned his political posts and went into business. With his formidable connections, negotiating skills and charm, he took to it like a duck to water. He was one of the first to benefit from the ANC government's black economic empowerment (BEE) policies, building an empire in mining, energy, property, banking, inssurance and the telecoms. With investments said to be worth 1.55 billion rand ($224m), Mr Ramaphosa had joined the 31-strong club or rand billionaires. His wife is the sister of Patrice Motsepe, another BEE tycoon and the country's firstblack dollar billionaire.

Deals like the McDonald's one seem to fall into Mr Ramaphosa's lap. As well as servingas executive chairman of his own Shanduka group, he has a string of non-executivechairmanships and directorships of some of the country's biggest and best-known companies, including Bidvest, a giant food-service and distribution business. He is also a member of Coca-Cola's international advisory board. both positions should serve him good stead in his new job. Although South Africa's media continue to talk up his presidential prospects, he says he has no interest in returning to politics.

Does South Africa media really need any more fast-food joints? The World Health Organization reckons 62% of the country's men and and 73% of its women are already overweight, making it one of the fattest countries in the world. Almost a quarter of men and two-fifths of women are obese. But then, as President Jacob Zuma has shown with his three large wives and one equally large wife-in-waiting, in South Africa big is beautiful.

Source: The Economist, March 26th 2011