Podcast appearances and mentions of bill yes

In this special episode of the Oracle University Podcast, hosts Lois Houston and Nikita Abraham dive into Oracle Fusion Cloud Applications and the new courses and certifications on offer. They are joined by Oracle Fusion Apps experts Patrick McBride and Bill Lawson who introduce the concept of Oracle Modern Best Practice (OMBP), explaining how it helps organizations maximize results by mapping Fusion Application features to daily business processes. They also discuss how the new courses educate learners on OMBP and its role in improving Fusion Cloud Apps implementations.   OMBP: https://www.oracle.com/applications/modern-best-practice/ Oracle University Learning Community: https://education.oracle.com/ou-community LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/oracle-university/ X: https://x.com/Oracle_Edu   Special thanks to Arijit Ghosh, David Wright, Kris-Ann Nansen, Radhika Banka, and the OU Studio Team for helping us create this episode.   ---------------------------------------------------------   Episode Transcript:   00:00 Welcome to the Oracle University Podcast, the first stop on your cloud journey. During this series of informative podcasts, we'll bring you foundational training on the most popular Oracle technologies. Let's get started! 00:25 Nikita: Welcome to the Oracle University Podcast! I'm Nikita Abraham, Team Lead of Editorial Services with Oracle University, and with me is Lois Houston, Director of Innovation Programs.  Lois: Hi everyone! For the last two months, we've been focusing on all things MySQL. But today, we wanted to share some really exciting news about new courses and certifications on Oracle Fusion Cloud Applications that feature Oracle Modern Best Practice, or OMBP, and Oracle Cloud Success Navigator.  00:57 Nikita: And to tell us more about this, we have two very special guests joining us today. Patrick McBride is a Senior Director from the Fusion Application Development organization. He leads the Oracle Modern Best Practice Program office for Oracle. And Bill Lawson is a Senior Director for Cloud Applications Product Management here at Oracle University. We'll first ask Patrick about Oracle Modern Best Practice and then move on to Bill for details about the new training and certification we're offering. Patrick, Bill, thanks for being here today.   Patrick: Hey, Niki and Lois, thanks for the invitation. Happy to be here.  Bill: Hi Niki, Lois. 01:32 Lois: Patrick, let's start with some basic information about what OMBP are. Can you tell us a little about why they were created? Patrick: Sure, love to. So, modern best practices are more than just a business process. They're really about translating features and technology into actionable capabilities in our product. So, we've created these by curating industry leading best practices we've collected from our customers over the years. And ensure that the most modern technologies that we've built into the Fusion Application stack are represented inside of those business processes. Our goal is really to help you as customers improve your business operations by easily finding and applying those technologies to what you do every day.  02:18 Nikita: So, by understanding these modern best practice and the technology that enables it, you're really unlocking the full potential of Fusion Apps.  Patrick: Absolutely. So, the goal is that modern best practice make it really easy for customers, implementers, partners, to see the opportunity and take action. 02:38 Lois: That's great. OK, so, let's talk about implementations, Patrick. How do Oracle Modern Best Practice support customers throughout the lifecycle of an Oracle Fusion Cloud implementation? Patrick: What we found during many implementers' journey with taking our solution and trying to apply it with customers is that customers come in with a long list of capabilities that they're asking us to replicate. What they've always done in the past. And what modern best practice is trying to do is help customers to reimage the art of the possible…what's possible with Fusion by taking advantage of innovative features like AI, like IoT, like, you know, all of the other solutions that we built in to help you automate your processes to help you get the most out of the solution using the latest and greatest technology. So, if you're an implementer, there's a number of ways a modern best practice can help during an implementation. First is that reimagine exercise where you can help the customer see what's possible. And how we can do it in a better way. I think more importantly though, as you go through your implementation, many customers aren't able to get everything done by the time they have to go live. They have a list of things they've deferred and modern best practices really establishes itself as a road map for success, so you can go back to it at the completion and see what's left for the opportunity to take advantage of and you can use it to track kind of the continuous innovation that Oracle delivers with every release and see what's changed with that business process and how can I get the most out of it. 04:08 Nikita: Thanks, Patrick. That's a great primer on OMBP that I'm sure everyone will find very helpful. Patrick: Thanks, Niki. We want our customers to understand the value of modern best practices so they can really maximize their investment in Oracle technology today and in the future as we continue to innovate. 04:24 Lois: Right. And the way we're doing that is through new training and certifications that are closely aligned with OMBP. Bill, what can you tell us about this? Bill: Yes, sure. So, the new Oracle Fusion Applications Foundations training program is designed to help partners and customers understand Oracle Modern Best Practice and how they improve the entire implementation journey with Fusion Cloud Applications. As a learner, you will understand how to adhere to these practices and how they promise a greater level of success and customer satisfaction. So, whether you're designing, or implementing, or going live, you'll be able to get it right on day one. So, like Patrick was saying, these OMBPs are reimagined, industry-standard business processes built into Fusion Applications. So, you'll also discover how technologies like AI, Mobile, and Analytics help you automate tasks and make smarter decisions. You'll see how data flows between processes and get tips for successful go-lives. So, the training we're offering includes product demonstrations, key metrics, and design considerations to give you a solid understanding of modern best practice. It also introduces you to Oracle Cloud Success Navigator and how it can be leveraged and relied upon as a trusted source to guide you through every step of your cloud journey, so from planning, designing, and implementation, to user acceptance testing and post-go-live innovations with each quarterly new release of Fusion Applications and those new features. And then, the training also prepares you for Oracle Cloud Applications Foundations certifications.                   05:55 Nikita: Which applications does the training focus on, Bill? Bill: Sure, so the training focuses on four key pillars of Fusion Apps and the associated OMBP with them. For Human Capital Management, we cover Human Resources and Talent Management. For Enterprise Resource Planning, it's all about Financials, Project Management, and Risk Management. In Supply Chain Management, you'll look at Supply Chain, Manufacturing, Inventory, Procurement, and more. And for Customer Experience, we'll focus on Marketing, Sales, and Service. 06:24 Lois: That's great, Bill. Now, who is the training and certification for?  Bill: That's a great question. So, it's really for anyone who wants to get the most out of Oracle Fusion Cloud Applications. It doesn't matter if you're an experienced professional or someone new to Fusion Apps, this is a great place to start. It's even recommended for professionals with experience in implementing other applications, like on-premise products. The goal is to give you a solid foundation in Oracle Modern Best Practice and show you how to use them to improve your implementation approach. We want to make it easy for anyone, whether you're an implementer, a global process owner, or an IT team employee, to identify every way Fusion Applications can improve your organization. So, if you're new to Fusion Apps, you'll get a comprehensive overview of Oracle Fusion Applications and how to use OMBP to improve business operations. If you're already certified in Oracle Cloud Applications and have years of experience, you'll still benefit from learning how OMBP fits into your work.  If you're an experienced Fusion consultant who is new to Oracle Modern Best Practice processes, this is a good place to begin and learn how to apply them and the latest technology enablers during implementations.  And, lastly, if you're an on-premise or you have non-Fusion consultant skills looking to upskill to Fusion, this is a great way to begin acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to transition to Fusion and migrate your existing expertise. 07:53 Raise your game with the Oracle Cloud Applications skills challenge. Get free training on Oracle Fusion Cloud Applications, Oracle Modern Best Practice, and Oracle Cloud Success Navigator. Pass the free Oracle Fusion Cloud Foundations Associate exam to earn a Foundations Associate certification. Plus, there's a chance to win awards and prizes throughout the challenge! What are you waiting for? Join the challenge today by visiting oracle.com/education. 08:27 Nikita: Welcome back! Bill, how long is it going to take me to complete this training program? Bill: So, we wanted to make this program detailed enough so our learners find it valuable, obviously. But at the same time, we didn't want to make it too long. So, each course is approximately 5 hours or more, and provides folks with all the requisite knowledge they need to get started with Oracle Modern Best Practice and Fusion Applications.  08:51 Lois: Bill, is there anything that I need to know before I take this course? Are there any prerequisites? Bill: No, Lois, there are no prerequisites. Like I was saying, whether you're fresh out of college or a seasoned professional, this is a great place to start your journey into Fusion Apps and Oracle Modern Best Practice. 09:06 Nikita: That's great, you know, that there are no barriers to starting. Now, Bill, what can you tell us about the certification that goes along with this new program?  Bill: The best part, Niki, is that it's free. In fact, the training is also free. We have four courses and corresponding Foundation Associate–level certifications for Human Capital Management, Enterprise Resource Planning, Supply Chain Management, and Customer Experience. So, completing the training prepares you for an hour-long exam with 25 questions. It's a pretty straightforward way to validate your expertise in Oracle Modern Best Practice and Fusion Apps implementation considerations. 09:40 Nikita: Ok. Say I take this course and certification. What can I do next? Where should my learning journey take me? Bill: So, you're building knowledge and expertise with Fusion Applications, correct? So, once you take this training and certification, I recommend that you identify a product area you want to specialize in. So, if you take the Foundations training for HCM, you can dive deeper into specialized paths focused on implementing Human Resources, Workforce Management, Talent Management, or Payroll applications, for example.  The same goes for other product areas. If you finish the certification for Foundations in ERP, you may choose to specialize in Finance or Project Management and get your professional certifications there as your next step. So, once you have this foundational knowledge, moving on to advanced learning in these areas becomes much easier. We offer various learning paths with associated professional-level certifications to deepen your knowledge and expertise in Oracle Fusion Cloud Applications. So, you can learn more about these courses by visiting oracle.com/education/training/ to find out more of what Oracle University has to offer. 10:43 Lois: Right. I love that we have a clear path from foundational-level training to more advanced levels. So, as your skills grow, we've got the resources to help you move forward.  Nikita: That's right, Lois. Thanks for walking us through all this, Patrick and Bill. We really appreciate you taking the time to join us on the podcast. Bill: Yeah, it's always a pleasure to join you on the podcast. Thank you very much. Patrick: Oh, thanks for having me, Lois. Happy to be here. Lois: Well, that's all the time we have for today. If you have questions or suggestions about anything we discussed today, you can write to us at ou-podcast_ww@oracle.com. That's ou-podcast_ww@oracle.com. Until next time, this is Lois Houston… Nikita: And Nikita Abraham, signing off! 11:29 That's all for this episode of the Oracle University Podcast. If you enjoyed listening, please click Subscribe to get all the latest episodes. We'd also love it if you would take a moment to rate and review us on your podcast app. See you again on the next episode of the Oracle University Podcast.

Fleetingly we become MPs and declare how we would vote in next week's potentially historic debate, while reflecting on the unusual politics around the Bill. Plus, is the economy heading for another deep crisis? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What can Dr. Deming's famous Red Bead Experiment teach us about quality? What happens when you only focus on the bad, and ignore the good? In this episode Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz discuss acceptability vs desirability in the context of the Red Beads and a few of the 14 Points for Management. 0:00:02.1 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today I'm continuing my discussions with Bill Bellows who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. This is episode 5 of the Misunderstanding Quality series and the title is "The Red Bead Experiment." Bill take it away.   0:00:30.4 Bill: Thank you, Andrew, and welcome back. Welcome back to our listeners. One thing I want to say is, one is I listen to every podcast two or three times, listening for, is there a need for clarification, reminding myself, thinking, oh, I should have said this. Or sometimes I say, oh, make sure you make this point, and I do or I don't. And. so one is, nothing comes up from the last one that I thought I missed or mispronounced, but what I do want to clarify is, I'm viewing the target audience as quality professionals in your respective organization or people that want to become a quality professional that are learning, that are trying to apply these ideas in their organization, are fascinated with it. Could be quality professionals who are consultants looking for new awareness of the Deming perspective. So, that's...   0:01:35.8 Bill: And so, some of what I have in mind is, and the examples is, things you can try at home. In fact one thing I encourage... What I encourage my students to do, undergraduate and graduate students, even the clients I consult with, companies I consult with, is develop the ability to explain these ideas, any of them, to people outside of work. So, that could be a spouse, a brother, a sister, a mother, father, son, daughter. And, why outside of work? 'Cause I view that as a safe audience. You say, hey, I just listened to this podcast. Somebody at work may not be as safe. And why are we having this conversation? So, I would say, it could be a college classmate, but one is, try explaining these things to people outside of work and then when whoever that is looks at you and says, I have no idea what you're talking about, or this makes sense, then as you develop that confidence then you're refining your explanations. And that puts you in a better position to apply, to explain it at work.   0:02:54.9 Bill: And why is that important? I'd say there's a lot you can do on your own. I mentioned that a month or so ago, my wife and I were in New England, and I met my doctoral dissertation advisor, who's 86 years old and lives in the middle of nowhere. And one of the things is the wisdom he gave us way back when it was so profound. One of the things he said, we were poor starving college students making seven bucks an hour, working 20 hours during the semester as Research Assistants or 40 hours during the summer. And what a life. Living in... This is poor starving college students. And he would say to us... We'd get together now and then, there'd be a keg on campus and we'd be... Which it wasn't all that often, but anyway, he'd say to us, "These are the best years of your life." [laughter] And we'd look at him like... Now again, I mean, we were... I wouldn't say we were poor starving college students, but I mean, we made ends meet. Now our classmates had gone, undergraduate, gone off to work and they were making real money, and we just stayed in the slum housing and doing... Just living cheap.   0:04:20.3 Bill: Then he says, "These are the best years of your life." We're looking at him like what are you saying? And what he said was, you're working on your research projects either undergrad, masters or PhDs. He said, "You will never have the time you have now to focus on one thing and not be distracted." Now a few of the classmates were married. Most were not married, but he just said this is... I mean, what a dream situation. You're in the laboratory every day. That's all of your focus. Your tuition is covered, blah, blah, blah. But it was just like, yeah, okay. So, when our daughter was in graduate school I shared that with her and she laughed at me. I said, "Allison, these are the best years of your life."   0:05:14.4 AS: If only we listened.   0:05:15.5 Bill: Right. So, that's... And well, I wanted to bring up... But the other thing I want to bring up aside from that story is, he'd say to us, when you go to work, he said trust me. He said "there will be more than enough time to get your job done. You'll have a lot of... You will have time to..." And he said, 'cause he used to brag about he'd be given a task and he can get it done in a fraction of the time that was allocated. And why I mention that is that every job has latitude. And so, to our listeners I would say, think about how to use the latitude you have to practice, to do a small scale Plan-Do-Study-Act thing. Now I really think that's what it's going to come down to is, either experiment at home or whatever, but just practice. And then as Andrew always reminds us at the end of each podcast, you can reach out to me on LinkedIn. And that's led to a number of people I'm meeting with once or twice a month.   0:06:31.8 Bill: And they are exactly who I hope to meet, is young quality professionals wanting to know more, to know more, to know more, and they're either in the States or they're living in Europe. All right. So, before we get into the Red Bead Experiment I wanna go back and talk more about acceptability, desirability which will be a focus of the Red Bead Experiment as well. But in the first series we did, there were 23 episodes before we got into the Misunderstanding Quality, and somewhere in there we discussed, you may recall the paradigms of variation. And the paradigms are labeled letters A, B, C, D and E. And we will look at them in this series. So, for those who don't know what I just said, don't worry we'll cover you. And for those who heard it before, okay, we're going to review it. And I mentioned that because paradigm A, the only one I want to talk about tonight, is paradigm A, is does it meet requirements? That's what acceptability is. Is it good? 'Cause we have this binary world in quality. Part of paradigm A is a binary world. It is good or it's bad. We talked about last time is, if it's bad can we salvage it? Which means we can rework it.   0:07:52.3 Bill: Now some of the rework means it could be we can rework it and use it. And in the aerospace industry what happens is, maybe we can't put it in a flight engine. When I was at Rocketdyne maybe it doesn't end up in a Space Shuttle Main Engine, but maybe it ends up in a test engine and a test stand, so it doesn't fly, but we're still going to use it, or it's scrapped. We have to throw it away. But paradigm A is acceptability. Another thing I want to mention is, I was commenting on LinkedIn the last couple of days over process capability metrics. And there's Cp which stands for capability of the process. And, then there's Cpk which is a little bit different. And I don't want to get into those equations tonight, maybe in a future episode. But what I want to say is, if you're looking at a metric such as yield, people say the yield is 100%. What does that mean? It means everything is good. What if the yield is 50%? That means we have to... 50% is good, 50% is bad.   0:09:06.2 Bill: So, yield is an acceptability metric. Why do I say that? Because the measure is percent good. What is a good versus bad? Also say that indices that involve the requirements. And we've talked in the past about a lower requirement and an upper requirement, the idea because we expect variation we give a min and a max. And so, if the equation for the metric you're using includes the tolerance limits, then that's a clue that that's an acceptability-based metric. Now, I don't care whatever else is in the equation, but if those two numbers are in the equation, then the inference is, what you're talking about is a measure, some type of measure of acceptability.   0:10:00.5 AS: Right.   0:10:02.6 Bill: But even if people talk about... If the metric includes the middle of the requirements, well, as soon as you say middle of the requirements, as soon as you say requirements we're back to acceptability. So, these are things to pay attention to is what we're talking about acceptability and desirability, 'cause what we talked about last time was I was trying to give everyday examples of both. And so, acceptability is when people talk about... In fact I listened to about an hour long podcast today on quality management. And one of the comments was, if you follow the steps correctly you get the right result. Well, that's acceptability. Right? If things are right as opposed to wrong. So, again, when you're in this world of good, bad, right versus wrong, that's acceptability.   0:10:58.7 Bill: Again, the reminder is this is not to say acceptability is bad, but it's not desirability. Which one is it? And then what we talked about in the last podcast number four was choose. Do we wanna to focus on acceptability or do we wanna focus on desirability? Where desirability is saying, of all the things that are acceptable, I want this one. I want that orange. I want that parking spot. I wanna date that person of all the ones that meet requirements in my search... You know, in the dating app. And so, that's acceptability. What got me excited by Deming's work in the early '90s was, I was spending a whole lot of time at Rocketdyne focusing on things that were broken. I'm trying to apply Dr. Taguchi's ideas to go, to take something that used to be good but then slipped into bad, and now we're focusing on the bad stuff to make it good. And now the good news is it kept me busy.   0:12:06.5 Bill: I was having a lot of fun. These are high visibility things and the solutions. We got the solutions working with some really wonderful people. But that led me to start asking questions. And I was once at an all-day meeting in Seattle at Boeing. Rocketdyne had been sold to Boeing Commercial Airplane Company. I got invited to a meeting up there. And it was a monthly all-day production meeting. I don't know 50, 60 people in the room. And they asked me to come up. So, I went up. And what time does the meeting start? You know 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock, whatever. And I said you know put me on a few hours into the meeting. Well, why then? Well, I want to listen to the first couple of hours of the meeting. Because in listening, now we're going back to what we talked about with Edgar Schein. And I've developed the ability... You know, I can hear are we focusing on acceptability, desirability, I can hear things you know with a Deming lens. People think of a lens as seeing, well, there's a Deming ear set as well.   0:13:10.7 Bill: And so, I listened for the first two hours and exactly what I expected. So, when I get up to speak at last I said before I got to the slides, I said, "How much time do you spend every day discussing parts that are good, that arrive on time?" And a couple of people in the front row made a circle with their fingers, zero. And I said, so why is that the case? And one of them says, if it's not broken don't fix it. And wherever I go that's what people say. I went to a big Boeing customer doing... Because they were a customer we sold them rocket engines of some size. And I was briefing that slide, had 110 people in the room for a lunchtime presentation. Before I could read the slide, the room erupted in laughter. And so, I share that because if we're spending all this time focusing on the bad but not the good, what is that? That's acceptability. That's what happens, is the economics of acceptability says, only focus on the bad to make it good. But we don't focus on the good because... And that's what we're gonna look at towards the end of tonight is, why don't we focus on the good? And so, next, I had a co-worker at Rocketdyne got a job in Chicago at a toy factory. They bottled soap bubbles. And as a kid's toy with a little wand inside and blowing bubbles and all that.   0:14:56.0 Bill: And she dramatically turned the place around, did some amazing, amazing work. She went from being the senior manufacturing engineer to the, I think plant manager. So, she called me up as she'd been promoted to plant manager. And the question was now that I'm plant manager what should I focus on? So, I said... I had known her for four or five years at that time. I had been mentoring her and the mentoring continued in that capacity. So, I said well, what do you think you should focus on? And the comment was, I think I should focus on all the things that are broken. Well, that's acceptability once again. And I said, so you're focusing on being 100% reactive. And she said, well, yeah. And I said, what you're doing then by focusing on acceptability, you're saying the things that are good I ship, the things that are bad I got to work on. But without understanding that there's actually variation in good... I mean, go back to the Boeing folks when the guy says to me if it's not broken don't fix it. My response to that was, if you use that thinking to drive your car when would you put gas in it? When it runs out. If you use that thinking relative to your plumbing system, your water system at home when would you call the plumber? When it breaks.   0:16:25.5 Bill: When would you go see the doctor? When... So, the downside of not working on things that are good and not paying attention to things that are good is that they may bite you. So, part of the value proposition of acknowledging from a desirability perspective that there's variation in good. If you pay attention to the variation in good there's two upsides. One is, you can prevent bad from happening if that's all you want to do. And two, the focus of a future episode is by focusing on things that are good and paying attention to desirability in the way that Yoshida, Professor Yoshida was talking about. That offers opportunities to do things that you can't do with an acceptability focus, which is improve how things work together as a system. And the idea being when you move from acceptability which is a part focus to desirability, which is a system focus, you can improve the system. Okay, more to follow on that. All right. So, I got some questions for you Andrew, are you ready?   0:17:37.4 AS: Uh-oh. Uh-oh.   0:17:39.8 Bill: So, Dr. Deming had how many points for management?   0:17:42.9 AS: Fourteen.   0:17:46.3 Bill: All right. Okay.   0:17:48.3 AS: I'm being set up here. I just feel it. You start with the easy ones.   0:17:52.8 Bill: All right. And...   0:17:54.3 AS: Listeners, viewers help me out.   0:17:56.9 Bill: All right. And which point, Andrew, was cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality? What number was that?   0:18:09.6 AS: I'm gonna say four or five, or six. I can't remember.   0:18:14.2 Bill: Three. Three.   0:18:14.6 AS: Really? Three. Okay. That was close.   0:18:16.1 Bill: I would not have known. That was number three.   0:18:19.1 AS: Yeah.   0:18:20.1 Bill: And it's followed by Dr. Deming saying, "Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality to the product." So, the first question is what point was it? And again, I had to look it up. I know it's one of the 14. Second question, Andrew, is, if Dr. Deming is saying cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality, would you think of that as an acceptability focus or a desirability focus?   0:18:55.1 AS: I don't know if I can answer that. I mean, I can only think about what he was saying, which was design quality in from the beginning and get everybody involved in quality, not just having an inspector at the end, but I'm not sure.   0:19:11.4 Bill: Yeah. No. And even as I asked the other question, I'm thinking... Well, this is great because if in the audience you think of quality from an acceptability perspective, right?   0:19:24.2 AS: Mm-hmm.   0:19:24.9 Bill: So, if you're working for Boeing, which is all about acceptability or most companies, and you hear step three, then you're thinking, cease dependence on the inspection to achieve..., you're thinking acceptability. If that's what you're used to, if you're used to quality being doesn't meet requirements...   0:19:42.9 AS: Okay.   0:19:43.2 Bill: Then what you're hearing is Deming talking about acceptability. But if you've been exposed to Yoshida's work and Dr. Taguchi's work and you're understanding that within requirements there's variation of things that are good, so it's kind of a trick question. The idea is it depends. Alright.   0:20:02.4 AS: Yep.   0:20:05.5 Bill: I got two other of 14 points to ask you about. Alright. Which of the 14 points is in the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag alone? Instead, minimize total cost. So,  first which point is that?   0:20:26.9 AS: I think it was also... I would say then four.   0:20:32.1 Bill: Yes.   [laughter]   0:20:33.6 AS: Yeah.   0:20:34.1 Bill: Yeah.   [laughter]   0:20:34.5 AS: You'd think I know. I wrote a book about it.   [laughter]   0:20:39.3 Bill: Alright. So, that's point four and...   0:20:42.1 AS: Okay. So, I got... I don't wanna be rated and ranked, but I got one right at least. Okay. Let's keep going.   0:20:49.1 Bill: Okay. And, so, is that acceptability or desirability? Let's say this. Is awarding business on price tag acceptability or desirability?   0:21:02.1 AS: Probably acceptability.   0:21:04.6 Bill: Yeah. 'Cause then you're saying...   0:21:06.5 AS: Can you hit this number? It's okay.   0:21:11.2 Bill: Yeah. Or you contact your insurance company and you say, I'm looking for a heart surgeon, and you say, and I found one, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And they call you up and say, yes, that person is a heart surgeon, but we prefer you use this one. [chuckle] What's the chance they're thinking about a cheaper option? Right? Alright? So, you're looking at from desirability perspective...   0:21:38.5 AS: This guy's really cheap on kidneys.   0:21:40.7 Bill: Right? And so you're thinking you've done a bunch of references. You've asked your friends. And why are you asking? Because all the doctors out there that meet requirements, you're blindly saying, I'll take any one. That's acceptability. And you're saying, I want this one. That's desirability. But the insurance company says, no. We consider them all to be the same in our policy. That's acceptability. Alright. Okay. And here's the last point we're gonna look at tonight. Which of the 14 points is "improve constantly and forever the system of production and service to improve quality and productivity and thus constantly decrease cost"?   0:22:23.5 AS: Isn't that number one? Constancy of... That's...   0:22:28.0 Bill: That's constancy of purpose. That's number one.   0:22:28.8 AS: Okay. Constancy of purpose. So, improve... Don't know. No. No.   0:22:39.4 Bill: That's number 5.   0:22:40.5 AS: Okay. Five.   0:22:44.5 Bill: And I was looking at, so I know those are three and one, and I thought, oh, that's three, four, and five. Alright. So, what I wanna do there is, we're gonna look at that a little bit later. So, I don't wanna ask you about acceptability, desirability, but I just wanna lay that on on the table. Alright. So, now we're gonna look at what Dr. Deming referred to as his chain reaction. The Deming Chain Reaction. Alright. So, what do you remember about the Deming chain reaction? It wasn't a motorcycle chain or a bicycle chain, right? What did Dr. Deming call his chain reaction?   0:23:31.3 AS: I can't... I mean, I'm thinking of the flowchart.   0:23:34.9 Bill: Yeah. We'll get to that. We'll get to that. The chain reaction...   0:23:36.5 AS: But that I can't remember.   0:23:39.6 Bill: And this is likely Out of the Crisis. The Deming chain reaction is, "if you improve quality, you will reduce scrap and rework, thereby reduce costs." And then he goes on to, by reducing costs, you can increase sales and expand the market. That's the chain reaction.   0:24:01.9 AS: Yeah.   0:24:02.2 Bill: So, when I ask students, again, in my either graduate, undergraduate classes is, talk about the Deming Chain Reaction, then I say, is the Deming Chain Reaction... Within the Deming Chain Reaction, Deming says, if you improve quality, reduce scrap and rework, lower cost, is that explanation of quality, acceptability, or desirability?   0:24:31.9 AS: I don't know. I'm fearful to answer nowadays because I'm not getting these right.   0:24:37.4 Bill: No. You are. You're on a roll. [chuckle] Again, the Deming Chain Reaction, if we improve quality, we reduce scrap and rework, thereby lower the cost thereby sell more and expand the market.   0:24:52.2 AS: I would say that's desirability.   0:24:56.1 Bill: Okay. One more time. If we improve quality, we reduce scrap and rework.   0:25:03.2 AS: Yep.   0:25:04.3 Bill: So, the clue is scrap. Is scrap something we talk about with acceptability or desirability?   0:25:12.1 AS: That's acceptability.   0:25:14.1 Bill: And rework.   0:25:18.2 AS: Well, we're trying to make it acceptable.   0:25:20.1 Bill: Exactly. And the reason I point that out is, I'm not sure... And I think we talked last time about things we agree with Deming or disagree with Deming. I'm not a big fan of the Deming Chain Reaction because I think... Again, if I'm in the audience and I'm working for a company that defines quality and in terms of acceptability, and he says to me, if you improve quality, reduce scrap and rework, that's what I'm used to. And my concern is, in other ways he's explaining quality in terms of constantly improving. Well, how can you constantly improve quality once you get to 100% yield? So. if all the product is good, which is acceptability, if there's no scrap and no rework, can you improve quality? Not if you're focusing on acceptability. And so, what I'm saying there is, that if Dr. Deming is in one hand defining the chain reaction and using the term quality in reference to scrap and rework, then he's projecting quality as acceptability. But if he's talking about improving constantly and forever, and then we get into, can you improve the quality forever? That's what he's saying.   0:26:49.1 Bill: What if you get to 100% yield, which is the maximum value of acceptability? Well, only if you shift to desirability can you improve forever quality, if you think it's worthwhile to do. So, that's why I wanted to go back and look at those things. One is revisit acceptability, desirability, and point out what I think are some opportunities for confusion in trying to explain Deming's work. Alright. Now we'll talk about the Red Bead experiment, which is, the very first time... I remember reading about it in the earliest books I read. I think, who is it that wrote the first books on Deming management, Deming management? She's a...   0:27:42.8 AS: Killian?   0:27:44.3 Bill: No, no, no. Cecilia Killian was Deming's admin.   0:27:48.9 AS: Mary?   0:27:50.5 Bill: Yeah. Mary Walton.   0:27:51.6 AS: Mary Walton.   0:27:52.5 Bill: Mary Walton. I remember reading a Mary Walton's book, that's when I first got exposed to this Red Bead experiment. So, The Deming Institute has a dedicated webpage, so, if you go to deming.org, or just do a Google search for deming.org Red Bead experiment, it's one of the most popular pages. I think that might be the second most popular, most visited page past the 14 Points. In there you can find short videos. There are longer videos, but there's enough on there to follow along with what I want to explain. So, Dr. Deming and the Red Bead experiment would take from the audience, and it could be four willing workers, six willing workers. He'd be the manager of the White Bead Company, and he would explain to them, he would share with them. He had a bowl, and in the bowl were 5,000 beads, maybe an eighth of an inch in diameter, small plastic beads, and there'd be 5,000 in the bowl, 4,000 white, 1,000 red.   0:29:00.6 Bill: And then there was a paddle, and the paddle could be roughly two inches by four inches, and the paddle had a little handle, and it had holes in it. So, the instructions he would provide to the willing workers, the production workers, is to take this paddle at a given angle, slide it in flat into the bowl, even the back of the beads. The beads are in one container, they get poured into another container.   0:29:27.7 AS: In a pan.   0:29:28.1 Bill: It's a mixing process, and then he pours them back in. So, just pour them from one to the other, and he would be very persnickety on pour at 45 degrees, tip from the corner. You pour back and forth, put the paddle in, and you'd end up with 50 of the beads would fill the paddle, and then you'd go to the inspector number one. And the inspector number one would count how many red beads, which is not what the customer wants. What the customer wants is white beads, but the raw material includes both. So, you go to inspector one, and they may count five beads. You go to inspector number two, and they quietly see five. The numbers get written down. Ideally, they're the same. And then you go to the, I think, the master inspector, and they say, five beads, and then "dismissed." And then write the five on a flip chart, and then the next person comes and does it, and the next person comes and does it. So, all six come up and draw beads, and then we count the number of red ones. The number of red ones go into this big table. Next thing you know we've done this over four different days. I've done this. This could take an hour. And even when you watch the videos, there's a fast forwarding.   0:31:00.1 Bill: I've done the Red Bead experiment, I think, just once, and I did it with a former student, which worked out really well, 'cause there was a lot of dead time, and the audience was watching, and so I was able to get conversation going with her. So, for those wanting to do this, boy, you've got to be pretty good on your feet to keep the audience entertained. To get to the point where you've got a table on the whiteboard, or on the flip chart, and on the table are the six willing workers on the left-hand side, and then day by day the red beads... Looking at the number of red beads. So, what are the red beads? Well, the red beads are not what the customer wants. What the customer wants are white beads, but in the production process, because the raw material includes red, well, then the red ends up in the output. So, I ask people, so, if the white beads are what the customer wants, what are the red beads? And typically, people say those are the defective, defects, scrap.   0:32:03.2 Bill: And, so now you get into this model is based on acceptability. The beads are either good, white, or bad, red. And so I would ask the students in class, in a work setting, what might the red beads be? I, in fact, asked our daughter. She said, is just moving from being a junior high school English teacher to a senior high school English teacher. Her undergraduate degree is from Cal State Long Beach.   0:32:34.3 AS: There you go.   0:32:34.3 Bill: So, her first day of school was today. She's also the varsity swim coach, which is way, way cool. Mom and dad are proud of her. So, I remember asking her a few years ago. So, I said, Allison, what are the red beads in the classroom? She said, well, the stapler doesn't work. The door doesn't close. The projector screen doesn't come down. The computer doesn't work. These are red beads in the classroom. So, I said, okay, Allison. What are the white beads?   0:33:01.1 Bill: Geez. So, we get so used to talking about the red beads are the defects or things that... Well, the white beads, by comparison, are the things that are good. So, I said, Allison, if the computer works, that's a white bead. If the door closes, that's a white bead. If you can close the window, that's a white bead. If you can pull down the screen, that's a white bead. So, the red beads are the things around us that are defects, broken, and the white beads are the others. And so, I wanna throw that out to do some stage setting. And ideally, this is a review for our listeners, and if not, you've gotta go watch as many videos as you can in The Deming Institute website. There's a lot of great content there. Watching Dr. Deming do this is pretty cool.   0:33:49.0 AS: He's a funny guy.   0:33:51.6 Bill: And I was very fortunate to be in Dr. Deming's very last four-day seminar. I did not participate in The Red Bead Experiment. I let somebody else do that, but it was classic. Well, the next thing I wanna get into is, and I would say to audiences many times, so we know... Well, a couple things. It's so easy to look at that data on a spreadsheet and say, Jill's the best performer. She has the minimum number of red beads. So, on the one hand, we can look day by day, and it could be Jill's number started off low. And we gave her an award, and then it went high, and then we started blaming her. So, there's variation in the number of beads, worker to worker and day to day. So, a given worker, their scores go up and down. So, that's called variation.   0:34:43.4 Bill: And so one of the aspects of the System of Profound Knowledge, which we haven't talked about too much, but ideally our listeners know Dr. Deming was really big about the value proposition of understanding variation. So, what Dr. Deming would talk about in his four-day seminars, and ideally anybody presenting this, is you take the data, you draw the usual conclusions. We're looking at data from an acceptability perspective. We look at the spreadsheet, and then voila, we turn it into a run chart and look at that data over time, calculate control limits, and then find that all the data is within the control limits and draw the conclusion that the process is in control. And then you move from in a non-Deming environment, looking at this data point versus this data point and drawing these conclusions that the white... The number of red beads is due to the workers.   0:35:33.7 Bill: So, the punch lines you'll find at Deming Institute webpage is that the workers are trying as best they can, that the red beads are caused not by the workers taken separately, but by the system, which includes the workers. A lot of great learning there. And a very significant piece is, in a Deming environment, where Deming's coming from is, again, this is before we go further in this in future sessions is, he's proposing that the majority of what goes on in the system relative to the performance of anything you measure is coming from the system. And if that is really, really understood, then you're hard pressed to blame people in sales for lousy sales or dips in sales or you look at grades of students in a classroom. So, for people looking at Dr. Deming's ideas, perhaps for the first time, realize that what he's talking about is coming from The Red Bead Experiment is a great eye opener for this is that, let's stop blaming the workers for the production issues and step back and look at our procurement system.   0:36:39.6 Bill: Do we have a procurement system where we're buying on price tag? If you buy on price tag, you end up with buying a lot of red beads. So, one aspect I wanna leave our listeners with today is, as you're studying this, realize there's a psychology aspect to The Red Bead Experiment. Not only the idea that there's variation up and down, but what are the implications of realizing that we can't be blaming the workers for the behavior of the system. The system includes the workers, but it also includes things that are well beyond their control. Well, where I wanna go next with this and then we'll next time get in and go further is, in appreciation of point five, "improve constantly forever the system," what I would ask audience is, so we know the red beads are caused by the system. We know the number of white beads goes up and down. But if we were to improve the system by not buying red beads or pre-sorting them out and get fewer and fewer red beads in there, then we get to the point that all the beads are white, perhaps. We have continuous improvement.   0:37:47.2 Bill: We end up with a 100% yield. Well, then we get into, again, and I've kind of set the stage in prior comments, what I would ask people is, what Dr. Deming's talking about trying to achieve zero red beads everywhere in the organization? Is that what we're striving for with the Deming philosophy, is to go around the organization, I want every single process to produce no red beads to make it to a 100% white beads? And if that's what Dr. Deming is talking about, then what does point five mean about continuously improving? Now we get into what I mentioned earlier is, you can improve the speed of operation to produce more white beads, so, we can do them faster, we can do them cheaper, but can we improve the quality of the white beads under that model? And the answer is no, because acceptability stops at a 100%. So, what we'll look at next time is, if you look at the beads and look closely, you'll see they have different diameters, different weights. They're not exactly the same color white. So, what is that Andrew? That's called variation.   0:39:00.9 Bill: And now it brings us back to desirability. So, what I encourage people to do, most of the times I see people presenting The Red Bead Experiment, they present it from an acceptability perspective. That's the starting point. But what I encourage our listeners to do is go through all that, and this becomes a great opportunity to move your audiences from acceptability focus to desirability by talking about the inherent variation in those beads. Again, we'll talk about the value proposition economically in future sessions, as well as the other paradigms of variation before we get there. So, that's what I wanna cover.   0:39:43.2 AS: Wow. Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. If you wanna keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn, and this is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. It never gets old. "People are entitled to joy in work."

Pharmacogenomics plays a critical role in personalised medicine, as some adverse drug reactions are genetically determined. Adverse drugs reactions (ADRs) account for 6.5% of hospital admissions in the UK, and the application of pharmacogenomics to look at an individuals response to drugs can significantly enhance patient outcomes and safety. In this episode, our guests discuss how genomic testing can identify patients who will respond to medications and those who may have adverse reactions. We hear more about Genomics England's collaboration with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in the Yellow Card Biobank and our guests discuss the challenges of implementing pharmacogenomics into the healthcare system. Our host Vivienne Parry, Head of Public Engagement at Genomics England, is joined by Anita Hanson, Research Matron and the Lead Research Nurse for clinical pharmacology at Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and Professor Bill Newman, Professor of translational genomic medicine at the Manchester Center for Genomic Medicine, and Professor Matt Brown, Chief Scientific Officer at Genomics England.   "I think we're moving to a place where, rather than just doing that one test that might be relevant to one drug, we'd be able to do a test which at the same price would generate information that could be relevant at further points in your life if you were requiring different types of medicine. So, that information would then be available in your hospital record, in your GP record, that you could have access to it yourself. And then I think ultimately what we would really love to get to a point is where everybody across the whole population just has that information to hand when it's required, so that they're not waiting for the results of a genetic test, it's immediately within their healthcare record."   To learn more about Jane's lived experience with Stevens-Johnson syndrome, visit The Academy of Medical Sciences' (AMS) YouTube channel. The story, co-produced by Areeba Hanif from AMS, provides an in-depth look at Jane's journey. You can watch the video via this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4KJtDZJyaA  Want to learn more about personalised medicine? Listen to our Genomics 101 episode where Professor Matt Brown explains what it is in less than 5 minutes: https://www.genomicsengland.co.uk/podcasts/genomics-101-what-is-personalised-medicine  You can read the transcript below or download it here: https://www.genomicsengland.co.uk/assets/documents/Podcast-transcripts/Can-genomic-testing-prevent-adverse-drug-reactions.docx   Vivienne: Hello and welcome to Behind the Genes.  Bill: What we've seen is that the limited adoption so far in the UK and other countries has focused particularly on severe adverse drug reactions. They've been easier to identify and there's a clear relationship between some drugs and some genetic changes where that information is useful. So, a good example has been the recent adoption of pharmacogenetic testing for a gene called DPYD for patients undergoing cancer treatment, particularly breast and bowel cancer. And if you have an absence of the enzyme that that gene makes, if you're given that treatment, then you can end up on intensive care and die, so it's a really significant side effect. But as you say, the most common side effects aren't necessarily fatal, but they can have a huge impact upon people and on their wellbeing.  Vivienne: My name's Vivienne Parry and I'm head of public engagement at Genomics England, and today we'll be discussing the critical role of pharmacogenomics in personalised medicine, highlighting its impact on how well medicines work, their safety, and on patient care. I'm joined today by Professor Bill Newman, professor of translational genomic medicine at the Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Anita Hanson, research matron, a fabulous title, and lead research nurse for clinical pharmacology at the Liverpool University Hospital's NHS Foundation Trust, and Professor Matt Brown, chief scientific officer for Genomics England. And just remember, if you enjoy today's episode, we'd love your support, so please like, share and rate us on wherever you listen to your podcasts.  So, first question to you, Bill, what is pharmacogenomics?  Bill: Thanks Viv. I think there are lots of different definitions, but how I think of pharmacogenetics is by using genetic information to inform how we prescribe drugs, so that they can be safer and more effective. And we're talking about genetic changes that are passed down through families, so these are changes that are found in lots of individuals. We all carry changes in our genes that are important in how we transform and metabolise medicines, and how our bodies respond to them.  Vivienne: Now, you said pharmacogenetics. Is it one of those medicine things like tomato, tomato, or is there a real difference between pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics?  Bill: So, people, as you can imagine, do get quite irate about this sort of thing, and there are lots of people that would contest that there is a really big important difference. I suppose that pharmacogenetics is more when you're looking at single changes in a relatively small number of genes, whereas pharmacogenomics is a broader definition, which can involve looking at the whole genome, lots of genes, and also whether those genes are switched on or switched off, so the expression levels of those genes as well would encompass pharmacogenomics. But ultimately it's using genetic information to make drug prescription safer and more effective.  Vivienne: So, we're going to call it pharmacogenomics and we're talking about everything, that's it, we'll go for it. So Matt, just explain if you would the link between pharmacogenomics and personalised medicine. And I know that you've done a big Genomics 101 episode about personalised medicine, but just very briefly, what's the link between the two?  Matt: So, personalised medicine's about using the right dose of the right drug for the right individual. And so pharmacogenomics helps you with not only ensuring that you give a medication which doesn't cause problems for the person who receives it, so an adverse drug reaction, but also that they're actually getting the right dose. Of course, people's ability to metabolise, activate and respond to drugs genetically is often genetically determined, and so sometimes you need to adjust the dose up or down according to a person's genetic background.  Vivienne: Now, one of the things that we've become very aware of is adverse drug reactions, and I think they account for something like six and a half percent of all hospital admissions in the UK, so it's absolutely huge. Is that genetically determined adverse drug reactions?  Matt: So, the answer to that is we believe so. There's quite a bit of data to show that you can reduce the risk of people needing a hospital admission by screening genetic markers, and a lot of the very severe reactions that lead to people being admitted to hospital are very strongly genetically determined. So for example, there are HLA types that affect the risk of adverse drug reactions to commonly used medications for gout, for epilepsy, some HIV medications and so on, where in many health services around the world, including in England, there are already tests available to help prevent those leading to severe reactions. It's likely though that actually the tests we have available only represent a small fraction of the total preventable adverse drug reactions were we to have a formal pre-emptive pharmacogenomics screening programme.  Vivienne: Now, I should say that not all adverse drug reactions are genetic in origin. I mean, I remember a rather nasty incident on the night when I got my exam results for my finals, and I'd actually had a big bee sting and I'd been prescribed antihistamines, and I went out and I drank rather a lot to celebrate, and oh my goodness me, I was rather ill [laughter]. So, you know, not all adverse drug reactions are genetic in origin. There are other things that interact as well, just to make that clear to people.  Matt: Yes, I think that's more an interaction than an adverse drug reaction. In fact frankly, the most common adverse drug reaction in hospitals is probably through excess amounts of water, and that's not medically determined, that's the prescription.  Vivienne: Let me now come to Anita. So, you talk to patients all the time about pharmacogenomics in your role. You've been very much involved in patient and public involvement groups at the Wolfson Centre for Personalised Medicine in Liverpool. What do patients think about pharmacogenomics? Is it something they welcome?  Anita: I think they do welcome pharmacogenomics, especially so with some of the patients who've experienced some of the more serious, life threatening reactions. And so one of our patients has been doing some work with the Academy of Medical Sciences, and she presented to the Sir Colin Dollery lecture in 2022, and she shared her story of having an adverse drug reaction and the importance of pharmacogenomics, and the impact that pharmacogenomics can have on patient care.  Vivienne: Now, I think that was Stevens-Johnson syndrome. We're going to hear in a moment from somebody who did experience Stevens-Johnson's, but just tell us briefly what that is.  Anita: Stevens-Johnson syndrome is a potentially life threatening reaction that can be caused by a viral infection, but is more commonly caused by a medicine. There are certain groups of medicines that can cause this reaction, such as antibiotics or anticonvulsants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories, and also a drug called allopurinol, which is used to treat gout. Patients have really serious side effects to this condition, and they're often left with long-term health complications. The morbidity and mortality is considerable as well, and patients often spend a lot of time in hospital and take a long time to recover.   Vivienne: And let's now hear from Jane Burns for someone with lived experience of that Stevens-Johnson syndrome. When Jane Burns was 19, the medicine she took for her epilepsy was changed.  Jane: I remember waking up and feeling really hot, and I was hallucinating, so I was taken to the Royal Liverpool Hospital emergency department by my parents. When I reached A&E, I had a temperature of 40 degrees Celsius. I was given Piriton and paracetamol, and the dermatologist was contacted. My mum had taken my medication to hospital and explained the changeover process with my epilepsy medication. A decision was made to discontinue the Tegretol and I was kept in for observation. Quite rapidly, the rash was changing. Blisters were forming all over my body, my mouth was sore and my jaw ached. My temperature remained very high. It was at this point that Stevens-Johnson syndrome, or SJS, was diagnosed.  Over the next few days, my condition deteriorated rapidly. The rash became deeper in colour. Some of the blisters had burst, but some got larger. I developed ulcers on my mouth and it was extremely painful. I started to lose my hair and my fingernails. As I had now lost 65 percent of my skin, a diagnosis of toxic epidermal necrolysis, or TEN, was made. Survivors of SJS TEN often suffer with long-term visible physical complications, but it is important to also be aware of the psychological effects, with some patients experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder. It's only as I get older that I realise how extremely lucky I am to have survived. Due to medical and nursing expertise, and the research being conducted at the time, my SJS was diagnosed quickly and the medication stopped. This undoubtedly saved my life.  Vivienne: Now, you've been looking at the development of a passport in collaborating with the AMS and the MHRA. Tell me a bit more about that.  Anita: Yes, we set up a patient group at the Wolfson Centre for Personalised Medicine approximately 12 years ago, and Professor Sir Munir Pirmohamed and I, we wanted to explore a little bit more about what was important to patients, really to complement all the scientific and clinical research activity within pharmacogenomics. And patients recognised that, alongside the pharmacogenomic testing, they recognised healthcare professionals didn't really have an awareness of such serious reactions like Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and so they said they would benefit from having a My SJS Passport, which is a booklet that can summarise all of the important information about their care post-discharge, and this can then be used to coordinate and manage their long-term healthcare problems post-discharge and beyond. And so this was designed by survivors for survivors, and it was then evaluated as part of my PhD, and the findings from the work suggest that the passport is like the patient's voice, and it really does kind of validate their diagnosis and raises awareness of SJS amongst healthcare professionals. So, really excellent findings from the research, and the patients think it's a wonderful benefit to them.  Vivienne: So, it's a bit like a kind of paper version of the bracelet that you sometimes see people wearing that are on steroids, for instance.  Anita: It is like that, and it's wonderful because it's a handheld source of valuable information that they can share with healthcare professionals. And this is particularly important if they're admitted in an emergency and they can't speak for themselves. And so the passport has all that valuable information, so that patients aren't prescribed that drug again, so it prevents them experiencing a serious adverse drug reaction again.   Vivienne: So, Stevens-Johnson, Bill, is a really scary side effect, but what about the day to day benefits of pharmacogenomics for patients?  