Alan Weiss's The Uncomfortable Truth®

Some suggestions to build credibility with a buyer during the initial meeting. (This assumes you’re meeting with a true economic buyer who controls the budget.)

1. Assume a peer mentality. Don’t allow yourself to be cast in a “dog and pony show.” (I suggest you never show up with visual aids for this very reason.) Adapt an attitude that the two of you are peers mutually exploring a working relationship. Either of you might accept or reject it.

2. Be patient. Don’t barge into silence and state, “Let me tell you about myself.” You’re not there, believe it or not, to get a sale. You’re there to develop a relationship. That might require several meetings.

3. Use provocative questions to get the buyer to talk about him- or herself, or at least the company. Show an interest in the buyer and the business.

4. Do your homework. Learn the current stock price, the company history, the major competition, and the primary markets served. Become conversant in the client’s business environment before you meet the buyer.

5. Push back. Choose your spots to disagree with the buyer. At least offer alternative viewpoints. Relationships are based on honesty and candor.

6. Offer immediate value. Demonstrate some techniques or approaches that might be applicable. Don’t wallow in theory, and do not focus on your exceptional credentials. Instead, provide help.

7. Embrace the buyer. Use “we” and “us.” Orient your conversation around how the two of you would partner, not what “you” would do to “them.” Encourage the buyer to think about the two of you working in concert.

8. Focus on business outcomes. Spend as little time as possible on alternatives and input (e.g., training, surveys, retreats, audits), and emphasize results (e.g., market share, improved teamwork, higher profits).

9. Ensure that your image is professional. Dress well, even in a business casual environment. (Expensive casual clothes are indicative of successful people.) Make sure your grooming is appropriate. Use the language perfectly.

10. Take the initiative. Ask about and reaffirm the meeting time frame and the agenda. Suggest next steps. Summarize what you’ve heard. Act like someone accustomed to working with high-level people.

You won’t close every deal or charm every buyer, but at least ensure that it’s not because you’re your own worst enemy.

There are 330 million people in the US that we know of. There are 12,500 school districts, 18,000 police departments, 17,000 libraries, 400 different languages spoken, 45,000 flights per day, 5 million privately and commercially owned vehicles, 200,000 dentists, and 641 amusement parks. 

There are nation-states (Japan, Korea), multi-state nations (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait), and multi-nation states (US, UK). The US is probably the most pluralistic and diverse nation on the planet, especially in these numbers. Comparing us to Denmark, Thailand, or New Zealand is plain silly. I'm not disparaging those nations; I've been to them and another 60 besides, and like almost all of them (apparently, I'm alone in finding Iceland totally boring and Brazil scary).

It's like saying if a hybrid Kia can get 60 miles to the gallon, why can't a Ford pickup? Well, because they're entirely different vehicles with different appeals and purposes.

I pointed out to a client in Denmark while arguing these points that there are no lines of people at Denmark's borders seeking entry and citizenship. "Well, you're right about that," he said, "and if there were, we wouldn't let them in."

There's a lot of room for improvement in the US, and, in all fairness, there's been a lot of improvement, and people are better off than they think they are because they haven't been to 60 other countries (and, in many cases, even one) and they're drowned in bad news by media that reports calamity where none exists and refrains from reporting good news as if that's the calamity.

By the way, there are 2,700 commercial news channels in the US, and I'm not sure that's a good category to be leading (we're 4th, after Russia, China, and the EU).

This is a marketing lesson for the Catholic Church. I’m a lector and a Eucharistic Minister in the Church and converted 18 years ago. As some of you know, I’ve also spent a great deal of my coaching and consulting career in the field of strategy and have written two commercially published books on the topic.

The average age in the church my wife and I attend is north of 60. Young people are not drawn to the church in the numbers of old, and as the population ages, it also diminishes. Churches are closing and being combined because there aren’t enough priests to go around. They, too, are aging as young men aren’t becoming seminarians in large numbers. 

Strategically, the Church needs to permit women and married men to become priests, as is the case in many other religions. This would provide not only more people, but more diversity: female points of view (Mary is important only second to Jesus in the Church and many people feel they’re equal), and priests experienced in marriage, raising children, and intimate matters. 

Tactically, the Church needs to equip existing and future priests with the ability to deliver pragmatic sermons which reflect how Christianity is to be lived daily, not just one day a week for an hour within certain edifices. (And even then, I often don’t get a break trying to get out of the parking lot.)

I have heard, nationally and internationally, some brilliant sermons delivered by priests, bishops, and cardinals. But too often, the sermon is existential and philosophical, not something parishioners can take with them back home or to work. Too many priests read their sermons, which are horrible and not very heartfelt. And often, what they’re reading are their notes from when they first gave that sermon 40 years ago.