Bill: So, what we've seen is that the limited adoption so far in the UK and other countries has focused particularly on severe adverse drug reactions. They've been easier to identify and there's a clear relationship between some drugs and some genetic changes where that information is useful. So a good example has been the recent adoption of pharmacogenetic testing for a gene called DPYD for patients undergoing cancer treatment, particularly breast and bowel cancer. And if you have an absence of the enzyme that that gene makes, if you're given that treatment, then you can end up on intensive care and die, so it's a really significant side effect. But as you say, the most common side effects aren't necessarily fatal, but they can have a huge impact upon people and on their wellbeing.   And it's not just in terms of side effects. It's in terms of the effectiveness of the medicine. Because if a person is prescribed a medicine that doesn't or isn't going to work for them then it can take them longer to recover, to get onto the right medicine. That can have all sorts of detrimental effects. And so when we're thinking about introducing pharmacogenetics more broadly rather than just on a single drug or a single gene basis, we're thinking about that for common drugs like antidepressants, painkillers, statins, the drugs that GPs are often prescribing on a regular basis to a whole range of patients.  Vivienne: So, to go back to you, Anita, we're really talking about dose here, aren't we, whether you need twice the dose or half the dose depending on how quickly your body metabolises that particular medicine. How do patients view that?  Anita: Well, the patient in question who presented for the Academy of Medical Sciences, I mean, her take on this was, she thinks pharmacogenetics is wonderful because it will allow doctors and nurses to then prescribe the right drug, but also to adapt the dose accordingly to make sure that they get the best outcome, which provides the maximum benefit while also minimising any potential harm. And so from her perspective, that was one of the real benefits of pharmacogenomics. But she also highlighted about the benefits for future generations, the fear of her son taking the same medicine and experiencing the same reaction. And so I think her concerns were, if we have pharmacogenetic testing for a panel of medicines, as Bill mentioned then, then perhaps this would be fantastic for our children as they grow up, and we can identify and predict and prevent these type of reactions happening to future generations.  Vivienne: And some of these drugs, Bill, are really very common indeed, something like codeine. Just tell us about codeine, ‘cos it's something – whenever I tell this to friends [laughter], they're always completely entranced by the idea that some people don't need nearly as much codeine as others.  Bill: Yeah, so codeine is a drug that's very commonly used as a painkiller. To have its real effect, it needs to be converted in the body to a different drug called morphine, and that is done by an enzyme which is made by a gene called CYP2D6. And we all carry changes in CYP2D6, and the frequency of those variants, whether they make the gene work too much or whether they make it work too little, they vary enormously across the world, so that if you go to parts of Africa, about 30 percent of the population will make more of the CYP2D6, and so they will convert the codeine much more quickly, whereas if you go to the UK, maybe up to ten percent of the white population in the UK just won't be converting codeine to morphine at all, so they won't get any benefit from the drug. So at both ends, you have some people that don't respond and some people that respond a little bit too much so that they need either an alternative drug or they need a different dose.  Vivienne: So, all those people who say, you know, “My headache hasn't been touched by this painkiller,” and we say, “What a wimp you're being,” actually, it's to do with genetics.  Bill: Yeah, absolutely. There's a biological reason why people don't – not for everybody, but for a significant number of people, that's absolutely right, and we can be far more tailored in how we prescribe medication, and get people onto painkillers that work for them much more quickly.  Vivienne: And that's so interesting that it varies by where you come from in the world, because that means we need to give particular attention – and I'm thinking, Anita, to working with patients from different community groups, to make sure that they understand the need for pharmacogenomics.  Anita: I think that's really important, Vivienne, and I think we are now having discussions with the likes of Canada SJS awareness group, and also people have been in touch with me from South Africa because people have requested the passport now to be used in different countries, because they think it's a wonderful tool, and it's about raising awareness of pharmacogenomics and the potential benefits of that, and being able to share the tools that we've got to help patients once they've experienced a serious reaction.  Vivienne: So, pharmacogenomics clearly is important in the prevention of adverse drug reactions, better and more accurate prescribing, reduced medicines wastage. Does this mean that it's also going to save money, Bill, for the NHS?  Bill: Potentially. It should do if it's applied properly, but there's lots of work to make sure that not only are we using the right evidence and using the right types of tests in the laboratory, but we're getting the information to prescribers, so to GPs, to pharmacists, to hospital doctors, in a way that is understandable and meaningful, such that they can then act upon that information. So, the money will only be saved and then can be reused for healthcare if the whole process and the whole pathway works, and that information is used effectively.  Vivienne: So, a lot of research to make sure that all of that is in place, and to demonstrate the potential cost savings.  Bill: Yes. I mean, there are very nice studies that have been done already in parts of the world that have shown that the savings that could be accrued for applying pharmacogenetics across common conditions like depression, like in patients to prevent secondary types of strokes, are enormous. They run into hundreds of millions of pounds or dollars. But there is an initial investment that is required to make sure that we have the testing in place, that we have the digital pathways to move the information in place, and that there's the education and training, so that health professionals know how to use the information. But the potential is absolutely enormous.  Vivienne: Matt, can I turn now to the yellow card. So, people will be very familiar with the yellow card system. So, if you have an adverse reaction, you can send a yellow card in – I mean, literally, it is a yellow card [laughter]. It does exactly what it says on the tin. You send a yellow card to the MHRA, and they note if there's been an adverse effect of a particular medicine. But Genomics England is teaming up with the MHRA to do something more with yellow cards, and we're also doing this with the Yellow Card Biobank. Tell us a bit more.  Matt: So, yellow card's a great scheme that was set up decades ago, initially starting off, as you said, with literally yellow cards, but now actually most submissions actually come online. And it's important to note that submissions can come not just from healthcare providers, but majority of submissions actually come from patients themselves, and that people should feel free, if they feel they've had an adverse drug reaction, to report that themselves rather than necessarily depending on a medical practitioner or the healthcare provider to create that report. So, Genomics England is partnering with the MHRA in building what's called the Yellow Card Biobank, the goal of which is to identify genetic markers for adverse drug reactions earlier than has occurred in the past, so that we can then introduce genetic tests to prevent these adverse drug reactions much sooner than has occurred previously.   So, what we're doing is basically at the moment we're doing a pilot, but the ultimate plan is that in future, patients who report a serious adverse drug reaction through the Yellow Card Biobank will be asked to provide a sample, a blood sample, that we then screen. We do a whole genome sequence on it, and then combine these with patients who've had like adverse drug reactions and identify genetic markers for that adverse drug reaction medication earlier, that can then be introduced into clinical practice earlier. And this should reduce by decades the amount of time between when adverse drug reactions first start occurring with medications and us then being able to translate that into a preventative mechanism.  Vivienne: And will that scheme discover, do you think, new interactions that you didn't know about before? Or do you expect it to turn up what you already know about?  Matt: No, I really think there's a lot of discovery that is yet to happen here. In particular, even for drugs that we know cause adverse drug reactions, mostly they've only been studied in people of European ancestry and often in East Asian ancestry, but in many other ancestries that are really important in the global population and in the UK population, like African ancestry and South Asian ancestries, we have very little data. And even within Africa, which is an area which is genetically diverse as the rest of the world put together, we really don't know what different ethnicities within Africa, actually what their genetic background is with regard to adverse drug reactions.  The other thing I'd say is that there are a lot of new medications which have simply not been studied well enough. And lastly, that at the moment people are focused on adverse drug reactions being due to single genetic variants, when we know from the model of most human diseases that most human diseases are actually caused by combinations of genetic variants interacting with one another, so-called common disease type genetics, and that probably is similarly important with regard to pharmacogenomics as it is to overall human diseases. That is, it's far more common that these are actually due to common variants interacting with one another rather than the rare variants that we've been studying to date.  Vivienne: So, it's a kind of cocktail effect, if you like. You know, you need lots of genes working together and that will produce a reaction that you may not have expected if you'd looked at a single gene alone.  Matt: That's absolutely correct, and there's an increasing amount of evidence to show that that is the case with medications, but it's really very early days for research in that field. And the Yellow Card Biobank will be one of many approaches that will discover these genetic variants in years to come.  Vivienne: Now, Matt's a research scientist. Bill, you're on the frontline in the NHS. How quickly can this sort of finding be translated into care for people in the NHS?  Bill: So, really quickly is the simple answer to that, Viv. If we look at examples from a number of years ago, there's a drug called azathioprine that Matt has used lots in some of his patients. In rheumatology, it's used for patients with inflammatory bowel disease. And the first studies that showed that there was a gene that was relevant to having bad reactions to that drug came out in the 1980s, but it wasn't until well into this century, so probably 30-plus years later that we were routinely using that test in clinical medicine. So, there was an enormous lot of hesitancy about adopting that type of testing, and a bit of uncertainty. If you move forward to work that our colleague Munir Pirmohamed in Liverpool has done with colleagues in Australia like Simon Mallal around HIV medicine, there was this discovery that a drug called abacavir, that if you carried a particular genetic change, that you had a much higher risk of having a really severe reaction to that. The adoption from the initial discovery to routine, worldwide testing happened within four years.   So, already we've seen a significant change in the appetite to move quickly to adopt this type of testing, and I see certainly within the NHS and within other health systems around the world, a real desire to adopt pharmacogenetics into routine clinical practice quickly and at scale, but also as part of a broader package of care, which doesn't just solely focus on genetics, but thinks about all the other parts that are important in how we respond to medication. So, making sure we're not on unusual combinations of drugs, or that we're taking our medicine at the right time and with food or not with food, and all of those other things that are really important. And if you link that to the pharmacogenetics, we're going to have a much safer, more effective medicines world.  Vivienne: I think one of the joys of working at Genomics England is that you see some of this work really going into clinical practice very fast indeed. And I should say actually that the Wolfson Centre for Personalised Medicine, the PPI group that Anita looks after so well, they've been very important in recruiting people to Yellow Card Biobank. And if anyone's listening to this, Matt, and wants to be part of this, how do they get involved? Or is it simply through the yellow card?  Matt: So at the moment, the Yellow Card Biobank is focusing on alopurinol.   Vivienne: So, that's a medicine you take for gout.  Matt: Which I use a lot in my rheumatology clinical practice. And direct acting oral anticoagulants, DOACs, which are used for vascular disease therapies and haemorrhage as a result of that. So, the contact details are available through the MHRA website, but I think more importantly, it's just that people be aware of the yellow card system itself, and that if they do experience adverse drug reactions, that they do actually complete a report form, ‘cos I think still actually a lot of adverse drug reactions go unreported.  Vivienne: I'm forgetting of course that we see Matt all the time in the Genomics England office and we don't think that he has any other home [laughter] than Genomics England, but of course he still sees some patients in rheumatology clinic. So, I want to now look to the future. I mean, I'm, as you both know, a huge enthusiast for pharmacogenomics, ‘cos it's the thing that actually, when you talk to patients or just the general public, they just get it straight away. They can't think why, if you knew about pharmacogenomics, why you wouldn't want to do it. But it's not necessarily an easy thing to do. How can we move in the future, Bill, to a more proactive approach for pharmacogenomics testing? Where would we start?  Bill: Yes, so I think we've built up really good confidence that pharmacogenetics is a good thing to be doing. Currently, we're doing that predominantly at the point when a patient needs a particular medicine. That's the time that you would think about doing a genetic test. And previously, that genetic test would only be relevant for that specific drug. I think we're moving to a place where, rather than just doing that one test that might be relevant to one drug, we'd be able to do a test which at the same price would generate information that could be relevant at further points in your life if you were requiring different types of medicine. So, that information would then be available in your hospital record, in your GP record, that you could have access to it yourself. And then I think ultimately what we would really love to get to a point is where everybody across the whole population just has that information to hand when it's required, so that they're not waiting for the results of a genetic test, it's immediately within their healthcare record. That's what we'd call pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing, and I think that's the golden land that we want to reach.  Vivienne: So for instance, I might have it on my NHS app, and when I go to a doctor and they prescribe something, I show my app to the GP, or something pops up on the GP's screen, or maybe it's something that pops up on the pharmacist's screen.  Bill: I think that's right. I think that's what we're looking to get to that point. We know that colleagues in the Netherlands have made some great progress at developing pathways around that. There's a lot of public support for that. And pharmacists are very engaged in that. In the UK, the pharmacists, over the last few years, have really taken a very active role to really push forward this area of medicine, and this should be seen as something that is relevant to all people, and all health professionals should be engaged with it.  Vivienne: And on a scale of one to ten, how difficult is it going to be to implement in the NHS?  Bill: So, that's a difficult question. I think the first thing is identifying what the challenges are. So I have not given you a number, I've turned into a politician, not answered the question. So, I think what has happened over the last few years, and some of our work within the NHS Network of Excellence in pharmacogenetics and some of the other programmes of work that have been going on, is a really good, honest look at what it is we need to do to try to achieve pharmacogenetics implementation and routine use. I don't think the challenge is going to be predominantly in the laboratory. I think we've got phenomenal laboratories. I think we've got great people doing great genetic testing. I think the biggest challenges are going to be about how you present the data, and that data is accessible. And then ensuring that health professionals really feel that this is information that isn't getting in the way of their clinical practice, but really making a difference and enhancing it, and of benefit both to the healthcare system but more importantly to the patients.  Vivienne: Now, when I hear you both talk, my mind turns to drug discovery and research, and Matt, I'm quite sure that that's right at the top of your mind. Tell us how pharmacogenomics can help in drug discovery and research.  Matt: So, pharmacogenomics, I think actually just genetic profiling of diseases in itself just to start off with is actually a really good way of identifying new potential therapeutic targets, and also from derisking drug development programmes by highlighting likely adverse drug reactions of medications that are being considered for therapeutic trials, or targets that are being considered for therapeutic development. Pharmacogenomics beyond that is actually largely about – well, it enables drug development programmes by enabling you to target people who are more likely to respond, and avoid people who are more likely to have adverse drug reactions. And so that therapeutic index of the balance between likely efficacy versus likely toxicity, genetics can really play into that and enable medications to be used where otherwise they might have failed.  This is most apparent I think in the cancer world. A classic example there, for example, is the development of a class of medications called EGFR inhibitors, which were developed for lung cancer, and in the initial cancer trials, actually were demonstrated to be ineffective, until people trialled them in East Asia and found that they were effective, and that that turns out to be because the type of cancers that respond to them are those that have mutations in the EGFR gene, and that that's common in East Asians. We now know that, wherever you are in the world, whether you're East Asian or European or whatever, if you have a lung adenocarcinoma with an EGFR mutation, you're very likely to respond to these medications. And so that pharmacogenomic discovery basically rescued a class of medication which is now probably the most widely used medication for lung adenocarcinomas, so a huge beneficial effect. And that example is repeated across multiple different cancer types, cancer medication types, and I'm sure in other fields we'll see that with expansive new medications coming in for molecularly targeted therapies in particular.  Vivienne: So, smaller and more effective trials rather than larger trials that perhaps seem not to work but actually haven't been tailored enough to the patients that are most likely to benefit.  Matt: Yeah, well, particularly now that drug development programmes tend to be very targeted at specific genetic targets, pharmacogenetics is much more likely to play a role in identifying patients who are going to respond to those medications. So, I think many people in the drug development world would like to see that, for any significant drug development programme, there's a proper associated pharmacogenomic programme to come up with molecular markers predicting a response.  Vivienne: We're going to wrap up there. Thank you so much to our guests, Bill Newman, Anita Hanson, Matt Brown, and our patient Jane Burns. Thank you so much for joining us today to discuss pharmacogenomics in personalised medicine, and the benefits, the challenges and the future prospects for integrating pharmacogenomics into healthcare systems. And if you'd like to hear more podcasts like this, please subscribe to Behind the Genes. It's on your favourite podcast app. Thank you so much for listening. I've been your host, Vivienne Parry. This podcast was edited by Bill Griffin at Ventoux Digital and produced by the wonderful Naimah. Bye for now. 

Many businesses equate "manager" with "leader," excluding potential leaders from across the organization. In this episode, Bill Bellows and host Andrew Stotz talk about leadership in Deming organizations - with a great story about senior "leaders" making a huge error in judgment at a conference of auditors. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.0 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today, episode number 14, is Beyond Management by Extremes. Bill, take it away.   0:00:29.7 Bill: Number 14 already, Andrew.   0:00:32.0 AS: Incredible.   0:00:32.6 Bill: It's a good thing we skipped number 13. That's an unlucky number. [laughter]   0:00:37.0 AS: Not in Thailand. It's a lucky number.   [laughter]   0:00:40.6 Bill: No, we didn't skip number 13. This is 14.   0:00:42.1 AS: Yes, we didn't.   0:00:43.5 Bill: Alright, so I just enjoy going back and listening to all of our podcasts, once, twice, three times. And then I talk with friends who are listening to them. And so I'd like to start off with some opening comments and then we'll get into tonight's feature, today's feature.   0:01:00.9 AS: So let's just, to refresh people's memory, episode 13, which we just previously did, was Integration Excellence, part two.   0:01:09.2 Bill: Yes. And that's what we called it. [laughter] So... [laughter] So last week I...   When we thought about getting together, but I had the wrong time, and it worked out well in my schedule. Last week, Andrew, I did three presentations. A two-hour lecture for Cal State Northridge, which is part of a master's degree program, where I do a class in quality management. That was Tuesday night. Wednesday morning I did a one-hour presentation with one hour of conversation afterwards with the Chartered Quality Institute, which is kind of like the American Society for Quality in the UK, and this... So this was several hundred people from the UK and also the Caribbean chapter from Trinidad Tobago, Jamaica. And so there's a bunch there. And then on Thursday morning I did a three hour session for a group in Rotterdam, which was really early for me and late afternoon for them.   0:02:25.4 Bill: And in all three, I covered similar material for all three groups, which included the trip report that we've done on the ME Versus WE, how did you do on the exam? How did we do? And so it was really neat to present that to the three. And in each case, when I threw out the question, "how did you do on the exam?" And then explained as I did one of our earlier podcasts that if you've got a long list of inputs, which includes - the woman I was talking to and, 'cause I said to her, the question is how did you draw on the exam? What are the inputs? And she said, the inputs are, my energy, my enthusiasm, my commitment that she got stuck. And I said, have other students helped you? And she said, yes, other students have helped you. I said, that's another input.   0:03:17.3 Bill: I said, given that input, how many can you see? And she said, oh my gosh. She said, my professor, my parents, my brother. And then all of a sudden there was this long list of inputs that she couldn't see. And so I explained that to the people and then say, "if you've got that long list of inputs and the original question is, how did you do on the exam? Does that long list of inputs change the question or are you okay with that question?" And what I look for is, and what we've talked about is, does the whole idea, how did we do on the exam jump out at you? No, it doesn't jump out. So, in each case, I said, here's the situation, might you reframe the question? And in all three situations, most of them that I asked said, there's essentially nothing wrong with the question. And if they did restate the question, they kept the "you," "do you think you could have done better?" Do you think... And that's what's so cool is that they just hold onto the you. Well, and for one of the groups it came a... It was kind of like what I was saying was semantics.   0:04:32.6 Bill: And I said this is not semantics. I said, there's a big difference between somebody, you know referring to our kids as my son and my daughter and our son and our daughter. And this, "my," is singular ownership, "our" is joint ownership. And so what I was trying to explain is that, saying “How did you do versus how did we do?” is the difference between being an observer of your learning if you were the student, Andrew and a participant. Those are not... Those are enormous differences. It's not, just, it's not just a simple change in pronouns. And so when I... And when I got to next, I was at a meeting years ago, I was at the annual, you ready Andrew? I was at Boeing's Annual Auditor's Conference.   0:05:40.5 AS: Sounds exciting.   0:05:41.4 Bill: 1999. So I got invited to be a speaker, Andrew at Boeing's Annual All Auditors Conference. Right? So I'm thinking going into this, that these are a bunch of people that don't feel valued. Because it's not like I get a phone call and I say, hold on, hold on. Hey Andrew, I got good news. And you say, you're a coworker, what's the good news? Annual... Andrew, we're gonna be audited next week!   [laughter]   0:06:10.2 Bill: You're like, "Holy cow. Hold on, lemme go tell everybody." So I thought going into this meeting is, these are a bunch of people that don't feel valued. I'm an auditor at least that was, so that was my theory going into this, so it's a Monday afternoon gathering with a dinner and then all day the next, all day for a couple days. So the opening speaker, speaker on Monday night was the senior executive of a big Boeing division, it might have been Boeing defense let's say. And my theory was first of all, you got a bunch of people that don't feel valued and I came away from the three days thinking there's a whole lot going on in audit whether it's financial audit, data integrity audit, quality audit, these are necessary roles. And so I came out of it with great respect for that whole organization otherwise would think right, but I'm thinking this executive is going to come in, going to do the Friday, Monday night presentation and I'm thinking it's like they drew straws and they say well okay I'll go, I'll go up there and talk with them.   0:07:22.8 Bill: Within minutes of him speaking I'm thinking this guy's excited to be here. So I'm thinking he's going to kind of phone it in, now I'm watching this I'm thinking he is, he is really engaged with the audience. He's talking about, the future role of the audit organization being partners and all this and he's talking, I mean he's giving them an enormous bear hug and I'm thinking this is not what I thought and again and so... I'm still thinking he's either a really good actor or he really wants to be here. Then my theory was and I thought, holy cow, now I get it. How many people in the room Andrew would it take to leave the room with their nose out of joint and shut down the F18 program by noon tomorrow? How many people would it take?   0:08:21.3 AS: Not many, one.   0:08:22.9 Bill: Right, so then I'm thinking these, he needs these people to love him, because if he disrespects them, it's a bad day. So I went from thinking why would you want to be here if you were here, then I'm thinking, oh no. Now I'm thinking this is brilliant so then I look at the program and I'm thinking which other executives have figured out how valuable this is and I see the next day at lunch is Boeing Commercials I'm thinking they figured it out but the organization I was within was Boeing Space and they weren't on the program so I contacted a friend that was connected high up in Boeing Space, I said we've got to be in this program, right? So the program ending, it ended nice and I'm thinking wow, wow. So then just prior to lunch the next day is the number two guy for Boeing Commercial. Not the number one. The Monday night guy was the number one. The number one guy for Boeing Commercial at the time was Alan Mulally, it wasn't Alan Mulally, it was his number two person.   0:09:33.7 Bill: So he's up on stage, he's up on stage, he's up on stage. And he's talking to the audience and in parallel Jim Albaugh who at the time was CEO of Boeing Commercial, no Boeing Space and none of Jim's people were there, Jim wasn't there. Jim a couple weeks prior he had asked me to get with his speech writer at a presentation he was doing and he wanted some words in there about investment thinking and all the things we've been talking about in this. He said get with him and put some of that stuff in there put there some of that stuff in there. I said okay. So as I'm listening to the number two guy speak there's a lot of "we" and "you" but who's the we? And who's the you? So I'm making notes to myself to tell Jim don't say "you." Say "we" and make the "we" inclusive, 'cause the guy on stage is, the you and the we and the you and the we, and I said no no stay away from "you" focus on we but make sure they understand that "we" is all of us, right?   0:10:35.1 Bill: So this is what's going through my head and I'm writing it all down, writing it all down and then this guy says and I'll paraphrase. I wish I had the exact words and the paraphrase is pretty close to what he said as judged by what the audience heard, right? So when I heard the comment and I'm thinking to myself, you said what? Then I look around the room and I thought he did. Here's what he said again the paraphrase is: he made reference to those within Boeing that do the real work, and he said it in a way that was present company excluded right? Right, so I hear him say 'cause I'm getting, I'm making literally I'm making notes to myself and then I hear that comment and I'm like, did you just say what I thought you said? And I look around the room with 300 people and I'm thinking, Oh my gosh, you did and I'm seeing I am seeing people irate, you see the body language, right?   0:11:44.3 Bill: And I thought wow, how could you say that? So then the lunch speaker was Harry Stonecipher, the chief operating officer. And he was up, walking around the stage. I don't think he knew anything about what happened prior so he's up there talking, okay. After Harry we're getting back to the program and the guy running the entire event is now up on stage and he's very deliberately he's got a, he's got a piece of paper rolled up, he's walking around on stage, "yeah Scott misspoke no doubt about it. He misspoke, I hear you." I hear you, you are ready Andrew? You are ready, you are ready?   0:12:36.8 AS: Give it to me.   0:12:37.4 Bill: And then he says then he says "But let's be honest we don't make the airplanes." And I thought, really? And as soon as he said that, I had this vision of 250,000 employees, which was about the employment at the time. And so as soon as he said that, I just imagined being at the Everett facility, which is huge, where all the twin-aisle plants are made. And I had this vision of 250,000 people in the building. And the CEO Phil Condit says on the microphone, "Okay, I'd like all of you who make the airplanes to move to the west end of the building."   0:13:26.4 AS: And everybody else.   0:13:27.4 Bill: And it's what you get, is all the flight line mechanics move all the way over there. And then you show up and somebody looks at you and they don't see any grease on your hand, and they say, "ahhh you don't make the airplanes." And you say, "you see that tool in your hand? Who do you think ordered it?" And so this "we" and the "you" stuff, how did "you" do? How did "we" do? It was just, it was...   0:14:00.3 AS: He wasn't deliberately setting up the auditors to be pissed and then to be really, really tough on the rest of the organization. I'm teasing with that.   0:14:12.7 Bill: It was, it is just, I shared that with you and our audience as how uniting language can be and how divisive language can be. And so how did we do, how did you do, and what, with just, this is what I find fascinating is - these words bring people together. What I love, I love watching politicians or State Department people speak and 'cause what dawned on me is they are very deliberate on, I mean they to great lengths to not be divisive.   0:14:57.1 Bill: That's their job. And so they introduce people in alphabetical order, countries in alphabetical order. But they, and I thought, what a neat way of not inferring that the first one I list is the most important one and I just thought there's a just an art of diplomacy. And that's what, to me, that's what diplomacy is, is that the art of uniting, not dividing.   0:15:25.7 Bill: Alright. So now I wanna get into, in the three different groups last week we were doing the trip report and we got down to the hallway conversations and the ME Organization versus a WE Organization. And then a question I asked him was, who are the managers in a ME Organization and what do they do? And you got, those are the ones that set the KPIs. Mark the KPIs, beat you up, sit in their office. Okay. Who are the managers in the ME Organization? What do they do? Who are the managers in a WE Organization? And what do they do?   0:16:01.8 Bill: They are mentors. They're out there on the shop floor, they're working with people. People work for managers in a ME Organization. They work with managers in a WE Organization. So I get that and I think "Okay, pretty good. Pretty good. Pretty good." And then I follow with "Who are the leaders in a ME Organization and what do they do?"   0:16:26.4 Bill: And what's really cool is you get the same answers as the managers. And that's when I started noticing in a ME Organization, we'll refer to the senior leadership team, the senior management team, and we're talking about the same group of people. And I said, what we've just said is that manager and leader are the same. And then I say to people, so what is that message in a ME Organization? The message is, if you're not a manager, Andrew, then you're not a leader. Which means what? Which means you have permission to wait for direction.   0:17:12.5 Bill: Boeing had a leadership center in St. Louis. It was called the Boeing BLC, the Boeing Leadership Center. Yeah, Boeing Leadership Center. And in order to go there, you had to be a manager. You either had to be a first level manager, you would take frontline leadership, a middle manager, which I was, which is leading from the middle or an executive. But the model... So then I think part of the confusion is in a ME Organization, on the one hand we say, our managers are our leaders. If you're not a manager, wait for the direction, wait to be told.   0:17:49.7 Bill: But then we said, we want our managers to be leaders. But that's the ME Organization. In a WE Organization, in a Deming organization, I think of leadership is the ability to bring forth a new order of things, a new order of designing hardware, a new order of designing software, a new order of marketing, we're talking earlier and the ability to create a new order of things and the ability to create a path for others to follow.   0:18:20.6 Bill: And so then in a WE Organization, it's like show and tell. When we were in elementary school, you go in and say, I have discovered this. And I thought, in a WE Organization, everyone has the ability to be a leader on something within their realm. And why would you, why would you make leadership incl...exclusive, which is the ME Organization. And when I tell companies that I consult for I said, when you make leadership exclusive in a ME Organization, to me, that's a kiss of death 'cause you're telling a few people, you're in charge and you're telling everyone else, you're inferring that everyone else, you wait for direction, again.   0:19:09.0 Bill: And I'm not proposing, everyone's all over the place doing it. No. There's got, this is not chaos. And if I have an idea on something and it's not my assigned responsibility, then I know to reach out to you because you're the marketing guy and I just throw the marketing idea to you and then you do with it what you want. But I look at leadership in a WE Organization as being inclusive. And then we get into this idea of, driving...driving change.   0:19:38.0 AS: Let me just ask you about that. Would this really be down to the core principle of Appreciation of a System? That somebody who appreciates a system knows that there's all kinds of components to that system?   0:19:55.5 Bill: Yes, yes.   0:19:55.6 AS: And that you can't say, oh, well this system really is only the people that are working on the production line, when in fact we know that there's all kinds of people working in that system. If I think about my coffee business as an example, we have a hundred employees and not all of them are working on production. And some are moving paperwork and making phone calls and others are out in the field. So an appreciation of a system brings you to the "we" rather than....   0:20:23.0 Bill: Yes.   0:20:23.5 AS: And a person who gets up and says about me, or, tries to identify that there's a certain number of people that are really driving the performance of this company are, they just have no appreciation for a system.   0:20:39.1 Bill: They have a narrow, a narrow view, a narrow view. So what you just said triggered another thought. But, um, the thing I wanted to add to this, in a ME Organization, it's about driving change. And we've talked about this in prior podcast. I go to, you put a gun to your head and I say, I want this KPI by Friday, Andrew. And you're like, yes, sir. And then I said to people in the past is, if driving change is the mantra of a ME Organization, like you're driving cattle driving, driving, and which is not an endearing concept. It is, it is, this is the where we're going. And I say to people, so what would you call it if driving is the ME construct, what is, what's the language of a WE Organization? And people will be wondering "ah," I say "lead, lead, lead." And if we like where you're going, we will follow. That's you creating the path that we will follow.   0:20:40.0 Bill: So I just wanna throw that out. But the other thing you mentioned about the metrics and the design of the organization and the thinking that, these are the critical people. At lunch with an old friend today, and I was sharing with her I taught a course at Northwestern's Business School, Kellogg Business School in the late '90s. And Kellogg then, and today is the number one or number two business school in the country. And I had a friend who was a student there in..., they liked what I was saying. So they hired me to teach a five week course for four years. And I presented, these ideas to them and it was pretty cool. I was, what was exciting is one of them told me that, what I was sharing with them about Deming, you are ready Andrew? contradicted what they were learning in their other classes.   0:22:46.2 AS: Huh. Funny that.   0:22:48.7 Bill: Yep. And so I did that for four years. There were three classes in quality. One was the use of control of charts, mine was called Quality Management, or TQM or something like that. And so there were roughly 80 students in the program, and they had to take two of the three, five week courses. So I got two out three students in the program. Then after four years, they waived the requirement. And so nobody signed up. And so I, um, after, right after 9/11 was when this happened, they invited me back because the person I was working with really liked what the course was about. But they wanted to, make it optional for people to attend. And he said, why don't you come out and talk with them and, that'll inspire them to sign up for the following year. I said, okay, fine. So I went out and he says there'll be 80 people there. I said, why are you so confident? He said, well, we've made it mandatory for everyone to show up. I thought, well that's, I said, that's one way to get people in the room. I said, do me a favor. I said, let them know I'm coming out and I'll have breakfast, I'll have lunch with whoever would like to meet with me beforehand.   0:22:50.7 Bill: So a dozen of them show up. And one of them says to me he says, you're gonna have a, he says something like, it's only fair to say we had a presenter like you last week. And to be honest, it's gonna be a really hard act for you to follow. So I'm thinking, "well, tell me more." "Well, we had a presenter last week who works for a company that makes pacemakers," I'm thinking, okay, "he had a video and showing people before and after their pacemaker one of the fellow students fainted. It was emotional." And I'm thinking, I'm talking about rocket engines. I don't even have a video. It's not gonna be emotional. I let the guy talk. And at one point he says "they keep track." He said "they keep track of who makes each pacemaker." I said "what do you mean?" He says, "they have a list of the people."   0:23:42.9 Bill: Every pacemaker is associated with a team of people who made the pacemaker. And part of what they saw on the video is people who have received a pacemaker now and then go to that company and they meet the people on their team, Andrew, who made their pacemaker. How do you like that concept? Right? Does that, when you graduate from this MBA program, Andrew, isn't that a neat idea that you can take away and use with you? Right? Right? Isn't that a takeaway? Right? So I'm hearing this [laughter] so I said, "let me see if I got this straight. So you're saying they keep track of who makes each pacemaker?" "Yeah, they do." And that's because, when people come well, people come to visit and they keep track. So let's say I said to the student, "let's say I'm the guy who orders the plastic that goes into the pacemaker. Would I be on the list?" you know what he says, Andrew?   0:26:01.9 Bill: No, you didn't make it.   0:26:04.0 Bill: He says, "no," let me try this. I'm the one who wrote the check, Andrew, that paid for the plastic. Would I be on the list? What he says Andrew? "No, you wouldn't be on the list."   0:26:20.2 Bill: So, I said, "well, why not?" And he says, "you have to draw the line someplace." So, I had with me, post 9/11, ready? I had with me a United We Stand two-foot by three-foot poster, which were all over Los Angeles and likely all over the rest of the world, at least the States. So, I held up the poster, and I said, "Have you seen this before?" He said, "Oh, yeah, United We Stand. I'm all about that." I said, "No, you're not." [laughter] I said, "You think you can draw the line and know who contributes and who doesn't, right?"   0:27:02.8 Bill: And you can suddenly see him kind of back up. I said, "Well, let's be honest." I said, "If teamwork doesn't matter, then draw the line any way you want. It doesn't really matter. But if teamwork does matter, be very careful where you draw that line." And to me, in a WE Organization, "we" is, who is the "we"? It's a big list of people. It's the employees, it's the suppliers, it's the customers. And so anyway, it's just that, so what's neat is, go ahead, Andrew.   0:27:41.6 AS: While you were speaking, I was able to go online and find the website of North, what was it? North?   0:27:49.5 Bill: Northwestern.   0:27:50.3 AS: Western, yes. And I was able to actually find the course that you're talking about that was the one that the students said that what you're teaching is contradicting.  The name of that course, I just found it, here it is, "How to apply KPIs to drive in fear and division in your company." No, no, I just made that up. [laughter] "How to apply KPIs to drive in fear and division in your company?"   0:28:16.7 Bill: All right. And so, and we're gonna get to that. So, so as, so I look at management, there's management as a position, but I look at management as an activity of how we allocate resources. And so, are the resources mine or are they ours? And are we proactive or reactive? And then we talked in the past about purposeful resource management, reflective resource, reflexive resource, resource management, which is being highly reactive. Another thing that came to mind. Well, actually, let me jump to the loss function. We looked at last time because I was going through and listening to it. And I thought, let me, let me clarify.   0:29:00.7 Bill: And so when Dr. Taguchi would draw his, his parabolic loss function, a parabola is a curve that goes higher and higher as you get farther and further away from the center. It's like a bell and it just gets steeper and steeper and steeper. And his loss function would be an upward facing bell. And, and then, and he would draw it sitting on the, on the horizontal axis. The idea of being, when you're at the ideal, the loss is zero. And that's, if you're getting exposure to this for the first time, that's okay. But in fact, let me even throw in here a quote from Dr. Deming. Do I have it right here?   0:30:00.4 Bill: Oh, gosh. Anyway, Dr. Deming made reference to, he said, the Taguchi loss function is a better description of the world. And he talks about how loss continuously gets higher and higher and higher. The point I wanted to make is, what I tell people is, once you get used to that concept that loss gets higher and higher, and what matters is how steep that curve is. And so if that curve is very flat, then no matter where you are within the requirements, nobody really notices. And in that situation, you could have a lot of variation 'cause it doesn't show up. It's not reflected in terms of how...   0:30:40.2 AS: And maybe just to help the listener to visualize this, imagine a V.   0:30:44.6 Bill: Yes.   0:30:45.1 AS: And imagine a U. And a V has a very tiny point that is at zero loss. And it very quickly rises to both sides where loss is getting higher and higher. Whereas a very, kinda, let's say, a deep U could have a tiny little loss that's happening for a distance away from the minimum loss point, and then eventually turn up.   0:31:14.4 Bill: Well, but even, even Andrew, and I like the idea of the V. We could also be talking about a V where the sides, instead of being steep, are very flat. So it's a very wide V, and it never goes high because there's situations where, where the impact on integration is very minimal no matter what. All right. So anyway, um, the point I wanted to make is, I would say to our listeners and viewers, loss, the consequences of being off target, are the difference between what happens downstream at integration. And what I love, I went back and listened to the podcast, the one, you talked about your partner in the coffee business.   0:32:12.2 Bill: The point of integration is when they drink the cup of coffee. And that's integration. I mean, the point when they're, when we're eating a food, that's integration. So the piece of coffee is out there, whatever it is. But when the customer's using it, drinking it, that's integration, Andrew. And a...   0:32:32.2 Bill: And so... What I look at is what the loss, loss is the difference between what you see happening at integration and what you think is possible. So if we're at the Ford factory banging things together with rubber mallets day after day after day and you're the new hire and I show you how to do this, as soon as you begin to believe this is how we do things, then loss is zero. Because that's what we think is the norm. But if you have the ability to rise above that and say, I don't think it needs to be that difference, when you look at it and say, I don't think it needs to be the difference between what you think is possible and what it could... Difference between what is and what you think could be that's loss. And what I also say to people is it takes a special eye that you have to see that. It's like your coffee business, somebody's tasting that coffee and you're thinking this is pretty good. Then they say, "well, try this", whoa.   0:33:40.1 Bill: So it takes a special eye to see loss. But then it takes a whole lot of other people to make that happen. So whether that's people in engineering, manufacturing. So a WE Organization is where someone has the ability to see that opportunity, but it's dependent upon all the others to make it happen. So now let's talk about Beyond Management by Extremes. And these are... Has a lot to do with KPIs and also say in one of our last, wasn't the last one, it was a couple before that you had made clear your firm belief that KPIs need to be thrown away in the morning trash. And I remember on the call listening to you and I'm hearing you, we ought to get rid of them, we ought to get rid of them, we ought to get rid of them.   0:34:38.5 Bill: And I'm thinking they aren't bad, it's how they're used. And so I wasn't sure I was in agreement with you on that call. But when I went back and listened to it and that's what what I, what I told the friend is, I said, if you listen to what Andrew says, I don't say anything at the end. And the reason I didn't say anything is I wasn't sure I agreed. But when I went back and listened to it most recently, I said, yes! yes! yes! 'Cause what you said is: if they can be used without an incentive system. And I thought, yes, yes, yes, yes. And so we are in agreement on KPIs, [laughter] they are... But what we have...   0:35:25.2 AS: Which, which my, which my point is, number one, that as long as you don't attach some kind of incentive or compensation system, then, you're not that, you've eliminated a lot of risk that they're causing damage. The second part is a lot of times what I'm looking at is individual KPIs. And what I'm trying to say is that even if you don't add in compensation, it's, it's, it's a fool's errand to try to set up, three KPIs for a thousand people, three thousand KPIs individually and think that now we've got that set. Our organization is going to really rock now.   0:36:06.0 Bill: Well, then what you get is the KPIs are always round numbers. We want to decrease by 5%, increase by... And you're thinking, so how much science getting to these numbers anyway? And you're thinking, but early on in your career, you look at this, you think, well, somebody's thought about this and you realize, no. And so what management by extremes is about is KPIs that are extreme. And so I my PhD advisor in graduate school, I was studying heat transfer and fluid mechanics and and before each of us graduated, went to work in corporations, he'd pull us aside and he'd say, he'd say, "Bill, he said you're gonna be in a situation one day where your boss is gonna come by and is gonna give you.... He's going to give you an assignment, that gives you, he's gone give, that gives you five minutes to figure it out."   0:37:05.7 Bill: And he says, "so, if he or she comes he comes to you, she comes to you and they give you five minutes to figure out, he said there's only three possible answers and I'll tell you what they are and you got to figure out which of them it is and so it'll take you a minute to figure out which one it is. And then the rest of the time you're going to explain it." I remember saying to him, I says, so, "Okay, so what are the three possible answers?" And he says "zero, one and infinity", 'cause it turns out in the world of heat transfer and fluid mechanics, those three numbers show up pretty often as ideal solutions for different cases. And so what he's saying is when your boss comes to you and says, boom, then you have to say, which case is that? 'Cause if that's this case, it's zero.   0:37:51.0 Bill: This case, it's one. This case is infinity. So I thought, okay. Well, in Dr. Taguchi's work, he talks about quality characteristics. So we're running experiments to improve something and a quality characteristic could be as large as possible, infinity being the ideal, the strength of the material. We want to make it stronger and stronger and stronger. But it's referred to as larger is best, meaning infinity is the ideal, smaller is best I'm trying to reduce leakage. I'm trying to make something smoother and smoother.   0:38:25.9 Bill: That's smaller is best. Zero is the goal. And the other one is to get your first who is nominal as best, where a finite number is the answer. And so what I had in mind with this management by extremes, inspired by my Ph.D. advisor, inspired by Deming, Dr. Taguchi, is that, if the KPI is driving to zero or driving to infinity, we want the inventory Andrew to go to zero. We want sales to go to infinity. I said, if you're thinking about things systemically, I don't think zero or infinity is what we're going to do. And so I throw that out as not all the time, but I think quite often if the KPI, if you're working on something where you're heading to zero, heading to infinity, to me, that's a clue that you're looking at something in isolation. And I would say to people.   0:39:25.2 Bill: Let's say you're, you call me in Andrew and you say, "Bill, we need your help getting the cost down of this project." And I say, "well, what'd you have in mind?" You say, "Bill, we'd we'd love to get 10% out of this cost. Boy, 10%." I said, "Andrew, I can double that." "No way. No way" And I say, "Andrew, on a good day, I could do more than that." And then what I say is that the more you get excited by how much we could lower that cost, eventually I'm going to say, "Andrew, gotcha." And you say, "what do you mean?" "Gotcha. Andrew, you're looking at cost in isolation." What's the clue? You'd love it to go to zero. Or... And that's what we end up doing is we want to drive variation to zero. That's the Six Sigma people. Well, first of all, cloning does not produce identical.   0:40:30.6 Bill: Photocopies don't create identical. Dr. Deming would say that of course there's variation. There'll always be variation. And then there are people, and and I cringe. But Dr. Deming was once asked. He was interviewed by somebody I believe with the BBC back in the '80s. And the interview ends with "So Dr. Deming, if we can condense your philosophy down to two, down to two words, what would it be? Or down to a few words, what would it be?" And he said, "reduce variation" or something like that. And I said, "no, it should be manage variation. We should have what the situation needs." And so I'm going to absolute agreement with you. On how can we have KPIs without goals which make make things even more isolated. And then we talk about by what method are we going to achieve those goals? But I think if we're talking about driving variation to zero, then you're looking at things in isolation. If you are driving waste to zero.   0:41:20.8 Bill: then you're looking at things in isolation. If you're talking about, the non value added efforts driving to zero. I'd say value shows up elsewhere. I had somebody within Boeing once say to me "Bill, you know, being on target, you know being on that ideal value, I've had people tell me that once you achieve the minimum size of a hole, going further doesn't add value." And I'd say "If all you're doing is looking at the hole, I can understand that. But if you're focusing on what goes in the hole, that's different." And the other thing I throw out is I was doing some training years ago. There was a guy in the room that I, I mentioned the term "value engineering" 'cause I remember when I got excited by Taguchi's work and Deming's work, somebody said, "The last big training, big thing was value engineering." "What do you mean?" And they pulled out their "That was the wave of the sixties was value engineering." So I asked this guy in class. I said, so, he mentioned he worked at GE back in the '60s and value engineering was really big. So I said, well, "So tell me about that. What was behind that?" He says, “We were taught to look at a contract and all the deliverables. And our job in the value engineering department was to figure out how to, how to meet each deliverable minimally because anything more than that doesn't add value." And I thought, you can't make that up!   0:42:53.0 Bill: Let's look at all the requirements and how do we go to? What's the absolute minimum we have to deliver on the term paper, on the project.   0:43:06.5 AS: How could we kill this through a thousand cuts?   0:43:10.8 Bill: So that's KPIs. Driving to zero driving to infinity. But, but we're in agreement that if you, in a Deming organization where we're not driven by incentives then KPIs are measures of how we are doing. And why isn't that enough to be able to say, how are things? How are things? We can talk about how might we improve this? But then we're going to look at: Is that a local improvement that makes it worse elsewhere? Are we driving costs to zero and screwing this up? So that's what, that's what I wanted to throw out on this management by extremes zero and infinity, and getting beyond that.   0:43:47.6 AS: Well, I think that's a great point to end it went through so many different things, but I think one of the biggest takeaways that I get from this is the idea of appreciation of a system. When you have a true appreciation of a system and understand that there's many parts and, you know, adding value in that system basically comes from more than just being on a production line, for sure and creating value in an organization comes from not only working on improving a particular area but the integration of the many different functions. And if you don't understand that, then you end up in not a Deming organization, not a WE Organization, but more of a ME Organization. That's kind of what I would take away. Is there anything you would add to that?   0:44:51.9 Bill: Well, what, what reminds me of what you're just saying is I was doing a class years ago for a second shift group in facilities people, painters, electricians, managers, and one of them says, he says "so Bill, everyone's important in an organization." I said, "absolutely. Absolutely everyone's important."   0:45:13.2 Bill: Then he says, "everyone's equally important" right? And as soon as he said that, I thought to myself, "I remember you from a year ago." So he says, "So so everyone's important." "Yeah, everyone's important!" "Everyone's equally important." So as soon as he said that, within a fraction of a second, my response was, "No, if you wanna get paid what a quarterback gets paid, you better, you better train to be a quarterback." So what Dr. Deming is not, he's not saying everyone's paid the same. We're paid based on market rates for quarterbacks, for linemen, for software people. And the, and the better we work together, ideally the better we manage resources, the better the profit, we get in the profit sharing, but we're not equal. Our contributions are not equal. The contributions cannot be compared. They are, they're all part of the sauce, but we don't get into who contributed more." Right, and I think that'... We're all contributors.   0:46:28.3 AS: The more you learn about Dr. Deming's teaching, you just realize that there's an appreciation of a system, but there's also an appreciation of people.   0:46:40.1 Bill: There we go.   0:46:43.2 AS: That's really where, as I have said before, when my friend was working with me on my book, Transforming Your Business with Dr. Deming's 14 Points, after many many weeks of working together, he's like, "I figured it out. Dr. Deming is a humanist. He cares about people." It's pretty true. So appreciate the people around you, appreciate the contribution that everybody makes. Nobody makes equal contributions. And even great people who are making amazing contributions could have down months or years where there's things going on in their family or other issues. They're not contributing what they did in the past.   0:47:17.1 AS: That's a variable that we just can't control. But ultimately, appreciation of the system is what I said in my summary. And now I'm gonna add in appreciation of the people.   0:47:30.6 AS: Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I wanna thank you again for this discussion. Again, entertaining, exciting, interesting. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you wanna keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz. And I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. "People are entitled to joy in work".  