The church needs to be audience-centered, not clergy-centered, and priests (as well as lectors) need to be instructed in professional speaking skills. (This is why the mega-churches always have highly skilled homilists, by the way). And there’s also humor to be found. St. Augustine said, “Lord, please make me a good man. But not too soon!”

Church is community. The community deserves more than a shepherd; it deserves a diverse clergy whose messages can be applied to improve lives immediately, delivered in powerful and effective ways.

So help me God.

The agenda of inequality and wealth focused only on the richest might not reconcile with reality.

There have been increases in home ownership (even though buying always has its difficulties, from interest rates to inventory). There is a record of intergenerational wealth transfer from retirement savings and the Regan-era IRA legislation.

In the West, family prosperity is higher than ever: assets, cash in banks, pension funds, etc. Daniel Waldenström's book Richer and More Equal makes a case that the West is richer and has less inequality than in the past. 

US wealth concentration is higher than in Europe but is lower than before WWII. Major improvements that lower wealth concentration have been pension/retirement funds and home ownership. 

Wealth improvement leads to successful business ventures, hiring, and investment, and the most net, new jobs.

We are not there yet. Many inequities remain. Capitalism does a fine job generating wealth but not distributing it. It is an ethical and societal responsibility to help others who cannot generate wealth and/or who are denied the opportunity.

One reason that we don't appreciate our well-being is that the media prefers to trumpet inequities and problems rather than progress and improvement. Another is that not every grievance expressed is legitimate because the loudest voices often are pursuing very private and personal interests.

This podcast was stimulated by an article called The Great Wealth Wave by Daniel Waldenström, a professor of economics at the Research Institute of Industrial Economics in Stockholm. It was published in Aeon.

Just tell me what I want to know.

People instead tell you everything that they know.

College professors are reading their dissertation notes. Electricians are telling you about high and low voltage, amps, and watts. The tree guy tells you about diseases of poplars when you asked if he could prune some dead branches on an oak. The auto guy explains why a repair isn’t as easy as it looks because of the wiring, which is different from last year’s, which is subject to weather conditions….

On the other hand, there are some benefits.

Keeping someone talking at a bar and not having to talk back. Feigning interest in someone’s work by asking a question every five minutes. But it doesn’t work with politicians because they put no stakes in the ground.

The phrase “How Are You?” isn’t actually a legitimate question because the asker is not seeking an answer but merely providing the secret handshake.

Catholic Confession can be burdensome when you confess to impure thoughts, and the priest’s reply is, “Let’s begin with Adam and Eve.”

Of course, some answers are too brief. “Can I plug this in here?” Answer “yes,” but it doesn’t include “if you turn the power off, first.”

General Anthony McAuliffe’s response to being asked to surrender around Christmas 1944 by the overwhelming German force facing him was “Nuts!” His forces held out and were rescued.

I often go ask a question with a phone to my ear, ask out loud, “Can you hold on a minute while I ask a question?” ask my question, and then go back to my call. Of course, that didn’t work out too well in the Confessional.

Even in truly tough times and horrible market segments, there are winners and strong companies. You have to play the hand you’re dealt, and you have to play it well. If anything is happening to you more than two times out of ten, it’s you, not them.

With high interest rates, houses are still being sold. With food being expensive, people are still dining out. But you can’t expect yesterday’s ideas to thrill people about tomorrow. Nor can you tap dance on hot coals, in sweat tents, or with rah-rah speakers.

You have to show people that you have ideas for tomorrow, anticipating change, not answers to past problems. Don’t create false narratives that drive your approaches, e.g., “I can help you cut expenses” or “We need to lower our expectations.”

Don’t allow your prospects’ fear to scare you or infect your thinking.

The Titanic was a bad idea: mistaken design, insufficient lifeboats, and a poor route. FedEx was a great idea: postal service weakness, hub and spoke, “guarantees.” We are accountable. Not the fates or the winds or the tides or technology or society. Endure the brief pain of trying new approaches and innovating, or you’ll face the long-term pain of inevitable decline.

If you win a race by .001 seconds, have you really “won.”? And certainly, you’re not the “best in the world.” On that day, in that place, at that time, you finished barely ahead of the next person. What if you did it again an hour later?

Of course, if you constantly and consistently win, you might be the best in the world or the best ever: Yankees, Celtics, Tom Brady, Rocky Marciano, Serena Williams, Jack Nicklaus. In subjective judging, it’s really a joke. Those that are the best also get the most benefit in the scoring. Brady threw touchdowns, or he didn’t. But the ice skaters, divers, gymnasts, surfers—those with the best records get the best treatment.

Then again, there’s the doping and the cheating. The Chinese escaped disqualifications for doping by claiming they consumed “tainted meat.” I wonder who slipped them that? By the way, if the Olympics are about simply the fastest, strongest, etc., why keep medal counts and raise national flags to national anthems?