Wouldn't it be great if you could practice your Oracle Cloud Apps implementation in a safe, controlled lab environment? Well, now you can!   Join Lois Houston and Nikita Abraham, along with Bill Lawson, as they discuss the new Applied Learning for Fusion Cloud Applications Implementation projects, which provide practical use cases and business scenarios that you can work through to apply the concepts you've learned and expand your skills.   Oracle MyLearn: https://mylearn.oracle.com/ Oracle University Learning Community: https://education.oracle.com/ou-community LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/oracle-university/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Oracle_Edu   Special thanks to Arijit Ghosh, David Wright, Kris-Ann Nansen, Radhika Banka, Sujatha Kalahasthi Raju, and the OU Studio Team for helping us create this episode.   --------------------------------------------------------   Episode Transcript:   00:00 Welcome to the Oracle University Podcast, the first stop on your cloud journey. During this series of informative podcasts, we'll bring you foundational training on the most popular Oracle technologies. Let's get started. 00:26 Nikita: Hello and welcome to the Oracle University Podcast. I'm Nikita Abraham, Principal Technical Editor with Oracle University, and with me is Lois Houston, Director of Innovation Programs. Lois: Hello everyone! In our last episode, we spoke about HCM business processes and learned about the Talent Life Cycle. Today, we're going to take a look at some related training that's just launched in our Cloud Learning Subscriptions. This new training was developed based on requests from our customers and partners. You asked, and we listened. 00:58 Nikita: We're joined by Senior Director of Cloud Applications Product Management, Bill Lawson, who you've heard from before, and he will be telling us all about this exciting new program. Lois: Bill, we're so happy you're back with us today. So, as I mentioned, this new program was a direct result of customer and partner feedback. Can you tell us a little bit more about how that happened and what this new training is all about? 01:20 Bill: I'm happy to be back as well, Lois. And very excited to share details about the Applied Learning for Fusion Cloud Application Implementation projects that are now available. And you're correct. This was in direct response to requests we received from our customers and partners. As you're aware, we hold quarterly feedback sessions with some of our strategic partners and customers, and one thing we heard was the need to have some practical applications of concepts learned in our implementation courses. 01:46 Bill: So, we got our subject matter experts on the task and challenged them with creating some real-world scenarios that students can work through in our hands-on lab practice environments. In these scenarios, students will work their way through examples of some of the decisions and configurations that they and customers might need to go through in an implementation of Oracle Cloud Applications. It's a great way to expand your skills and apply the concepts you've learned in implementation classes in a safe, controlled lab environment. Then, you can take that back to your workplace and apply that knowledge in your own implementation projects. 02:19 Nikita: Wow, that's really cool, Bill. And how exciting that we're taking feedback directly from our customers and developing the training that they are asking for.   Bill: Yes, Niki, it is. And we're planning to continue that listening program in our Oracle University Learning Community. We've launched an Idea Incubator and we're looking forward to hearing from our members about their content ideas and suggestions. Who knows what new types of courses will come out of that?   02:43   Lois: It's another great reason to join the Community for sure.   Bill: Indeed, it is.   Nikita: Ok, Bill, back to the Applied Learning for Fusion Cloud Application Implementations program. Who is this training best suited for?   Bill: Well, Niki, it's really aimed at those people who are going to be actively involved in an Oracle Cloud Apps implementation. So, your solution consultants, implementers, administrators, project teams, etc. etc.   03:07   Nikita: And can you give us an example of what one of these projects looks like?   Bill: I sure can, Niki.    One of the new Applied Learning Implementation projects is centered around Fusion Enterprise Structures & General Ledger in the ERP space.   In the project scenario, we follow a fictional company, which is a startup that has decided to implement Oracle Fusion Cloud Financials to streamline their business processes while taking advantage of the latest functionality Oracle Cloud Applications has to offer.   The case study outlines the business requirements of the company and then provides a challenge to the learner. The student must determine how these requirements would be met within the application, complete the setup and configuration, and validate that they've done it correctly. 03:48   Lois: That's really neat. So essentially, it's mimicking a business scenario that you may come upon in a conference room pilot during an implementation and would have to configure using Fusion Applications.   Bill: Right, Lois. Providing a practical business scenario based on the customers' requirements for the student to configure a solution in a safe practice environment. The student will be prepared to tackle the scenario based on the foundation of knowledge they've gained when they completed the implementation learning path training in the learning subscription or during their previous implementation experience.   04:22   Have an idea for a new course or learning opportunity? We'd love to hear it! Visit the Oracle University Learning Community and share your thoughts with us. Your suggestion could find a place in future development projects. If you're already an Oracle MyLearn user, go to MyLearn to join the community. You will need to log in first. If you've not yet accessed Oracle MyLearn, visit mylearn.oracle.com and create an account to get started.    04:51 Nikita: Welcome back. Ok, Bill, so the students do this setup. How do they know it was done correctly? What if they get stumped and don't know what to do?   Bill: If they're completely stumped, then it's probably a good indication that they need to revisit the training and check that they understand the core concepts. But once they've completed the challenge, there will be a solution video in which our SME will walk through one of the possible solutions. Bear in mind, there may be more than one solution that is possible. We will show one possibility, but learners may opt for a different route when they approach the challenge. And that's ok. We want people to be able to explore the options and learn while they're doing so.   05:28 Lois: And all of this is done within MyLearn and the lab environments provided to our learning subscribers, right?   Bill: That's correct, Lois. This content is available to our MyLearn subscribers. The projects are included as part of the Cloud Applications Implementation training. So, if you go to mylearn.oracle.com and search by the phrase “Applied Learning,” you will find all the applicable learning. You can also search by “Implementer” to see the Implementation training that is available. Applied learning projects will be part of this implementation training. The content is available on a paid subscription basis only, but very well worth the investment if you're in the middle of an Oracle Cloud Apps implementation. If you already have a subscription, you can dive right in and give one of our projects a try. 06:12   Nikita: Bill, where are these Applied Learning scenarios found? Is it only for General Ledger?   Bill: No, Niki, it's not. We've got Applied Learning projects available for 10 of our most popular product areas, such as General Ledger, Payables, Receivables, Project Management, Accounting Hub, Global Human Resources, Talent Management, Recruiting, Inventory, and Procurement.   Lois: So, we're covering all the bases here – ERP, SCM, HCM…   Bill: Exactly.   06:42 Lois: Is there anything else we should know about the Applied Learning program? Bill: Well funny you should ask, Lois, because one of the unique things we're doing with this new program is we're offering the opportunity to engage with other people who are completing the project via a discussion in the Oracle University Learning Community.   Lois: You knew that was a loaded question, right?   Bill: Haha, I sure did. You're the champion of our Community.   So, in the Community, people can ask questions, share their solutions, and more. It's a great way to expand the learning experience and see how other people approached those same scenarios based on their knowledge and experience.   07:13 Nikita: And if people have ideas for other Applied Learning scenarios, what should they do?   Bill: They can always suggest those in the Idea Incubator in the Community, Niki.   Lois: Yep. The Community has a lot of great things to offer. If you're not a member, you should join today by accessing it via mylearn.oracle.com.   07:29 Nikita: Thank you so much, Bill, for coming back to talk to us about the Applied Learning program. I really think it's such a great new resource for our learners. Bill: I'm always happy to be here with you ladies. Thank you for having me. Lois: Thanks Bill. Ok, next week we've got another great topic lined up. If you followed along with some of the announcements at Oracle Cloud World, you'll know that we launched a new certification and training path centered around Artificial Intelligence. Next week, we'll be talking with Rohit Rahi to learn more about this free training that is available, in an episode we're calling AI for Everyone. You won't want to miss that. 08:03 Nikita: And if you want to learn more about these Applied Learning projects, visit mylearn.oracle.com. Lois: Right, Niki. So that's all for today. Until next time, this is Lois Houston… Nikita: And Nikita Abraham, signing off! 08:15 That's all for this episode of the Oracle University Podcast. If you enjoyed listening, please click Subscribe to get all the latest episodes. We'd also love it if you would take a moment to rate and review us on your podcast app. See you again on the next episode of the Oracle University Podcast.

Varies articles examining the no-knock warrant issued to consumers for unpaid utility bills.

Eric Edelman joins the panel to discuss how to help Ukraine win. The panel also addresses Biden's student loan forgiveness and yea or nay on prosecuting Trump. Highlights & Lowlights Mona: What Biden could gain from pardoning Trump - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/08/18/trump-pardon-biden-benefit/) Linda: The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis - The Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684) Damon: Prosecuting Trump: A Reply to Josh Marshall - Lawfare (https://www.lawfareblog.com/prosecuting-trump-reply-josh-marshall) Bill: Yes, Special Elections Really Are Signaling A Better-Than-Expected Midterm For Democrats - FiveThirtyEight (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-special-elections-really-are-signaling-a-better-than-expected-midterm-for-democrats/) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What does it mean for an agency to monitor applications with empathy to achieve successful mission outcomes? Bill James is the President of Federal Business LLC and FedSmarts LLC. He is also a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Development and Operations in the Office of Information and Technology at the Department of Veterans Affairs. He joins Carolyn and Mark to talk about the importance of application monitoring, culture, and empathy when executing a mission. Episode Table of Contents[00:30] Introducing Our Guest, Bill James [09:29] The Onus of the User Experience [20:33] Applications Monitoring Is Integrated into the VA Process Episode Links and Resources Introducing Our Guest, Bill JamesCarolyn: So today, our guest is https://www.linkedin.com/in/bill-james-644039192/ (Bill James). He is president of Federal Business LLC. In his previous role as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Development and Operations in the office of Information and Technology at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Bill led the VA's largest information technology organization to deliver enterprise-wide technology products and services to veterans. He has been able to carry those skills into his current role as president of Federal Business LLC. And today, we're going to get Bill's perspective on why Application Performance Monitoring or APM is no longer a luxury, but a necessity. And he just recently put out a blog that, I'm going to nerd out here, I really like the blog. It's easy to understand. One of the things he says in it, or some of the perspectives we're going to get from him, is how APM for VA software applications is necessary now and critical for the future. And how it helps the VA, and I'm going to throw in there, like any organization, any agency, avoid or recover from outages, increase VA OIT productivity and observability, offer insights into investments needed for innovation and understand and improve the customer experience of veterans. I love that last bit. The customer experience. Bill: Thank you very much, Carolyn and Mark. I'm really happy to be here today, and you've touched one of my hot buttons. I'm really interested in all of it, how the technology ultimately relates and improves the end-user experience. Specifically and particularly, our veterans. And that's why I loved working at the VA so much. Focus On Veterans' ExperienceCarolyn: Well, and that topic I feel like is especially timely Mark. Especially with the presidential executive order around user experience. I mean, you're kind on the cutting edge, Bill. I mean, you've been doing this before it was cool. You've been worried about the customer experience. Bill: That's right. I grew up as a programmer, a coder, and as a mathematician. It was always interesting to me how we could build a code and write it. And we thought our job was done when we hit the end card, back in the day when we had punch cards. But that wall, was frankly was a false wall, and what we never thought through, I think clearly enough into what that code actually did for the end-user. So I think with the new executive order and clearly the focus on the veterans' experience in the VA, that wall came crumbling down for me particularly. It was really a great place to work and a great place to exercise this whole idea of customer experience from the IT perspective specifically. Carolyn: We're definitely going to dive more into that. Before we go there, for our listeners that may not be as familiar with application performance monitoring or APM, will you give us a quick definition of what that is? Bill: Yes. It's the heartbeat of your systems, and specifically of software. So, many folks have gone to the doctor or seen these electrocardiograms, where they put these things on your chest and you have the little needle that draws how your heartbeat beat is beating. What Is Application Performance MonitoringBill: Software needs that very same type of telemetry, where it can show everybody...

Episode Notes:This episode's guest is David Rennie, the Beijing bureau chief for The Economist and author of the weekly Chaguan column. Our topic is online discourse, nationalism, the intensifying contest for global discourse power and US-China relations.Excerpts:I spoke to some very serious NGO people who've been in China a long time, Chinese and foreigners who said that this was the worst time for NGOs since 1989, and the kind of mentions of espionage and national security was a very serious thing. So then I had to make a decision, was I going to try and speak to someone like Sai Lei. Clearly he is an extremely aggressive nationalist, some would call him a troll and there are risks involved in talking to someone like him. But I felt, I'm one of the few English language media still in China, if I'm going to add value, I need to speak to these people.I had a very interesting conversation with a CGTN commentator…He said, I can't tell you how many Western diplomats, or Western journalists they whine. And they moan. And they say, how aggressive China is now and how upset all this Wolf warrior stuff is and how China is doing itself damage. And he goes, we're not, it's working. You in the Western media, used to routinely say that the national people's Congress was a rubber stamp parliament. And because we went after you again and again, you see news organizations no longer as quick to use that. Because we went after you calling us a dictatorship, you're now slower to use that term because we went after you about human rights and how it has different meanings in different countries. We think it's having an effect…One of the things I think is a value of being here is you have these conversations where the fact that we in the West think that China is inevitably making a mistake by being much more aggressive. I don't think that's how a big part of the machine here sees it. I think they think it worked….To simplify and exaggerate a bit, I think that China, and this is not just a guess, this is based on off the record conversations with some pretty senior Chinese figures, they believe that the Western world, but in particular, the United States is too ignorant and unimaginative and Western centric, and probably too racist to understand that China is going to succeed, that China is winning and that the West is in really decadent decline…I think that what they believe they are doing is delivering an educational dose of pain and I'm quoting a Chinese official with the word pain. And it is to shock us because we are too mule headed and thick to understand that China is winning and we are losing. And so they're going to keep delivering educational doses of pain until we get it…The fundamental message and I'm quoting a smart friend of mine in Beijing here is China's rise is inevitable. Resistance is futile…And if you accommodate us, we'll make it worth your while. It's the key message. And they think that some people are proving dimmer and slower and more reluctant to pick that message up and above all Americans and Anglo-Saxons.On US-China relations:The general trend of U.S. China relations. to be of optimistic about the trend of U.S. China relations I'd have to be more optimistic than I currently am about the state of U.S. Politics. And there's a kind of general observation, which is that I think that American democracy is in very bad shape right now. And I wish that some of the China hawks in Congress, particularly on the Republican side, who are also willing to imply, for example, that the 2020 election was stolen, that there was massive fraud every time they say that stuff, they're making an in-kind contribution to the budget of the Chinese propaganda department…You cannot be a patriotic American political leader and tell lies about the state of American democracy. And then say that you are concerned about China's rise…..their message about Joe Biden is that he is weak and old and lacks control of Congress. And that he is, this is from scholars rather than officials, I should say, but their view is, why would China spend political capital on the guy who's going to lose the next election?…The one thing that I will say about the U.S. China relationship, and I'm very, very pessimistic about the fact that the two sides, they don't share a vision of how this ends well.Links:China’s online nationalists turn paranoia into clickbait | The Economist 赛雷：我接受了英国《经济学人》采访，切身体验了深深的恶意 David Rennie on Twitter @DSORennieTranscript:You may notice a couple of choppy spots. We had some Beijing-VPN issues and so had to restart the discussion three times. Bill:Hi, everyone. Welcome back to the `Sinocism podcast. It's been a bit of a break, but we are back and we will continue going forward on a fairly regular schedule today. For the fourth episode, I'm really happy to be able to chat with David Rennie, the Beijing bureau chief for The Economist and author of the weekly Chaguan column. Our topic today is online discourse, nationalism, and the intensifying contest for global discourse power.Bill:I've long been a fan of David's work and the approximate cause for inviting him to join the podcast today was an article on the January 8th issue of The Economist on online nationalism. Welcome David.David:Hello.Bill:So just to start, could you tell us how you got to where you are today?David:I've been a foreign correspondent for frighteningly long time, 24 years. And it's my second China posting. I've been out there so long. I've done two Chinas, two Washingtons, five years in Brussels. I was here in the '90s and then I went off, spent a total of nine years in Washington, DC. And then I came back here in 2018 and I was asked to launch a new column about China called Chaguan, because previously I wrote our Lexington column and our Bagehot column about Britain and our Charlemagne column about Europe. They all have strange names, but that's what we do. And so this is my fourth column for The Economist.Bill:We last met, I think in 2018 in Beijing in what seems like before times in many ways at The Opposite House, I believe.David:And the days when we had visitors, people came from the outside world, all of those things.Bill:Yes. You are quite the survivor, as they say. Although there are advantages to not worry about walking outside and getting sick all the time. Although it's better here in DC now.David:It's a very safe bubble. It's a very large bubble, but it's a bubble.Bill:So let's talk about your article, the January 8th issue. It was titled “China's online nationalist turned paranoia into click bait”. And I thought it was a very good distillation of the surge in nationalists and anti foreign content that is really flooding or was flooded the internet in China. And you interviewed one of the people who's profiting from it because it turns out that not only is it good from a sort of a sentiment perspective, but it's also good from a business perspective.Bill:And that person Sai Lei, interestingly enough, then recorded your conversation and turned it into a whole new post and video about the whole experience of talking to a foreign correspondent. Can you tell us a little about the story and why you chose to write it and just to add the links to David's article and the Sai Lei article will be in the podcast notes.David:So I heard from friends and colleagues, a couple of things in two directions. One was that in the world of private sector media, a couple of reasonably well known explainer sites, popular science video companies had been taken out of business by nationalist attacks. One was called Paperclip, the other called Elephant Union. And their crime in the eyes of online nationalists had been to talk about things which are fairly uncontroversial in Western media, that eating beef from the Amazon or eating beef that is fed soy grown in the Amazon is potentially bad for the rainforest and maybe we should eat less meat.David:But because this was in the Chinese context, that China is the biggest buyer of soybeans, this explainer video was attacked as a plot to deny the Chinese people the protein that they need to be strong, that this was a race traitor attack on the Chinese. And it was outrageous because the West eats so much more meat than China. And so that was one element of it. And I heard that these companies had been shut down. The other was that I'd been picking up that this was an extremely bad time for NGOs, particularly Chinese NGOs that get money from overseas. And we'd seen some really nasty attacks, not just on the idea that they were getting money from overseas, but that they were somehow guilty of espionage.David:And there was an NGO that did incredibly benign work. Tracking maritime and Marine trash, as it floats around the coasts of China based in Shanghai, Rendu Ocean. I'd done a column on them the year before I'd been out with their volunteers. It was a bunch of pensioners and retirees and school kids picking up styrofoam and trash off beaches, weighing it, tracking where it came from and then uploading this data to try and track the fact that China is a big generator of the plastic and other trash in the oceans. They were accused of espionage and taking foreign money to track ocean currents that would help foreign militaries, attack China, that they were guilty of grave national security crimes.David:And they were attacked in a press conference, including at the national defense ministry. And they're basically now in a world of pain. They're still just about clinging on. And so these two things, you have these NGOs under really serious attack, and you also have this attack on online explainer videos. The common theme was that the nationalist attack, they were somehow portraying the country and its national security was a weird combination of not just the security forces, but also private sector, Chinese online nationalists. And in particularly I was told there was a guy called Sai Lei. That's his non to plume who was one of the people making videos taking on these people. He went after celebrities who talked about China should be more careful about eating seafood.David:This was again, sort of race traitors. And he was using this really horrible language about these celebrities who talked about eating more sustainable seafood that they were ‘er guizi”, which is this time about the collaborationist police officers who worked with the Japanese during the World War II. He calls them Hanjian, the s-called traitors to the Chinese race. Very, very loaded language. Went after a group that’s working with Africans down in the south of China, talking about how they faced discrimination. This got them attacked. They had talked also about the role of Chinese merchants in the illegal ivory trade that got them attacked by the nationalists.David:So I thought this question of whether the government is behind this or whether this is a private sector attack on that. There's the profits to be made from this online nationalism struck me something I should write about. So I talked to some of the people whose organizations and companies had been taken down, they were very clear that they thought that was a unholy nexus of profit, clickbait and things like the communist youth league really liking the way that they can turbocharge some of these attacks-Bill:Especially on bilibili, they use that a lot.David:Especially on... Yeah. And so there's this weird sort of sense that, and I spoke to some very serious NGO people who've been in China a long time, Chinese and foreigners who said that this was the worst time for NGOs since 1989, and the kind of mentions of espionage and national security was a very serious thing. So then I had to make a decision, was I going to try and speak to someone like Sai Lei. Clearly he is an extremely aggressive nationalist, some would call him a troll and there are risks involved in talking to someone like him. But I felt, I'm one of the few English language media still in China, if I'm going to add value, I need to speak to these people.David:Yes. And so I reached out to the founder of a big, well known nationalist website who I happen to know. And I said, do you know this guy Sai Lei? And he said, I do, I'll get in touch with him. Sai Lei was very, very anxious about speaking to the Western media. Thought I was going to misquote him. And so eventually we did this deal that he was going to record the whole thing. And that if he thought I had misquoted him, that he was going to run the entire transcript on full on this other very well known nationalist website that had made the introduction. So I said, okay, fine. I have nothing to hide. That's all good. I wrote the column. I quoted Sai Lei. I didn't quote a tremendous amount of Sai Lei because what he said was not especially revealing.David:He was just an extremely paranoid guy. And there was a lot of whataboutism and he was saying, well, how would the American public react if they were told that what they eat damages the Amazon rainforest? And I said, well, they're told that all the time-Bill:All the time.David:It was an incredibly familiar argument. It's on the front page of America newspapers all the time. And so he wasn't willing to engage. And so, I ran this. He then put out this attack on me. It's fair. Look, I make a living handing out my opinions. I knew he was recording me, was it a bit disappointing that he cut and edited it to make me sound as bad as possible rather than running the full transcript. I mean, I interviewed a troll and that was the thing. He attacked me on the basis of my family, which then triggered a whole bunch of stuff that was pretty familiar to me, a lot of wet and journalists get a lot of attacks and it was an unpleasant experience, but I feel that the added value of being here is to talk to people, who The Economist does not agree with.David:And his fundamental problem was that I was using online as a disapproving time. But my line with people like him, or with some of the very prominent nationalists online academics, media entrepreneurs, also with the Chinese foreign ministry, when I'm called in is my job in China is to try to explain how China sees the world. To speak to people in China to let their voices be heard in The Economist. And I absolutely undertake to try and reflect their views faithfully, but I do not promise to agree with them, because The Economist does not hide the fact that we are a Western liberal newspaper. We're not anti-China, we are liberal. And so, if we see illiberall things happening in Abu Ghraib or in Guantanamo Bay or-Bill:DC.David:Being done by Donald Trump or being done by Boris Johnson or Brexit, or Viktor Orbán or in China, we will criticize them because we are what we say we are. We are a liberal newspaper. We have been since 1843. And what's interesting is that online, the reaction was... For a while, I was trending on Bilibili. And that was new. And I take that on the chin. I mean, I'm here, I'm attacking nationalists. They're going to attack back. I think what's interesting is that the online of nationalist attacks were, I hope that the ministry of state security arrest this guy, he should be thrown out of China. Why is he in China? They should be expelled. This guy has no right to be in China.David:I think that at some level, some parts of the central government machinery do still see a value to having newspapers like The Economist, reasonably well read Western media in China. And it's this conversation I've had a lot with the foreign ministry, with the State Council Information Office, which is as you know, it's the front name plate for the propaganda bureau. And I say to them, we are liberals.David:We are not anti-China any more than we're anti-American because we criticize Donald Trump, but you know where we're coming from, but I do believe that if China is concerned about how it's covered, if they throw all of us out, they're not going to get better coverage. I mean, some of the most aggressive coverage about China in the states comes from journalists who never go to China and economists who never go to China. And I think that, that argument resonates with some parts of the machine, to the people whose job is to deal with people like me.David:What I worry about is that there are other parts of the machine, whether it's the Communist Youth League or whether it's the ministry of state security or some other elements in the machine who do also see a tremendous value in delegitimizing Western media full stop, because if you're being criticized and you don't enjoy it. Tactic number one, whether you are Donald Trump talking about fake news, or Vladimir Putin talking about hostile foreign forces, or the Chinese is to delegitimize your critics.David:And I do think that that is going on in a way that in the four years that I've been here this time. And if, I think back to my time here 20 years ago, I do think the attempts to go after and intimidate and delegitimize the Western media they're getting more aggressive and they're trying new tactics, which are pretty concerning.Bill:So that's a great segue into the next question. But first, I just want to ask the nationalist website that you said ran Sai Lei's piece that was Guancha.cn?David:Yeah. And so it's probably not secret, but so I know a bit, Eric Li, Li Shimo, the co-founder Guancha.Bill:Eric actually famous for his TED Talk, went to Stanford business school, venture capitalist. And now, I guess he's affiliated with Fudan, And is quite an active funder of all sorts of online discourse it seems among other things.David:That's right. And I would point out that The Economist, we have this by invitation online debate platform and we invite people to contribute. And we did in fact, run a piece by Eric Li, the co-founder of Guancha, the nationalist website a couple of weeks before this attack, that Guancha ran. And I actually had debate with some colleagues about this, about whether as liberals, we're the suckers that allow people who attack us to write, he wrote a very cogent, but fairly familiar argument about the performance legitimacy, the communist party and how that was superior to Western liberal democracy.David:And I think that it's the price of being a liberal newspaper. If we take that seriously, then we occasionally have to give a platform to people who will then turn around and attack us. And if I'm going to live in China and not see of my family for a very long period of time, and it's a privilege to live in China, but there are costs. If you are an expert, then I'm not ready to give up on the idea of talking to people who we strongly disagree with. If I'm going to commit to living here to me the only reason to do that is so you talk to people, not just liberals who we agree with, but people who strongly disagree with us.Bill:No. And I think that's right. And I think that also ties in for many years, predating Xi Jinping there's been this long stated goal for China to increase its global discourse power as they call it. And to spread more the tell the truth, tell the real story, spread more positive energy about China globally instead of having foreign and especially Western, or I think, and this ties into some of the national stuff increasing what we hear is called the Anglo-Saxons media dominate the global discourse about China. And to be fair, China has a point. I mean, there should be more Chinese voices talking about China globally.Bill:That's not an unreasonable desire, or request from a country as big and powerful as China is. One thing that seems like a problem is on the one hand you've got, the policy makers are pushing to improve and better control discourse