What about the bad calls and missed calls from officials? Is break-dancing a sport? Isn’t there a practical requirement historically, such as in archery, fencing, judo, or running? Even the pommel horse was used originally to teach mounting and dismounting. 

If break-dancing is a sport, why isn’t ballroom dancing, which has its own competitions globally and requires superb coordination, training, balance, and teamwork? I was at a Four Seasons where, early in the morning, there was a bed-making and floor-vacuuming competition. Why isn’t that an Olympic event? It’s a highly coordinated skill done billions of times a day worldwide?

Tennis players are athletes. I don’t think golfers are, nor are race car drivers. They are certainly skilled and adept, but so are woodworkers and chess players. I understand the ambiguity of X and Y chromosomes and uncertain genitalia. However, I also know that women’s athletics and Title 9 were not intended for average male athletes to be stars in another venue.

When you “eclipse” someone’s record, does it really count if you’re using vastly improved equipment, medical support, and venues? Hasn’t fiberglass improved vaulting over wood and bamboo? With modern sports medicine, Sandy Koufax would have had another six unsurpassed years. Brady couldn’t have played into his 40s. We’re a country of 330 million people, and it seems to me that the Australians, with 30 million, eat our lunch in the pool. And they’re not as insufferable as we are with the constant chants of USA, USA. (I do chant myself against the Russians and the Chinese.) 

Finally, I don’t know about you, but the juxtaposition of athletes not supported by anything substantial and working with little money and not the greatest support at home, and the kibillionaire professional US basketball players, marching in the same parade and winning the same medals, well, come on….

The Olympics sparked several replays of an Australian swimmer, Cate Campbell, being interviewed on what I think was an Australian TV news show. In a prior competition, she had beaten out the Americans for the gold medal. The interviewer asked her what it was like. 

She ranted on about how glorious it was because she detested the Americans using a cowbell to motivate the team and hated the chant of the fans, “USA, USA, USA,” which she mimicked in a sarcastic tone.

Let me repeat: her team won. She was a sore winner.

If you’re a world-class athlete and you can’t take the pressure of people rooting against you in favor of their teams or motivational techniques used to un-nerve the opposition, maybe you have some serious esteem problems. If you don’t want to endure the pressure of the limelight, don’t walk into it.

I’ve been to Australia 19 times, I have friends and clients there, and I find Australians to be “in touch,” personable, and have a great sense of humor. It’s when we take ourselves too seriously when we feel we shouldn’t have to be subjected to boisterous fans, that our fragile egos are exposed.

The same day the interview was first aired, the Australian women won the 4X100 meter relay, and the American men won their 4X100 meter relay. The Australians and Americans at the pool congratulated each other in good sportsmanship.

So here’s to you Cate: Bong, Bong, Bong, Bong…..

You’ve known wowsers. They’re always trying to be the “second smartest person in the room,” and they correct you even though you’re correct to begin with.

They are official “killjoys.” They are critical of others’ pleasures and accomplishments. Lacking expertise doesn’t inhibit their critiques and corrections. They never converse; they lecture as perpetual professors. They’re distraught if they think someone else is having a better time than they are (and most people are).

Wowsers are dismissive according to their own biased criteria. “You smoke cigars, so you don’t make good life choices, so your opinion on the climate is flawed.” For them, everything they do is the best, no matter what: The trip was the most thrilling, the play was the most sensational, the restaurant was seven stars, and the restroom was the cleanest.

They announce awards and honorifics no matter how transparently unimportant they are. “I’ve been named as most likely to write my first book within four years in my zip code.”

Knowing next to nothing, they are cynical and cite memes and fragments of others’ expertise: “Well, consider the ‘establishment clause,’” “They might invoke the 27th Amendment….” These are the people who scream, “Get in the hole!” after every golf shot and call into the tournament if they spot a violation on TV.

They call people over to the bar to have drinks and then disappear before the bill arrives. You know who I’m talking about.

People may think of a "Grand Challenge" as an exceptionally worthy and difficult problem to solve, and they'd be right. But it's also representative of a more formalized and impressive approach to what appear to be intractable societal issues.

Seth Kahan specializes in these, his most recent being to remove stigma in mental health issues. This involves a farrago of interested parties, from television writers who want to depict the issue realistically and correctly to pharmaceutical companies which seek to develop the proper medications and police departments which need proper responses.

These challenges can be about education reform, immigration reform, climate safeguarding, reproductive rights, and other such vast issues. They tend to be nonpartisan. The correct approach to mental health issues, for example, benefits a wide range of society, from treatment to facilities, from crime deterrence to cures.

Learn where the funding comes from, how varied organizations become involved, and the timing needed for these initiatives to make a difference while successful along the way—sometimes 20 years or more. 

And looking back, from women's rights to civil rights, such movements have existed, being formed out of necessity. We also discuss great leaders (Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Churchill) who were successful because they purposely created these Grand Challenges—not just to improve civilization, but to save it.