about China globally. At the same time, they're increasing their control over the domestic discourse inside the PRC about the rest of the world. And so in some ways, yes, there's an imbalance globally, but there's also a massive imbalance domestically, which seems to fit into what you just went through with Sai Lei and where the trends are. I don't know. I mean, how does China tell a more convincing story to the world in a way that isn't just a constant struggle to use the term they actually use, but more of an actual fact based honest discussion, or is that something that we're just not going to see anytime soon?David:I think there's a couple of elements to that. I mean, you are absolutely right that China like any country has the right to want to draw the attention of the world to stuff that China does. That's impressive. And I do think, one of my arguments when I talk to Chinese officials as to why they should keep giving out visas to people like me is, when I think back to the beginning of the COVID pandemic, I've not left China for more than two years. I've not left since the pandemic began, you had a lot of media writing that this incredibly ferocious crackdown was going to be very unpopular with the Chinese public. And that's because of the very beginning you had people, there lots of stuff on Chinese social media, little videos of people being beaten up by some [inaudible 00:16:26] in a village or tied to a tree, or their doors being welded shot.David:And it did look unbelievably thuggish. And people playing Majiang being arrested. But actually about three weeks into the pandemic, and I was traveling outside Beijing and going to villages and then coming back and doing the quarantine, you'd go into these villages in the middle of Henan or Hunan. And you'd have the earth bomb at the entrance to the village and all the old guys in the red arm bands. And the pitchforks and the school desk, or the entrance to the village with a piece of paper, because you got to have paperwork as well. And you've realized that this incredibly strict grassroots control system that they'd put in motion, the grid management, the fact that the village loud speakers were back up and running and broadcasting propaganda was actually a source of comfort.David:That it gave people a sense that they could do something to keep this frightening disease at bay. And I think to me, that's an absolute example that it's in China's interest to have Western journalists in China because it was only being in China that made me realize that this strictness was actually welcomed by a lot of Chinese people. It made them feel safe and it made them feel that they were contributing to a national course by locking themselves indoors and obeying these sometimes very strange and arbitrary rules. In addition, I think you are absolutely right, China has the right to want the foreign media to report that stuff.David:Instead of looking at China through a Western lens and saying, this is draconian, this is ferocious, this is abuse of human rights. It's absolutely appropriate for China to say no, if you're doing your job properly, you will try and understand this place on China's own terms. You will allow Chinese voices into your reporting and let them tell the world that they're actually comforted by this extremely strict zero COVID policy, which is tremendously popular with the majority of the Chinese public. That is a completely legitimate ambition. And I never failed to take the chance to tell officials that's why they should give visas to have journalists in the country, because if you're not in the country, you can't think that stuff up.David:What I think is much more problematic is that there is alongside that legitimate desire to have China understood on China's own terms, there is a very conscious strategy underway, which is talked about by some of the academics at Fudan who work for Eric Li at Guancha as a discourse war, a narrative war, or to redefine certain key terms.Bill:And the term and the term is really is like struggle. I mean, they see it as a public opinion war globally. I mean, that the language is very martial in Chinese.David:Absolutely. Yeah. And do not say that we are not a democracy. If you say that we are not a democracy, you are ignoring our tremendous success in handling COVID. We are a whole society democracy, which it's basically a performance legitimacy argument, or a collective utilitarian, the maximizing the benefits for the largest number of argument. It's not particularly new, but the aggression with which it's being pushed is new and the extraordinary resources they put into going after Western media for the language that we use of our China. And I had a very interesting conversation with a CGTN commentator who attacked me online, on Twitter and said that I was a... It was sort of like you scratch an English when you'll find a drug dealer or a pirate.David:Now there's a lot of Opium War rhetoric around if you're a British journalist in China. You're never too far from Opium War reference. And for the record, I don't approve of the war, but it was also before my time. So I actually, the guy attacked me fairly aggressively on Twitter. So I said, can you try and be professional? I'm being professional here why won't you be professional. He invited me with coffee. So we had coffee. And we talked about his work for CGTN and for Chaguan and his view of his interactions to Western media. And he said, this very revealing thing. He said, the reason we do this stuff is because it works.David:He said, I can't tell you how many Western diplomats, or Western journalists they whine. And they moan. And they say, how aggressive China is now and how upset all this Wolf warrior stuff is and how China is doing itself damage. And he goes, we're not, it's working. You in the Western media, used to routinely say that the national people's Congress was a rubber stamp parliament. And because we went after you again and again, you see news organizations no longer as quick to use that. Because we went after you calling us a dictatorship, you're now slower to use that term because we went after you about human rights and how it has different meanings in different countries. We think it's having an effect.David:And so I think that this attempt to grind us down is working, although in their view, it's working. And I think that, that ties in with a broader conversation that I have a lot in Beijing with foreign ambassadors or foreign diplomats who they get called into the foreign ministry, treated politically aggressively and shouted at and humiliated. And they say, how does the Chinese side not see that this causes them problems? And I think that in this moment of, as you say, an era of struggle, this phrase that we see from speeches, from leaders, including Xi, about an era of change, not seen in 100 years.David:They really do feel that as the West, particularly America is in decline and as China is rising, that it's almost like there's a turbulence in the sky where these two the two axis are crossing. And that China has to just push through that turbulence. To use a story that I had kept secret for a long time, that I put in a column when Michael Kovrig was released. So, listeners will remember Michael Kovrig was one of the two Canadians who was held cover couple of years, basically as a hostage by the Chinese state security. And fairly early on, I had heard from some diplomats in Beijing from another Western embassy, not the UK, I should say, that the fact that Michael Kovrig in detention was being questioned, not just about his work for an NGO, the international crisis group that he was doing when he was picked up.David:But he was also being questioned about work he'd been doing for the Canadian embassy when he had diplomatic immunity. The fact that that was going on was frightening to Western diplomats in Beijing. And soon after that conversation, I was sitting there talking to this guy, reasonably senior official. And I said to him, I explained this conversation to him. And I said, I've just been having a conversation with these diplomats. And they said, the word that they used was frightened about what you are doing to Michael Kovrig. And I said, how does it help China to frighten people from that country?David:And he'd been pretty cheerful up till then. He switched to English so that he could be sure that I understood everything he wanted to say to me. And he said, this absolute glacial tone. He said, Canada needs to feel pain. So that the next time America asks an ally to help attack China, that ally will think twice. And that's it.Bill:That's it. And it probably works.David:It works. And yeah. So I think that, again, one of the things I think is a value of being here is you have these conversations where the fact that we in the West think that China is inevitably making a mistake by being much more aggressive. I don't think that's how a big part of the machine here sees it. I think they think it worked.Bill:No. I agree. And I'm not actually sure that they're making a mistake because if you look at so far, what have the cost been? As you said, I mean, behavior is shift, but I think it's definitely open for question. I mean, it's like the assumptions you still see this week, multiple columns about how China's COVID policy is inevitably going to fail. And I'm sitting here in DC, we're about to cross a million people dead in this country, and I'm thinking what's failure. It's a very interesting time.Bill:I mean, to that point about this attitude and the way that there seem to be prosecuting a very top down or top level design communication strategy, Zhang Weiwei, who's at Fudan University. And also I think Eric Li is a closer associate of his, he actually was the, discussant at a Politburo study session. One of the monthly study sessions a few months ago, where I think the theme was on improving international communication. And talking about, again, how to better tell China's story, how to increase the global discourse power.Bill:Some people saw that as, oh, they're going to be nicer because they want to have a more lovable China image. I’m very skeptical because I think that this more aggressive tone, the shorthand is “Wolf warriors. wolf-warriorism”, I think really that seems to me to be more of a fundamental tenant of Xi Jinping being thought on diplomacy, about how China communicates to the world. I mean, how do you see it and how does this get better, or does it not get better for a while?David:It's a really important question. So I think, what do they think they're up to? To simplify and exaggerate a bit, I think that China, and this is not just a guess, this is based on off the record conversations with some pretty senior Chinese figures, they believe that the Western world, but in particular, the United States is too ignorant and unimaginative and Western centric, and probably too racist to understand that China is going to succeed, that China is winning and that the West is in really decadent decline.David:And so I think that these aggressive acts like detaining the two Michaels or their diplomatic an economic coercion of countries like Australia or Lithuania. They hear all the Pearl clutching dismay from high officials in Brussels, or in Washington DC-Bill:And the op-eds in big papers about how awful this is and-David:And the op-eds and yeah, self-defeating, and all those things. But I think that what they believe they are doing is delivering an educational dose of pain and I'm quoting a Chinese official with the word pain. And it is to shock us because we are too mule headed and thick to understand that China is winning and we are losing. And so they're going to keep delivering educational doses of pain until we get it. I think they think that's what they're up to-Bill:And by getting it basically stepping a side in certain areas and letting the Chinese pursue some of their key goals, the core interests, whatever you want to call it, that we, yeah.David:That we accommodate. Yeah. The fundamental message I'm quoting a smart friend of mine in Beijing here is China's rise is inevitable. Resistance is futile.Bill:Right. Resistance is futile.David:And if you accommodate us, we'll make it worth your while. It's the key message. And they think that some people are proving dimer and slower and more reluctant to pick that message up and above all Americans and Anglo Saxons. And so they're giving us the touch, the whip. Now, do I think that, that is inevitably going to be great for them? And you ask how does this end well? I mean, I guess my reason for thinking that they may yet pay some price, not a total price, is that they are engaged in a giant experiment. The Chinese government and party are engaged in a giant experiment, that it didn't matter that much, that the Western world was permissive and open to engagement with China.David:That, That wasn't really integral to their economic rise for the last 40 years that China basically did it by itself. And that if the Western world becomes more suspicious and more hostile, that China will not pay a very substantial price because its market power and its own manufacturing, industrial strength, we'll push on through. And so there'll be a period of turbulence and then we'll realized that we have to accommodate. And I think that in many cases they will be right. There will be sectors where industries don't leave China. They in fact, double down and reinvest and we're seeing that right now, but I do worry that there are going to be real costs paid.David:I mean, when I think back to... I did a special report for The Economists in May, 2019 about us generations. And one of the parts of that was the extraordinary number of Chinese students in us colleges. And I went to the University of Iowa and I spoke to Chinese students and you know that now, the levels of nationalism and hostility on both sides and the fear in American campuses, that's a real cost. I mean, I think if you imagine China's relationship with the Western world, particularly the U.S. as a fork in the road with two forks, one total engagement, one total decoupling, then absolutely China is right. There's not going to be total decoupling because we are as dependent as we were on China's, it's just-Bill:Right. Not realistic.David:China is an enormous market and also the best place to get a lot of stuff made. But I wonder, and it's an image I've used in a column, I think. I think that the relationship is not a fork in the road with two forks. It's a tree with a million branches. And each of those branches is a decision. Does this Western university sign a partnership with that Chinese university? Does this Western company get bought by a Chinese company? Does the government approve of that? Does this Western media organization sign a partnership with a Chinese media organization?David:Does this Western country buy a 5g network or an airline or a data cloud service or autonomous vehicles from China that are products and services with very high value added where China wants to be a dominant player. And that's an entirely reasonable ambition, because China's a big high tech power now. But a lot of these very high value added services or these relationships between universities, or businesses, or governments in the absence of trust, they don't make a bunch of sense because if you don't trust the company, who's cloud is holding your data or the company who's made you the autonomous car, which is filled with microphones and sensors and knows where you were last night and what you said in your car last night, if you don't trust that company or the country that made that, none of that makes sense.David:And I think that China's willingness to show its teeth and to use economic coercion and to go to European governments and say, if you don't take a fine Chinese 5g network we're going to hurt you. If you boil that down to a bumper sticker, that's China saying to the world, or certainly to the Western world stay open to China, or China will hurt you. Trust China or China will hurt you. That's the core message for a lot of these Wolf warrior ambassadors. And that's the core message to people like me, a guy who writes a column living in Beijing. And a lot of the time China's market power will make that okay. But I think that's, if you look at that tree with a million decisions, maybe more of those than China was expecting will click from a yes to a no.David:If you're a Western university, do you now open that campus in Shanghai? Do you trust your local Chinese partner when they say that your academics are going to have freedom of speech? And what's heartbreaking about that is that the victims of that are not going to be the politic bureau it's going to be people on the ground, it's going to be researchers and students and consumers and-Bill:On both sides. I mean, that's-David:On both sides. Yeah.Bill:Yeah. That's the problem.David:Yeah.Bill:So that's uplifting. No, I mean, I-David:I've got worse.Bill:Wait until the next question. I think I really appreciate your time and it'd be respective but I just have two more questions. One is really about just being a foreign correspondent in China and the Foreign correspondents' Club of China put out its annual report, I think earlier this week. And it's depressing you read as it's been in years and every year is extremely depressing, but one of the backdrops is really the first foreign ministry press conference of the last year of 2021. It really struck me that Hua Chunying, who is... She's now I think assistant foreign minister, vice foreign minister at the time, she was the head of the information office in I think the one of the spokespeople, she made a statement about how it was kicking off the 100th anniversary year.Bill:And I'm just going to read her couple sentences to get a sense of the language. So she said, and this was on the, I think it was January 4th, 2021, "In the 1930s and 1940s when the Guangdong government sealed off Yunnan and spared, no efforts to demonize the CPC foreign journalists like Americans, Edgar Snow, Anna Louise Strong and Agnes Smedley, curious about who and what the CPC is, chose to blend in with the CPC members in Yunnan and wrote many objective reports as well as works like the famous Red star over China, giving the world, the first clip of the CPC and its endeavor in uniting and leading the Chinese people in pursuing national independence and liberation."Bill:And then went on with more stuff about how basically wanting foreign correspondents to be like Snow, Strong or Smedley. How did that go over? And I mean, is that just part of the, your welcome as long as you're telling the right story message?David:So there was a certain amount of... Yeah. I mean, we also got this from our handlers at the MFA, why couldn't it be more like Edgar Snow? And I fear the first time I had that line in the meeting, I was like, well, he was a communist, if that's the bar, then I'm probably going to meet that one. Edgar Snow went to Yan’an he spent a tremendous amount of time in Mao hours interviewing Mao. If Xi Jinping wants to let me interview him for hours, I'd be up for that. But I would point out that Edgar Snow, after interviewing Mao for hours, then handed the transcripts over to Mao and had them edited and then handed back to him. And that probably would not be-Bill:But doesn't work at The Economist.David:That wouldn't fly with my editors. No. So I think we may have an inseparable problem there. Look, isn't it the phrase that Trump people used to talk about working the refs? I mean, what government doesn't want to work the refs. So, that's part of it. And I'm a big boy, I've been at Trump rallies and had people scream at me and tell me, I'm fake news. And it was still a good thing to meet. I've interviewed Afghan warlords who had happily killed me, but at that precise moment, they wanted the Americans to drop a bomb on the mountain opposite.David:And so they were willing to have me in their encampment. So, the worker of being a journalist, you need to go and talk to people who don't necessarily agree with you or like you and that's the deal. So I'm not particularly upset by that. What is worrying and I think this is shown in the FCC annual server, which is based on asking journalists in China how their job goes at the moment is there is a sense that the Chinese machine and in particular things like the communist youth league have been very effective at whipping up low public opinion.David:So when we saw the floods in Hunan Province in the summer of 2021, where in fact, we recently just found out that central government punished a whole bunch of officials who had covered up the death doll there, journalists who went down there to report this perfectly legitimate, large news story, the communist youth league among other organizations put out notices on their social media feeds telling people they're a hostile foreign journalists trying to make China look bad, to not talk to them, if you see them, tell us where they are. And you've got these very angry crowds chasing journalists around Hunan in a fairly worry way.David:And again, if you're a foreign correspondent in another country, we are guests in China. So, the Chinese people, they don't have to love me. I hope that they will answer my questions, because I think I'm trying to report this place fairly, but I'm not demanding red carpet treatment, but there is a sense that the very powerful propaganda machine here is whipping up very deliberately something that goes beyond just be careful about talking to foreign journalists. And I think in particular, one thing that I should say is that as a middle aged English guy with gray hair, I still have an easier time of it by far because some of the nastiest attacks, including from  the nastiest online nationalist trolls.David:They're not just nationalists, but they're also sexist and chauvinist and the people who I think really deserve far more sympathy than some like me is Chinese American, or Chinese Australian, or Chinese Canadian journalists, particularly young women journalists.Bill:I know Emily Feng at NPR was just the subject of a really nasty spate of attacks online about some of her reporting.David:And it's not just Emily, there's a whole-Bill:Right. There's a whole bunch.David:There's a whole bunch of them. And they get called you know er guizi all sorts of [crosstalk 00:37:15]. And this idea and all this horrible stuff about being race traitors and again, one of the conversations I've had with Chinese officials is, if you keep this up, someone is going to get physically hurt. And I don't think that's what you want. David:And again, I fall back on the fact that I'm a Western liberal. What I say to them is if you tell me that a Chinese-British journalist is not as British as me, then you are to my mind, that's racial prejudice. And if some right wing Western white politician said to me that a Chinese immigrant wasn't fully American, or wasn't fully British, that's racism, right?Bill:That's racism. Yeah.David:And I think that is the really troubling element to this level of nationalism. China is a very big country that does some very impressive things that does some less impressive things and does some very wicked things, but we have every reason to give it credit for the things it does well. And it is not that surprising when any government tries to work the refs.David:And get the best coverage they can by intimidating us and calling us out. I've interviewed Donald Trump and he asked me, when are you going to write something nice about me? I mean, we're grownups, this is how it works, but if they are making it toxic for young women journalists to work in China, or if they are driving foreign correspondent out of China, because their families they're under such intimidation that they can't even go on holiday without their children being followed around by secret police. I think there will be a cost.Bill:But that may be a what the Chinese side sees as a benefit, because then it opens the field for them controlling how the story's told. And then you can bring in a bunch of people or pull a bunch of people out of the foreigners working for state media, hey, the new Edgar Snow, the new Agnes Smedley. I mean, that is one of the things that I think potentially is what they're trying to do, which seems self-defeating, but as we've been discussing, what we think is self-defeating the policy makers, or some of them may see as a success.David:So what I think they're confident of is that being aggressive and making us much more jumpy is a win, but throwing all of us out, I think the people at the top get that, that's not a win because the New York times and the BBC and the Washington post, they're still going to cover China, even if they can't have people in China. And a bunch of that coverage is not going to be stuff that China likes, North Korea doesn't have any resident foreign correspondent, but it doesn't get a great press.Bill:And the other group, of course, but beyond the foreign journalists is all the PRC national journalists working for the foreign correspondent as researchers and, I mean, many of them journalists in all but name because they can't legally be that I've certainly, been hearing some pretty distressing stories about how much pressure they're under. And I think they're in almost an impossible situation it seems like right now.David:Now they're amazingly brave people. They're completely integral to our coverage. And many of them, as you say, they're journalists who in any other country, we would be getting to write stuff with their own bylines. I mean, in incredibly cautious about what we have our Chinese colleagues do now, because they are under tremendous pressure. I mean, not naming news organizations, but the just the level of harassment of them and their families and is really bad. And it's the most cynical attempt to make it difficult for us to do our jobs and to divide Chinese people from the Western media.David:But fundamentally at some level, this does not end well because, and this is not me just talking up the role of the Western media, because I think we're magnificently important people, but at some level there's a big problem under way with this level of nationalism in modern China. I was in China in the '90s, you were in China in the '90s, I think. We remember it was-Bill:'80s, '90s, 2000s. Yeah.David:Yeah. You were there before me, but it was not a Jeffersonian democracy. It was a dictatorship, but this level of nationalism is much more serious now. Why does that matter? Well, because I think that for a lot of particularly young Chinese, the gap between their self perception and the outside world's perception of China has become unbearably wide. They think this country has never been so impressive and admirable. And yet I keep seeing foreign media questioning us and criticizing us. And that just enrages them. They can't conceive of any sincere principle on our part that would make us criticize China that way.David:And going back to my conversation with the online nationalist Sai Lei, when he was saying, well, how would the Americans take it if they were told that eating avocados was bad for the environment? When I said to him, but they are told that. There are lots of environmental NGOs that talk about sustainable fisheries, or the cost, the carbon footprint of crops and things in the West. The two countries are pulling apart and the pandemic has just accelerated that process. And so if you are a Chinese nationalist, not only are you angry about being criticized, but you don't believe that the West is ever critical about itself. You think that the West is only bent on criticizing China. And that gap in perceptions is just really dangerously wide.Bill:And widening, it seems like. I mean, I'm not there now, but it certainly, from everything I can see outside of China, it feels like that's what's happening too.David:Yeah. We need to know more about China.Bill:I agree.David:And report more about China. And I don't just say that because that's how I earn my living. I think it's really, really dangerous for us to think that the solution is less reporting about China.Bill:Well, and certainly, I mean, and all sorts of avenues, not just media, but all sorts of avenues, we're seeing a constriction of information getting out of China. And on the one hand China's growing in importance globally and power globally. And on the other hand, our ability to understand the place seems to be getting harder. And it goes back to, I mean, we just, I think it'll be a mistake if we just get forced into accepting the official version of what China is. That's disseminated through the officially allowed and sanctioned outlets in China. Maybe that'll help China, but I'm not sure it helps the rest of the world.David:And it's not compatible with China's ambitions to be a high tech superpower. China wants to be a country that doesn't just-Bill:That's a very fundamental contradiction.David:Yeah. China wants to sell us vaccines and wants the Western world to buy Chinese vaccines and approve Chinese vaccines. Why has the FDA not yet approved Chinese vaccines? Well, one reason is because China hasn't released the data. You can't play this secretive defensive hermit state and be a global high tech superpower. And China is a very, very big country with a lot of good universities, a lot of smart people. It has every right to compete at the highest levels in global high tech. But you can't do that, if you are not willing to earn trust by sharing the data, or by letting your companies be audited, when they list overseas. They need to decide.Bill:Or being able to handle legitimate criticism. I mean, certainly there has been illegitimate criticism and the attacks on the Western media, I mean, I know the BBC was a frequent target last year. And I think they were able to pull out some errors of the reporting and then magnify it. I mean, it is a struggle. And I think one of the things I think is on the Chinese side, they're very much geared up for this ongoing global opinion struggle. And we're not and we're never going to be, because it's just not how our systems are structured. So it's going to be an interesting few years.David:It is. And it's a tremendous privilege to still be here. And as long as I'm allowed, I'm going to keep letting Chinese people, letting their voices be heard in my column. That's what I think I'm here for.Bill:Okay. Last question. Just given your experience in living in DC and writing for The Economist from here, where do you see us, China relations going? And there is a one direct connection to what we just talked about, the foreign journalists where there theoretically has been some sort of an improvement or a deal around allowing more journalists from each side to go to other country. Although what I've heard is that the Chinese side was been very clear that some of the folks who were forced to leave or were experienced are not going to be welcome back. It's going to have to be a whole new crop of people who go in for these places, which again, seems to be, we don't want people who have priors or longer time on the ground, potentially.David:We think that each of the big American news organizations just going to get at least one visa, initially. And that Is going to be this deal done and it's high time. And you're right, as far as we can tell the people who were expelled or forced to leave are not going to come back. And that's a real tragedy because I have Chinese officials say to me, we wish that the Western media sent people who speak good Chinese and who understand China. And I was like Ian Johnson and Chris Buckley, these people lived for, their depth of knowledge and their love for China was absolutely unrivaled. So, if you're going to throw those people out, you can't complain about journalists who don't like China.Bill:Exactly.David:The general trend of U.S. China relations. to be of optimistic about the trend of U.S. China relations I'd have to be more optimistic than I currently am about the state of U.S. Politics. And there's a kind of general observation, which is that I think that American democracy is in very bad shape right now. And I wish that some of the China hawks in Congress, particularly on the Republican side, who are also willing to imply, for example, that the 2020 election was stolen, that there was massive fraud every time they say that stuff, they're making an in-kind contribution to the budget of the Chinese propaganda department.Bill:I agree completely there. It's not a joke because it's too serious, but it's just ludicrous, hypocrisy and shortsightedness. It's disgusting.David:You cannot be a patriotic American political leader and tell lies about the state of American democracy. And then say that you are concerned about China's rise. So there's a general observation about, if dysfunction continues at this level, then-Bill:No wonder the Chinese are so confident.David:Yeah. I mean, the Chinese line on president Biden is interesting. One of the big things about my first couple of years here when president Trump was still in office was, I'd any number of people in the states saying confidently that Donald Trump was a tremendous China hawk. I never believed. And I've interviewed Trump a few times and spoken to him about China and spoken to his China people. I never believed that Donald Trump himself was a China hawk. If you define a China hawk, as someone who has principled objections to the way that China runs itself. I think that Donald Trump couldn't care less about the Uighurs and Xinjiang. In fact, we know he approved to what they were doing.David:Couldn't care less about Hong Kong couldn't care less frankly, about Taiwan. His objection to the China relationship was that I think he thinks the American economy is the big piece of real estate, and you should pay rent to access it. And he thought China wasn't paying enough rent. So he was having a rent review. I mean, that's what the guy. It was about, they needed to pay more and then he was going to be happy. So he was not a China hawk. What was really interesting was that here in China, officials would be pretty open by the end, took them time to get their heads around Trump. For a long time they thought he was New York business guy. Then they realized that was, he wasn't actually like the other New York business guy they knew.David:And then they thought he was like a super China hawk. And then they realized that that wasn't true. By the end, they had a nail. They thought he was a very transactional guy. And the deal that they could do with him was one that they were happy to do, because it didn't really involve structural change on the Chinese side. Then their message about Joe Biden is that he is weak and old and lacks control of Congress. And that he is, this is from scholars rather than officials, I should say, but their view is, why would China spend political capital on the guy who's going to lose the next election?Bill:And not only the next election but is probably going to lose control of the House, at least in nine, what is it? Nine months or 10 months. So why worry? And that they do and I think, I mean, one of the big milestones will be the national security strategy, the national defense strategy, which in the Trump administration they came out in the December of the first year and then January for the NDS. It's February, we still haven't seen those here. I think certainly as you said, but certainly from Chinese interlock is the sense of, is that they can't come to an agreement on what it should be, the U.S. China policy.David:Yeah. And China has some legitimate concerns. I mean, for example, if you are Xi Jinping and you're trying to work out how ambitious your climate change timetables going to be. How much pain are you going to ask co-producing provinces in the Northeast to take to get out to carbon neutrality as quickly as say, the Europeans are pushing you to do. And part of the equation is America going to take some pain too, or are we going to end up being uncompetitive? Because America's not actually going to do the right thing? Well, Joe Biden can talk a good game on climate as an area for cooperation with China. But if he loses the next election and Donald Trump or someone like Donald Trump wins the White House then if you're shooting pink, why would you kind of strike a painful deal with America if you don't think it's going to last beyond 2024?Bill:Right. You'll do what makes sense for your country and not offer anything up to America because we already have a record of backing out of these deals. That's the problem.David:So that has real world consequences. The one thing that I will say about the U.S. China relationship, and I'm very, very pessimistic about the fact that the two sides, they don't share a vision of how this ends well. There is no end game that I think makes both sides happy, because I think the Chinese vision is America sucks it up and accommodates.Bill:Right. Resistance is futile.David:Yeah, exactly. And the American vision, I think, is that China stumbles, that China is making mistakes, that the state is getting involved in the economy too much. That Xi Jinping is centralizing power too much. And that somehow China's going to make so many mistakes that it ends up to feed defeating itself. I think that's one of the arguments you here in DC.Bill:Yes. It's wishful thinking it's not necessarily based on a rigid rigorous analysis. It seems like it's much more wishful thinking.David:So, that is a reason to be pessimistic about the medium and the long-term. The one thing that I will say based here in China is that when I write really specific color about things like what does China think of the idea of Russia invading Ukraine? And I talk to really serious scholars who spent their lives studying things like Russia policy or foreign policy or international relations, or if I talk to really senior tech people, Chinese tech companies, they do take America's power very seriously. Even though there is absolutely sincere disdain for American political dysfunction.David:I think that America's innovation power, the areas of technology, whether it's semiconductors or some forms of AI algorithms where America just really is still ahead by a long way, the really serious people, when you talk to them off the record, they still take America seriously. And on that Ukraine example, what was really interesting, the prompt for that was seeing commentators in the U.S. saying that Xi Jinping would like Putin to invade Ukraine because this was going to be a test that Biden was going to fail and America was going to look weak. And maybe that would lead Xi Jinping to then invade Taiwan.David:And when I spoke to Chinese scholars, really serious Chinese scholars of Russia, their Irish, it's like, no, no, no. Russia is an economy, the size of Guangdong and they sell us oil and gas, which is nice. But our trade to them is not enough to sacrifice our relationship with America.Bill:Thank you, David Rennie. That was a really good conversation. I think very useful, very illuminating. The links, some of the articles we talked about, the links will be in the show notes. And just a note on the schedule for the sinocism podcast. It is not, I think going to be weekly or biweekly as I thought originally, I'm still working it out, but it will be every, at least once a month. I hope it's the plan, if not, a little more frequent depending on the guests.Bill:So thanks for your patience and look forward to hearing from you. I love your feedback. The transcript will be on the website when it goes live. So please let me know what you think. And as always, you can sign up for sinocism at sinocism.com, S-I-N-O-C-I-S-M.com. Thank you. Get full access to Sinocism at sinocism.com/subscribe

Episode Notes:Today's guest is Joanna Chiu, a long-time journalist covering China from both inside and outside the country, co-founder and chair of the editorial collective 'NüVoices 女性之音', and the author of the new book "China Unbound." She now covers Canada-China issues for the Toronto Star. Joanna, welcome to the podcast.4:20 on Huawei, Meng Wanzhou and the two Michaels - when the whole Huawei, Meng Wanzhou saga was unfolding, I got so many questions from not just Canadian journalists, but media around the world about what was going on. I think it's surprising to us because we've been in the China-watching bubble, but more broadly, what happened was very shocking for a lot of people all over the world23:20 people like me and my family aren't fully accepted as Canadians or as Australians or as Americans, it's always like a hyphen, like Chinese-Canadian, Chinese-American. That just plays into what Beijing wants. When people of Chinese descent are taken as political prisoners or get calls from Chinese police saying, "Stop supporting Hong Kong on social media or stop doing this," these people get less attention. They're not taken seriously when they try to report what's happening because unfortunately a lot of people in the West have accepted the CCP's myth that we're still essentially Chinese36:20 on Canada-China relations - in Canada, the mood after the Michaels returned and the Meng case was resolved is that they really want to go back to business as usual. To not have any kind of plan in place on how to prevent Canadian hostages from being taken in the future. The Prime Ministers office really steering this even though other parts of government was like, "We need some sort of plan, we need some sort of update to foreign policy in general." There's very little political will.Links: China Unbound on Amazon. Joanna Chiu’s websiteNüVoices 女性之音Transcript:Bill:Hi everyone, today's guest is Joanna Chiu, a long-time journalist covering China from both inside and outside the country, co-founder and chair of the editorial collective 'NüVoices', and the author of the new book "China Unbound." She now covers Canada-China issues for the Toronto Star. Joanna, welcome to the podcast.Joanna:Thank you Bill, thanks for having me on your new podcast, very exciting.Bill:Thanks, yeah you are the second guest, and so I'm really happy to have this opportunity to speak with you. Before we dig into your book, could you tell us a little bit about yourself and how you ended up where you are and doing what you do?Joanna:Okay. I guess my bio is that my family is one of the many who left Hong Kong after the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests because my parents were worried about what would happen going forward. So growing up in Canada, I felt that China was actually part of my whole family story because what happened led to my family uprooting themselves. So I was always really interested in China and studied Chinese history and wanted to return to be a reporter to chronicle what was happening in the country, which I was so fascinated by.Joanna:So I started reporting on the ground in Hong Kong in 2012, covering all the things that happened there including the Occupy to pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong. I moved to Beijing in 2014 and that's where I started covering basically everything in the whole country for European media outlets, including German, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, and AFP (Agence France-Presse). And I guess my career was a bit unique in that I also free-lanced for several stints. So I got to kind of get a sense of what many different jurisdictions and countries wanted to know about China in my time there writing for all sorts of outlets.Bill:Interesting and so I was there until 2015 and I think we overlapped for just about a year. When did you actually leave China to go back to Canada?Joanna:Yeah, I left China in late 2018. I wanted to stay for longer because even seven years on the ground I felt I barely got to scratch the surface of all the things that I could write about in China. Especially because I had such a broad remit where I was a front-line reporter for all of these major events but also could do basically any feature story I wanted. So it was just totally open and I could have stayed there for decades, but I had to go back to Canada. I got asthma from the smog and I think my Canadian lungs just couldn't handle air. I was just like really allergic to Beijing as soon as I landed and I stuck it out for four years. But back in Canada, I felt I would have to move on from my passion and interest in China, but a couple of months after I returned, Meng Wanzhou, a Huawei executive was detained in the Vancouver International Airport. And just over a week later, two Michaels were detained. So definitely I think that was the biggest China story at the time, and it continued to be very impactful around the world.Joanna:So I started covering that and it just led to basically being a reporter for the Toronto Star, focusing on China. And that's what I've been doing since then. I have also been working on my book since early 2019. So not my plan, but definitely the past decade has been very China focused, including my last few years.Bill:It's great, I've always been a fan of your work, and I will say, it's very interesting how many foreign correspondents used to live in China have left the country. Some willingly, some not willingly, but how it turns out how most of them have found jobs covering how China's impacting the world wherever they're now based.Joanna:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Bill:I think that's a good segue into talking about your book because it really is true that the China story is everywhere now. And that's something, I think, you try and capture in "China Unbound." So tell us who you wrote it for, why you wrote it, and what do you hope that the readers take away from it?Joanna:Mm-hmm (affirmative). So when the whole Huawei, Meng Wanzhou saga was unfolding, I got so many questions from not just Canadian journalists, but media around the world about what was going on. I think it's surprising to us because we've been in the China-watching bubble, but more broadly, what happened was very shocking for a lot of people all over the world. They didn't know the context of Beijing's political system and its increasing ... how its authoritarianism translates also into its foreign policy and its stances towards different countries and diaspora groups all over the world. But these things were not just stories I covered, but stories that were close to my life. Because growing up, my father worked for a Chinese-Canadian radio station and people were talking already then about pressure to self-censor, pressure from the Chinese embassy on Canadian media outlets. This was happening in the 90s and people of Chinese descent around the world were trying to have discussions about this, but basically not really getting much traction or broader public attention.Joanna:It did seem ... I will ask you if this is what you felt, but it took two white men from Canada being taken hostage over this high-profile executive's arrest in Canada for a lot of people in the world to be like, "Wait, what's going on? How will Beijing's political system and authoritarianism possibly impact me and my family or my country or my business?" So I wrote this book for basically everyone, targeting the general reader because I really try to be as immediate as possible in my writing. Most of the reporting is eyewitness reporting from myself in collaboration with journalists around the world and looking at how we got to this point. Western countries and China, how we got to this point where it seems like a lot of obstacles that seem insurmountable. All of these tensions, all of these worries.Joanna:I wanted for people to start with this book and then I provided this long reading list at the end so they can continue to be engaging with these issues. Because I feel that we might not have really noticed, but a lot of the narratives around China in the mainstream public have been very very simplified. And that is a disservice to all countries. And especially to the people who end up being targets and whose lives end up being affected by some of these big conflicts going on.Bill:What you said earlier about it really taking two white men, Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig to get people's attention. It's interesting because these pressures have existed, as you said talking about your father and his experience, but these pressures on the diaspora have existed for decades. They've certainly intensified, and you have multiple instances of ethnic Chinese who are jailed in China, American, Australian, where it didn't seem to kind of capture the national attention the way that the detention of the two Michaels did. And that's unfortunate, but it does feel like the conversation and awareness now has shifted and so there's a lot more awareness that these kind of pressures are existing across all sorts of communities. You can tell me I'm wrong, but the Chinese government has also shifted its approach, hasn't it? Sort of widened its net in terms of how they pressure?Joanna:Yeah, so in the past, you know the united front, a lot of that work of foreign influence in both intimidation and providing carrots and sticks. Flattering global politicians and global members of the elite among the diaspora have been going on, but the most harsh efforts of influence in the past I think were mostly directed at people of Asian descent. It was only in more recent years where the really harsh tactic, the detentions, have been applied to foreign nationals who are not of Asian descent. It seems like that is a deliberate shift in tactics, would you agree?Bill:No, I would. And I think it's interesting when you look at sort of who they've targeted, especially around the Meng Wanzhou case. Two Canadians were very quickly arrested, a third Canadian who had been convicted of dealing drugs had a re-sentence to death. There's still no word about Schellenberg's fate in the wake of the Meng Wanzhou deal. But I think that one thing that's interesting is they've yet to target Caucasian Americans. And so far, certainly what I was fearing in the Meng Wanzhou incident was that ... someone had told me that they had put together lists who they might target but they held back because part of the messaging is they're at least today not quite ready to go toe-to-toe with the U.S.. But willing to penalize countries and the citizens of the countries that are seen as effectively being U.S. allies or lackeys depending on who you're speaking with. Does that make sense?Joanna:Mm-hmm (affirmative). Yeah, that makes sense. And my book, people have said that because I'm Canadian and I spotlight countries and experiences like Australia, Italy, Greece, Turkey. So so-called middle powers, that middle-power perspective, whereas many books out of the U.S. and China have it from the U.S. perspective.Bill:Right, right.Joanna:And I think that's important context for Americans to understand because in America, it seems like a lot of it is about this almost glorious competition with China where the U.S. has to win. I have been kind of mortified that people commenting on my book have said things like, "We need to read this so that we can win and not let China win." Things like that. But if they had actually read it, they would have probably seen that that's not right. I criticize the Western nations' handling and attitudes towards China as much as I criticize Beijing's actions. So I would also point out that Australian journalists who are white were affecting. Bill Birtles and Michael Smith spent days holed up in their Australian embassies in China. Basically fleeing because they got tipped off that otherwise they might get detained. Related to Australia's more aggressive critical stance towards China as of late.Bill:And also-Joanna:It does seem-Bill:Sorry, was it also related to the detention of Australian Chinese ... Australian journalist Cheng Lei who was originally Chinese then naturalized into Australian citizenship. And she's disappeared into the system in China, right?Joanna:Yeah, so Cheng Lei ... Again, while she's not a global household name like the two Michaels, she is actually detained. Her case ... we know very little about it, but it seems very clear it's related to the political situation between the two countries. And also Bloomberg journal Haze Fan ... and I think actually Haze's case might be as close as China has gotten so far to targeting Americans because even though a Chinese national, she worked for Bloomberg. She was a prominent journalist for Bloomberg. So it's interesting because writing this book, I'm trying to provide this nuance and context for the public but under so much pressure because of global contexts. Things are so tense that it could get worse at any moment and you don't know. You're hearing from your sources about a list that they were preparing of Americans they could possibly target. The stakes are so high.Joanna:Both of us, these are people we know. I don't know if you knew Kovrig, but it's a relief that he's back.Bill:Not well, but I did know a little bit.Joanna:For the more than 1,000 days he was in detention, I was writing this book and that was always on my mind. It's so immediate and it's so urgent for more people to understand what's going on rather than I think fanning the flames or making things worse or not using the opportunities there are to engage more productively with China. But we see the dialogue on China becoming so toxic right now, where it's almost as if there's two camps. The more extreme on both sides seem to get more airtime and interest. And people want those nuggets of talking points on China that really signify this is how we fight back. Rather than the people who are trying to provide a lot more context. It's not as easy as doing this or that to resolve everything or get what you want.Bill:Well with what you said earlier about sort of "we have to win," I have yet to see a clear definition of the theory of victory and what it is. The other thing I'd say, and this will lead into my next question is, we talk about in many ways how toxic the discourse has gotten in the West. It's also incredibly toxic inside China in very worrisome ways. And in many ways, sort of state-supported and state-encouraged ways. One of the questions I want to ask you is how we ... So first question is as you talk about in the book and you've talked about in other places, this whole discussion around Chinese Communist Party influence or interference in other countries ... Whether it's through the United Front or other means or vectors ... How do we differentiate what we should actually, "we" being the countries that are targeted ... How should you differentiate what actually matters that people should be concerned with versus that's the normal thing that a foreign government would do to try and improve other countries' perceptions of that country and advance their interests in those countries.Bill:And related, as this discourse does get more toxic, how do we talk about these things without tipping into racism? In the U.S. certainly, we have a really long and nasty history of anti-Asian and specifically anti-Chinese racism. And there are a lot of reasons to be very worried about going too far where we're back in a very dark place in terms of how people of Asian and Chinese descent are treated in this country. But at the same time, there are real issues and potential threats coming from some of these PRC activities. So how do we talk about that in a way that effectively deals with the problems but also makes sure that people are safe and able to enjoy the rights that they deserve and have?Joanna:Yeah and that's why I try to provide a lot of that history concisely within each chapter of the book because we need to know what happened before to know to be a lot more careful with our language and our actions now. Because definitely it just seems like history is repeating itself during the McCarthy era. Chinese-Americans' loyalties are constantly questioned, they lost their jobs. And now former President Trump has said that he thinks basically all students are possibly Chinese spies. We've seen these prosecutions of certain Chinese national scientist professors in America that were basically pretty embarrassing.Bill:Yes.Joanna:It seemed a lot of the suspicions were unfounded and it was almost like a witch-hunt which is really difficult. When things seemed politicized and politically motivated and you put a blanket suspicion on all these people, it's exactly what happened in the past.Bill:Mm-hmm (affirmative)Joanna:And it's not just America. It was in Canada, Australia, Europe. In Canada, we had internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II. And people know that this is in the background. And even before things got more tense when a lot of the approach among Western countries towards China was that the goal was to expand trade ties and economic ties as much as possible, there was still a lot of racism. Walking down the street, I got called slurs like the c-word in downtown Vancouver multiple times.Bill:Recently?Joanna:Throughout my life living in Canada. In Vancouver, particularly, there was a long-standing stereotype of the crazy rich Asian that was ruining the city with our Maseratis and condo buying.Bill:Wasn't there a reality show that was based on rich Chinese in Vancouver, I think?Joanna:Yeah, there was that and there's a lot of scapegoating against East Asians for lots of problems with COVID-19 and all this with the two Michaels in Huawei. This just really spiked particularly in countries like Canada, U.S., Australia with the large Chinese diaspora in many places. People who weren't even Chinese, like an indigenous woman in Canada, she was punched in the face. Things like that. And its not like we can throw up our hands and be like, "People are just going to be racist, this is just going to happen." I think a lot of people in positions of influence and politicians need to take responsibility for what they've done to stoke this behavior and not condone it. So talking to certain politicians in Canada in the conservative party, they tell me that there's been a shift in strategy to talk about China as the Chinese Communist Party, the communist regime, to deliberately stir up a red scare. In the U.S. definitely, the FBI in an announcement about one of its investigations into a Chinese American scientist said the words "Chinese Communist regime" or "Chinese Communist government" five times.Bill:That was the announcement about the MIT professor, was it Chen Gang, I think?Joanna:Yeah, I think so.Bill:The prosecutor or the FBI folks up in Boston, I believe.Joanna:Right. Yeah, that was the one. And it's just not necessary. You don't need to ... My argument is that the facts about what Beijing is doing are urgent and sobering enough. You don't really need to embellish it with this language of trying to get people scared of this Communist entity. But perhaps it's more to do with domestic politics in each place. Someone explained it to me in the U.S. where pretty much everyone is critical of China. You don't get more attention by just being moderately critical, you have to be really more extreme. It's as if it's like a competition to be as hawkish as possible to get that acclaim and public support.Bill:And as you said, it's unnecessary because as you just said, the facts can speak for themselves in many areas. And it again, it goes back to how do we have rational discussion about what the problems and challenges are without tipping over into something that's really nasty and scary. It's something I struggle with, obviously in my newsletter, I have ... It's funny when you write about China, I have people who think I'm a CCP apologist and people who think I'm way too hawkish. You sort of can't win, it's such a fraught topic that it is something I struggle with. Because you certainly don't want to be in a position where you're stirring things up, but at the same time you can't just throw up your hands and say, "Well we're not going to deal with this because it's too dangerous." I mean, it's too dangerous the other way too, right? But it's really difficult, and the question I have is, do you think the powers in Beijing understand this? Is this something they try to use or leverage?Joanna:Oh yeah, I think so. I think it plays right into what Beijing wants. Because the myth it has been promoting for years is that China is the center of Chinese civilization even if your family has been away from China for generations, you're still Chinese. And since you're still Chinese, your de-facto leader is still the CCP. It's a legitimate power for all Chinese people. Because people like me and my family aren't fully accepted as Canadians or as Australians or as Americans, it's always like a hyphen, like Chinese-Canadian, Chinese-American. That just plays into what Beijing wants. When people of Chinese descent are taken as political prisoners or get calls from Chinese police saying, "Stop supporting Hong Kong on social media or stop doing this," these people get less attention. They're not taken seriously when they try to report what's happening because unfortunately a lot of people in the West have accepted the CCP's myth that we're still essentially Chinese. It's in the law, if there's dual-nationality, they don't accept the second nationality.Joanna:But even more than that, I still worry that ... it's happened to people like me. I actually gave up my Hong Kong citizenship, I'm only Canadian. But just because of my Chinese blood, I'm at greater risk of whatever repercussions. I've definitely been singled out when I was a foreign correspondent in Beijing for writing too much about human rights. And they did not say the same things about other people in my office. So by not listening to people in the diaspora and still treating them as they're still outsiders, we're with this connection to China whether we agree or not, that's really playing into it. And also when there's this racism, Chinese media, Chinese embassies, they've been really up front about condemning this and using it as a way to shore up loyalty among overseas Chinese, especially people who are more recent immigrants to get that support. There's so many of these China Friendship associations around the world. It's tough to understand their impact because it's all basically legal. They are these groups that openly support Beijing's policies all around the world. And they have, in my reporting, taken part in basically trying to make friends with politicians around the world and using those interviews, events, photographs to turn into propaganda to say, "We got support from this politician." There were groups that have offered money for people to vote for certain candidates in other countries' elections.Joanna:So it's complicated because when these groups are alienated, when they still feel that ... On a pragmatic level, it makes better sense for them to have good relations with Beijing. These groups are going to increase and proliferate and it's hard to understand what they're doing because you don't want to villainize it. In a way it's very natural for people, say, with business ties in China to try to hob-nob with Chinese embassies and try to support them. When I do report on some of these activities like the potential vote buying and interfering in elections, people use it as an excuse to say, "Oh, everyone's like that. All recent immigrants are working for the CCP." And that just puts a lot of reporters and researchers in these really tricky situations where you want to report on what's going on, but because discourse just fails to be nuanced enough, people just kind of take it as a reason to be more hostile and to not really open up their minds that there's a diversity of opinions among Chinese people and the Chinese diaspora.Bill:And it's also hard I think because so much of it happens in Mandarin or other Chinese dialects, so most people who don't speak the language have no idea what's going on.Joanna:Mm-hmm (affirmative). But it's been such a rich field of potential reporting for me, going back to Canada. It's really, really resitting. I have been able to read all of these reports. I've been able to translate these posts into English for audiences who found it really interesting. But I would argue that it's not actually that hard because there are so many Chinese speakers all over the world. It's not like it's a niche population, like a small population. In these stories where Steve Bannon and Miles Kwok's like cultish group was protesting outside a Canadian journalist's house accusing him of being a Chinese spy, when he was actually critical of Beijing. There were death threats.Bill:They did that to a bunch of people in America too. They had a whole program of targeting people.Joanna:Yeah, New Jersey.Bill:Yeah.Joanna:Yeah, so in that case. In Texas, with Pastor Bob Fu, he was one of the targets. And the FBI came in, the bomb squad, they put him and his family in a safe house. But in Canada, police monitored it, checked in once in a while. I actually sent them videos, like this looks like a death threat. And I actually ... Me and my colleagues, we translated some of this information and we posted it on YouTube to explain what was going on. But then it took three months later, this going on in Canada ... Two of these protestors just savagely beat one of the target's friends. And the police were responding to questions of why didn't you step in earlier, there were death threats? They admitted that they were slow with the investigation because they didn't have Chinese language resources. And that doesn't make sense really, in Vancouver, when there are so many people of Chinese descent. It's not hard to find someone to look at something and translate it to understand it.Joanna:In the conclusion of my book, one of the points I make is that information in Chinese language is treated like a secret code that can't be cracked. Instead, people like Newt Gingrich and other kind of just make things up. In his book, Newt Gingrich ... I don't quite remember but he just provided nonsensical translations of Chinese words and then extrapolated a whole bunch of theories about China based on that. Which is insulting to all of the people, not just of Chinese descent, but people like you who have taken the time to learn Mandarin and to understand China.Bill:There's a lot of that here in the U.S., I don't know how much it exists in other countries. But certainly the taking stuff out of context or just crappy language skills. And then, like you said, extrapolating something much bigger and darker and nefarious than in many cases it actually is, for sure.Joanna:Yeah. In the U.S. people tell me that they do have Chinese speakers, but lower down in the chain who provide reports and information. But going up the chain, the politicians and the pundits, they pick and choose information to support what they believe already. So these researchers feel like they're not even being heard because politicians are just grabbing what they want anyways. In many cases, people of Chinese descent are worried about even going to China or talking about their family in China because they're not going to get promoted to more influential positions. They're not going to get security clearance because the assumption is that if you have any sort of China ties that you might be compromised. And that's a very prejudicious trend in D.C.Bill:When I moved back to D.C. after ten years, I had no interest in working for the government, but I had a funny conversation with someone who does have security clearance. He says, "Don't even bother to apply, you'll never get a security clearance because you lived in China for too long."Joanna:That's crazy.Bill:That's fine, but there are reasons for governments to be concerned with ties to other foreign governments, but certainly for folks of Chinese descent it's much more pernicious. And it does seem like in many places the assumption is that you're potentially at risk of compromise. One of the problems is how people's families are being leveraged back in China. You see it in the way the persecutions of the Uyghurs and Tibetans. But you see it also in Han Chinese, people who are doing things that are considered controversial or anti-China outside of China. It's a very common tactic, right, to harass, hassle, otherwise make difficult for family members back in China, right?Joanna:Yeah, and that is a major ... There's no solution to that. I tried to spotlight a lot of these voices in the book. I spoke with people like Vicky Xu, the campaign against her has just been ridiculous. People made fake porn of her, thousands of accounts were basically attacking her, doxxing her.Bill:I feel like that story didn't get as much attention as maybe it should have. She was just so brutally targeted by very obviously state-backed campaigns.Joanna:Yeah. Very personal and they started with her family. She's been open about that, how her family and parents have been pressured. But she didn't stop her work, so they went further. They sent thousands of accounts and they made fake pornography about her so that when people search in Chinese, that's what comes up. And trying to completely smear her character. But that story did not get that much attention.Bill:This is because of her work at the ASPI down in Australia, right? Specifically around XinjiangJoanna:Xinjiang, yeah. I think she's one of the main researchers in Australia that focused on Xinjiang. The bigger issues looking at supply chains, looking at forced labor, and where internment camps are. Recently she found a trove of police documents about the repression. And because of her fluent Chinese and her networks, she was able to find this and provide this information. So people like her, I think, Beijing wants the most to silence and has the means and leverage to try to do so. I think she's unique in that she continues to do this work. We're not sure for how long because you have to wonder how long someone can take this.Bill:Right.Joanna:More people that I know of are either operating anonymously, they're really providing subtle advising roles to governments in a very very anonymous manner. Because they're worried about their families. Or they're writing under pseudonyms and they don't get a lot of attention because no one knows who they are. They're worried about ... not even access. I think a lot of researchers worry about being able to go back to China. At different levels, people who are worried about the safety of themselves and their family members.Bill:So just given the trajectory of China under Xi Jinping, is there any reason to think this is going to get better? Or are we sort of more close to the beginning of where this trajectory goes?Joanna:Mm-hmm (affirmative) I think we're kind of at a pivotal point. A lot of it isn't waiting for what Beijing does, but there's a responsibly on Western countries to at least be smarter about China and to have proper expertise in places of governments to try to even have some well thought out policy on these issues. In the U.S. Cabinet, very little China experience. And like we talked about, the people with experience ... They have trouble having influence. And in Canada, the mood after the Michaels returned and the Meng case was resolved is that they really want to go back to business as usual. To not have any kind of plan in place on how to prevent Canadian hostages from being taken in the future. The Prime Ministers office really steering this even though other parts of government was like, "We need some sort of plan, we need some sort of update to foreign policy in general." There's very little political will. I think the amount of criticism in different countries' media doesn't reflect the lack of political will of governments to even put the basic structures in place to understand China better. To be able to translate basic things from Chinese into English to be aware of.Bill:And in Canada, why do you thing that is? Especially given the diversity of Canada and the number of people of Chinese descent in the country. But also what just happened over the last close to three years. Why wouldn't the government have had a bit more of a shift in views of how the relationship in China should go?Joanna:Mm-hmm (affirmative) I think it's related partly to what we were talking about before where politicians are worried about stoking racism, losing support from Canadians of Chinese descent. Partly an election issue, and I think traditionally in Canada, the main government advisors on China have been people in the business world who do have a vested interest in making sure that tensions are as low as possible to facilitate smoother business interactions. But that's also not even the case where if you ... I think the idea in the West has been reformed through trade. Through interactions, economically, China will naturally liberalize, become more democratic. But in recent years, we've seen political tensions move over to economic coercion, economic retaliation. Not just from China but back and forth, with America, Australia, other countries have also did tit-for-tat trade tariffs. Different ways where the political situation can impact the economic relationships. So it's not even necessarily the case that just by focusing on business, everything will be all good. I think a lot of politicians are trying to put their head in the sands about that and not trying to understand the really complex situation unfolding. And Canadians on the whole, surveys show, pretty frustrated about the situation in action and just passiveness that they see from Ottawa.Bill:I guess the Huawei decision will be interesting, whether or not Huawei is allowed into the Canadian 5G network construction. Certainly here in D.C., there's all the factors you talked about and there's a lot of opportunity for lobbyists from various industries and companies to sort of shift Biden administration and Capitol thinking to policies that are more likely to make money dealing with China. And that certainly has an impact on the policies. So just shifting gears quickly because we're almost out of time and this has been a really great conversation. One of the things we were talking about was lifting up and getting more diversity of voices. Can you tell the listeners about NüVoices and what you helped create there? I found that to be a really wonderful and useful project that's been up for a couple years now? Or has it been three years? Time just sort of blended away with the pandemic, right?Joanna:So actually we were founded in 2017.Bill:Oh my gosh, okay.Joanna:In Beijing, so it's almost under five years. It's been like a daily kind of passion project in the community for me. We kind of wanted to create a more open and accepting China space, both in person with events and chapters around the world and also virtually. And it started in reaction with panels and book deals. The people who get platformed on China are often white male experts. No offense to yourself.Bill:People like me. No, no, I get it. I get it.Joanna:You're one of our longtime supporters and our patrons and we've spoken about how this helps to create a better world for your kids, for your daughters. Because we want to remove any excuses that people have for not even having one woman on their panel. Five years ago, people just kept saying to us and our co-founders, "We tried to find a female expert, but we couldn't find one." Or "We couldn't find a woman on this topic." Which is ridiculous because looking around, actually people we know, I see more women than men entering these fields. Definitely being a journalist in China, there's more women than men. And women who can speak Chinese and doing great work. So we created this open-source directory. Now it has more than 600 people all around the world who are women or non-binary on all sorts of topics. And speaking all sorts of languages in all sorts of time zones. I think just that project alone helped to remove those excuses. Any time someone makes an excuse that they couldn't find a woman, someone just has to send that person the link to this directory. No more excuses.Joanna:And on top of that we have a twice monthly podcast which I co-host sometimes and events all around the world. And basically social groups and networks and it's a platform so that people can benefit from this supportive atmosphere. We really try and celebrate diverse voices on China, experts on China. I find that women tend to ... because they're facing so much discrimination, women experts often have to fight harder to provide unique insights and reporting. So the kind of good quality you get just reaching out to any female expert in China, its a pretty good bet on fresh and interesting perspectives. And definitely I found that the case with my book. Because you know I tried to practice what I preach and most of my sources are coming from diverse backgrounds, women and minorities ... I shouldn't even use the word "minorities", people who aren't white basically.Bill:Mm-hmm (affirmative) right.Joanna:In each country, and I think that provides a different layer than people who enjoy positions of more power in those countries, who might not see some of the more uglier sides or the more complicated sides because that's not their experience. They're not getting the five star treatment when they go to China that a lot people in power do.Bill:It's definitely one of the things I enjoy about your book, it does have these different perspectives that are so important as we are all sort of trying to figure out what's going on and start thinking about what we can do. Specifically, NüVoices, I was looking at the directory last week. I think it's like 620 entries or something, I'm certainly planning to mine it for guests for the podcast because it's a really tremendous resource. And I will put a link to it in the show notes when we publish the podcast. Well thank you so much, is there anything else you'd like to add or say to the audience? Other than buy your book, "China Unbound", it's a great book. Please go ahead and go buy it and read it. It's a great book.Joanna:Just asking yourself, being based in the U.S., what are the best avenues for a more productive conversations on China? Instead of going to people who are more simplistic, what are some more resources you'd recommend? Including, of course your newsletter and that community. But who's doing the work to make up more well-informed approaches?Bill:That's a great question, and I'm not actually sure I have a good answer. I'm struggling with that and part of it is maybe that I'm based in D.C. where it is quite ... It's difficult to be in D.C. and to be not hawkish about China if you want to get ahead in certain parts of the government here. And so, I'm not actually sure. I know that there's China Twitter ... I mean Twitter in general is just kind of a cesspool and China Twitter is not a productive or constructive place for discourse about anything. I don't know, I wish I had a better answer for you, I need to think about it more.Joanna:Mm-hmm (affirmative)Bill:Do you have any guesses or any suggestions?Joanna:I was expecting a more simplified reaction to my book, but actually all the events I've been doing so far are conversations with academics and fellow reporters have been really nuanced. And it seems like there's a hunger for people who want to admit there are no simple solutions and to talk about that. But it doesn't' seem like here's a particular space or a think tank that has that approach. It seems-Bill:The think tanks probably are the place. I mean there are other ... The folks at SupChina are trying to do that. I don't know if you've talked to them. Kaiser's got his podcast and they do their conference. I think their conference ... We're recording on the 1st of November so they're I think next week. But in general, I don't know, it's also ... Like anything, it's hard to have a more textured or kind of deeper discussion in these 30 minute chunks or when you're sitting on a panel. It's just putting in the time and having ... Like you're doing, talking to me and you're talking to lots of people for your book. And this is a topic that has probably come up in most of your conversations and it's just something we're going to have to keep talking about. I know over the next few months there are at least two more books that are coming out about China's influence in the world. And so it'll be interesting to see where those goes in terms of how they impact or move the discourse and how those get played. And again, I think it's like I said, me struggling with how do you address these issues that are very real and influence interference without going overboard and over-exaggerating and destroying innocent people's lives. Which I think has already happened and continues to be a big risk.Joanna:I do think simple answers that people need to pay better attention and not just to get a shallow understanding, but to really understand the nitty-gritty and try to untangle complexities. And support the people who are trying to do this work. A lot of their names are in my book. If you don't want to buy it, flip to the back of the notes and you'll get their names and look up those articles. People like Yangyang Cheng, Helen Gao. People who are straddling both worlds, Chinese and Western. Because of those real lived experiences, their perspectives are just naturally very nuanced and insightful, I think. So people are doing this work, its just they're not the ones on CNN and getting book deals because of structures power. So support NüVoices.Bill:Absolutely. Like you said, I'm a supporter of NüVoices, I'm very happy to put a link to that as well. Support you through Patreon, right? We should move you over to Substack, but that's a different discussion. That's my bias. Well look, thank you so much. It's really been a pleasure to speak with you and I hope that many of you listeners will go out and buy the book. It's really a worthwhile read and Joanna really has great reporting, great perspectives. And this book is really important contribution to the conversation we all need to be having about China and the future and China's role in the world. So thank you and hope to talk to you again soon.Joanna:Thank you so much for all of your work, really platforming those more quality, well-informed sources on China. You've run the newsletter for a long time, so I think that makes a big difference as well because you use your expertise to point people to credible, good sources. So I'll also subscribe to your newsletter.Bill:Thank you. Get full access to Sinocism at sinocism.com/subscribe

At the last minute, House Democrats have inserted an increase in the state and local tax deduction into the Build Back Better Bill; Will reacts. He also plays a clip of CNN's John Berman lambasting West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin for his opposition to BBB. Finally, Will talks about the new vaccine mandate. #BuildBackBetter #SALTDeduction #TaxCuts #JoeManchin #CNN #BillBerman #Trump #Bush #Democrats #Inflation #Wages #StuartSmalley #Election2024 #VaccineMandate #OSHA #Federalism #10thAmendment Follow Will Anderson Twitter: @will_show2020 Instagram: @willandersontalk Facebook: www.facebook.com/thewillandersonshow www.thewillandersonshow.com Tune in to Tales from the Butterbean Cafe here… https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4jBk1eDHibEeOehN4Z56iA/featured

Full Transcript   In episode 4 of Manager Minute, Bill Robinson, Director of the Michigan Bureau of Services for Blind Persons, and Cora McNabb, Executive Director at the Kentucky Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, join Carol Pankow, host of Manager Minute, to lend their experiences on navigating the critical DSA/DSU relationship so that VR's mission doesn't slip through the cracks.   Learn how Bill and Cora dealt with the challenges and the most significant challenges they faced. These challenges included cultural challenges and keeping the blind agency identity alive. Find out how the mergers are going today and what Bill and Cora share about the successful strategies that worked for their agencies.   You can find out more about VRTAC-QM on the web at: https://www.vrtac-qm.org/                                                                       Stay up to date by following VRTAC-QM on Facebook and follow us on Twitter @VRTAC_QM   About VRTAC-QM Partnering with State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies (SVRAs) to enhance service delivery and maximize outcomes through quality program and resource management.  The purpose of the VRTAC-QM is to provide training and technical assistance that will enable State VR agency personnel to manage available resources, improve effective service delivery, and increase the number and quality of employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities. The VRTAC-QM provides TA and training in VR program and performance quality management, fiscal and resource quality management of the VR program, and general quality management of organizations. You can request technical assistance from the VRTAC-QM by contacting your TA Liaison directly, contacting any member of the Center you wish, or by filling out the information on our main website and clicking on submit. While on the main website, join our mailing list to receive updates on training and new activities occurring within the center.    Full Transcript: VRTAC-QM Manager Minute: Bridging the Gap Between the DSA and the DSU so that VR's Mission Doesn't Slip Through the Cracks.   Speaker1: Manager MINUTE brought to you by the VRTAC for quality management conversations powered by V.R., one manager at a time, one minute at a time. Here is your host, Carol Pankow.   Carol: Well, welcome to the Manager Minute. Today, I'm joined by Bill Robinson, director of the Michigan Bureau of Services for Blind Persons, and Cora McNabb, executive director at the Kentucky Office of Vocational Rehabilitation. I know you are both so busy. Bill, you're the president of NCSAB and Cora, you're in the midst of federal monitoring right now. So thanks so much for taking the time to come on the show. So, Bill, how are you and how are things in Michigan?   Bill: It's great to be here. And I want to thank you for this opportunity.  In Michigan, we've actually returned to the field as of July 12. And so our line rehab instructors or field teachers are out there serving the blind VR customers and pre-employment transition customers. And then our training center has been open and our counselors are also seeing people in person. We're hoping to continue that and continue to serve our customers.   Carol: Very cool. Good to hear you're back. I'm sure folks are really enjoying that in-person training and interaction. So, Cora, always a pleasure to talk with you. How's it going in the Bluegrass State of Kentucky?   Cora: Carol, it's going great. Like Bill here. As of June 11th, we went back to in-person services and brought everybody back. Everyone's on a hybrid schedule that they're all working and serving individuals. Both of our centers are open and serving individuals, day students. But we haven't brought anyone back residentially as yet. And we have been talking about it. And of course, the rise in numbers is concerning. And so we would make sure we do the right thing. And then, as you said, we're in the middle of federal monitoring. So things have been very busy here.   Carol: Things are happening for sure. Well, I thought of you both as we're unpacking the topic today of navigating the critical DSA and DSU relationship so that VR's mission doesn't slip through the cracks. I know both of you have undergone changes in the past five years and have some really good expertise to lend to this topic. Both of you oversee a designated state unit that is housed within a larger designated state agency. Bill, you came from a recent change in DSA's and Cora, you just lived through the combining of the blind and general agency as well in the last three years. I was doing a little digging and since 2014, there have been two states where the VR agencies combined the blind and the general together and 12 agencies moved DSAs with you being the 12th, 10 of those DSA moves were to the workforce Labor Department. So it does make some sense. And coinciding with the foundation that was set by WIOA that really forced the issue for VR to partner with the other core partners. The VRTAC for Quality Management is working on a webinar in conjunction with RSA to unpack the Technical Assistance Circular 12-03, which is organizational structure and non-delegable responsibility of the DSU for the VR program, and then also TAC 13-02, which is reorganization of the DSA and DSU for the VR program, and we hope to have that webinar out this fall. So, Bill, I want to start with you. Can you tell us a little bit about the change you most recently lived through with your shift in DSAs? And where were you located before? And where are you now?   Bill: We started out in a State Department that was very unique for rehabilitation. It was the Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Department. So we were asking, hey, this is great being in this department. The department was very supportive, but at the same time, it was kind of interesting because we really didn't have much to do with licensing businesses or regulatory affairs, but yet there we were. And so when the governor changed over to the new administration, so we went from Republican to Democrat, the new administration looked at some reorganizations and the move ended up going from law or licensing and regulatory affairs to the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity.   Carol: So you're one of those labor moves as well? That's interesting. Yeah, really interesting that you started out. I don't think I've heard of any other state agency being in a department quite like you were in Bill.   Bill: Yeah, it was kind of interesting. And our general agency was actually in DHS. So neither of us were really sitting at labor at the time.   Carol: Cora, I can still remember back when Kentucky was going through the idea of combining the blind in general agency, and I remember that was going on for quite some time while the fine details were worked out. And unlike Bill's situation, your situation was a little different in that your two separate agencies were now combining together under one DSA. So can you tell us a little bit about the changes you went through and what designated state agency you are under?   Cora: We are under the Department of Education and Workforce in Kentucky and it did go on for quite a while. We actually took our time in combining the two agencies and involved a lot of the stakeholder groups that were involved, especially the blind advocacy organizations. And of course, I had been with the blind agency for at that time around 12 years. So we wanted to make sure that we protected those specialized services. And so we worked together. And about the time that we merged and combine the two agencies, they decided to abolish our fiscal unit in our agency and they moved it to the Department of Workforce. They moved it under the department later, which a couple of years later down the road, they actually moved it to a cabinet level. And so we had more change. But that resulted in the loss of a lot of veteran staff and veteran knowledge. So we not only went under a combining of two agencies, we also went under an additional change that involved our fiscal unit at that time.   Carol: Wow. I know you've lived through a lot there, so I want to take you back to that moment. You were notified the change was definitely going to happen. How were you notified? Cora, I'm going to start with you. And how much lead time were you given saying, all right, we're going to combine these agencies now?   Cora: Well, we knew that there were some discussions that were occurring. And at the time, the leadership was they also at that time? Well, it was a little bit later. They also moved adult Ed under the workforce program. But they wanted to have all the workforce programs under one department, which they were successful in doing at that time. And then also they wanted to centralize the operations, those back door operations. So we had kind of heard the rumors a few months before they actually approached us and told us about it. So at that time, I had a call with the Rehab Services Administration and the commissioner of workforce at that time was on the call and I was on the call along with Becky Cabe, whom at that time I was the interim director over at the blind agency, and Becky Cabe was the interim director over the general agency. So they talked to us in person. And then we had a call with our RSA to inform them of the changes.   Carol: So, Bill, how about you? How were you notified and how much lead time were you given?   Bill: That's a pretty funny story. In June of 18, the general agency director and I were giving a presentation for the leadership forum for CSAVR. And I had just finished on stage and was stepping down and my cell phone goes off and it's my immediate department director of Laura calling me and she says, hey, you're going to see a press release in about a half an hour, then announces the fact that you're moving from LARA to this new Department of Labor and economic opportunity. And I was like, oh, how is this going to work? So it was a complete surprise to me and the general agency director.   Carol: Holy smokes, Bill. That is a crazy story. So you literally found out with a half hour notice that boom, you're moving.   Bill: Yes. And then that was June. And the actual moving day for the department was August 12 and the fiscal year for us ended September 30th. So we just had a couple of months to try to figure out what the heck are we going to do here? Plus, we were looking at two closings within our fiscal year and we didn't know how that was going to work.   Carol: Holy smokes. Cora, I know you said you had reached out to RSA right away. Bill, did you reach out to RSA right away to help you with this move?   Bill: I think I was in such shock that the general director and I got together and we just got our teams together and pulled out that TAC 13-02 and started going through it together as. Leadership on both sides. We also had contacted RSA to set up a joint call. I don't know if I remember calling, but I called as many directors as I could that had gone through something like this. I know I talked to Alan McClain at the time because Arkansas was in the middle of it. And I talked to Cheryl Fuller, who was about two years into it. So I was reaching out to everybody at that point.   Carol: Smart move. I know in I work on the webinar we're developing, we're stressing how important it is to involve RSA early to ensure that that transition can happen smoothly and that all your bases are covered. Things like you got to change the state plan and ensuring your grant award is set up so you can draw down money in a new agency and more so what were one or two of the biggest challenges that you had to overcome and I'm going to start with you.   Cora: I think that because we were not very happy about them moving our fiscal unit. And so we did have a conversation about that, but we knew that it was going to happen. So the best thing that you can do is figure out how you can make it work and for your agency to get through the changes and accomplish what you need to. And we did work with our state liaison at RSA through the whole thing. And it is a lot of work to get your state plan updated and depending on when needed, your comprehensive needs assessment, all of that things don't always come together and match the way that you would like them to. So you just have to figure out what the best way is to make it work. And then I think it was probably involving the stakeholders in the process because it was a really difficult for the staff to come through those changes and adjust.   Carol: Yeah, I can imagine that was really tough dealing with all of that. So, Bill, how about for you? What are one or two of the biggest challenges you had to overcome in this move?   Bill: Well, I would echo some of what Cora said and just build off of that, because the short time frame we had, we had to really get moving in. RSA was very helpful in that process. Our state liaison, the fiscal folks at that point, there was not a RSA commissioner. So we were working closely with Carol Dobak as well as our liaison staff. And I think Cora touched on one key point is that for staff, this is a big change. And we had to over communicate with staff. We had, like we said, we have to open up the state portal for the state plan amendment. We had to communicate to our stakeholders. We have to ensure our vendors that they would get paid despite the kind of awkward closing within a fiscal year and how that was going to work. And then we had to make sure our counselors and our staff understood how to stop services within one period of performance and take that little six week period of performance that we had to the end of the grant year and make sure that that was handled correctly. So logistically, there was just a lot of logistics and we actually had spreadsheets and checklists and all kinds of a set up. And we were running that stuff by RSA and our fiscal folks and collaborating with our general agency to make sure we're on the same page. And that we were not missing something. So it was a lot of communication and collaboration.   Carol: But I think your background was well suited then with your accounting background for dealing with all of that, because you had that added weird complexity of that little bit of time, you know, where the switch over in the period of performance and all of that. So you knew how to address that. I don't think everybody could have done that.   Bill: Yeah, I think also in my business experience, I was in charge of a lot of mergers and acquisitions with different companies and would take operational control of the acquired entity before merging. And then this was no different than a merger or acquisition. And you're putting together organizations that don't know each other very well and accounting systems that are different, procedures that are different. It's really it can be overwhelming. And I think the checklist certainly helped.   Carol: I'm glad- glad to hear that. So I know many times when we think a change, I think we think about change at a higher level. We think about those concrete things, such as change in structure or the hierarchy. We think about changes in the fiscal activities like you were talking about Bill, and all of those are relevant considerations, but it's also critical to consider those smaller, abstract, but really important details, such as the shift in culture. So to start with, you might imagine that combining of two of our agencies has completely altered the identity of blind services in Kentucky. Cora, can you speak to that is a huge shift?   Cora: And we had separate agencies, separate policies and practices. Sure, both of us were a VR agency but it was very different. We had two separate categories for order of selection, so we had to look at that and come up with the best of the best in moving forward is how we kind of presented it to the staff. There was a huge loss of at least the staff felt like from the blind agency, a loss of identity. They spoke of that quite often. And I would try to emphasize with them that you're the same. The services that you're delivering are the same. So the only way that you can lose your identity is if you lose who you are. And you're not going to do that because the consumers are still there and you're still serving them. So that was probably one of the most difficult things. And they talked a lot about how even now there are still things that come up and there are still things that we're dealing with. And they mentioned obviously we always hear there isn't enough communication. But I realize that for the staff that we're in the smaller agency, communication happened a lot differently in the smaller agency than it does in the large general agency. And so a lot of times when they would say that we're seeing that smaller organizational feeling of family that was there. So that's a big thing for individuals to adjust to. And then they want to make sure that you still emphasize how important those specialized skills are so that they don't lose that sense of who they are in their profession and what they do.   Carol: I love that you said that, Cora, and you were the right person to be in that role with that transition. You came from that blind agency. All of us here came from that kind of blind agency experience. And we get that small sense of family and rolling in. I just love that you were we're talking with staff about not losing themselves and what they do and how critical that was. So you both were in the right place at the right time with this move. So, Bill, you were able to maintain your identity, but has your culture shifted in any way due to the reorganization into a new DSA?   Bill: Yeah, I don't know if our culture shifted because we've had a really good culture. When I came on board, we kind of did a shift at that point. And we've stayed true to our mission, vision and core values. But what was interesting is we had to shift in terms of how we communicate with our department and also how we work with our department. And just to give you an example and common touch, small, specialized services, which certainly is where VR is and especially where blindness, as I remember sitting down in a team with the new department director and I was talking to him about our services and I mentioned the training center where we do adjustment to blindness and we serve two hundred and fifty one and the prior fiscal year. And he looked at me and said, two hundred and fifty one thousand. I said, oh no, no, two hundred and fifty one individuals. And it is kind of that work force kind of thought where we serve the masses. Whereas Cora pointed out VR is very specialized services, especially blindness services. And because the specialization, we look at the individual and we're laser focused on the needs of the individual and customizing those services around the individual, where I think from workforce standpoint, it's more about how many people can we serve and what kind of mass data can we accumulate to tell our story. That was kind of the cultural shift for me. When he said two hundred and fifty one thousand, I said, well, wait a minute, I think we're going to have to have more discussions.   Carol: Oh, yeah. I bet that was a big shift for the DSA folks when they're talking about that. I came from a workforce agency too, and I always remember the people in Title one your and the Wagner Peyser side, when you think they've got massive numbers of people they're dealing with and our small numbers of consumers. They just they didn't always get that we did so we led a little exercise with our DSA staff where we had them actually just do a little simulated exercise under sleep shades. And it was led by one of our instructors. And it was really interesting just to give them a little peek into what we were dealing with. And it did help. It helped that whole group have a little better understanding of what we were about, thinking about all the changes you've both undergone, both larger concrete changes, also smaller abstract changes like culture shifting. How did you navigate through the challenges you faced and what were some successful strategies you used? And, Bill, I'm going to start with you.   Bill: The biggest thing I could think or recommend to individuals is you have to communicate, communicate and communicate. And really, you're looking at all your customers from internal customers to external customers to your stakeholders and your community partners. And you're really having to make sure that there's an understanding of how this is all going to work. And also, you know, I move to labor with the other core of your WIOA partners was very impactful and could be for the future and for a positive spin on that. That was a really great thing. And to be co-located with our general agency as well. We thought there was some really good things that came out of this. But one of the things I think was helpful was RSA and the problem solving that they engaged with us as well as just our DSA and helping us in that transition process and then the whole collaborative effort that it took.   Carol: I can't think of a better person to do that, Bill, than you like. You are the master at communication and collaboration for sure. So Cora, how about you? What were some successful strategies that you used?   Cora: I think that we tried to be as transparent as possible. We tried to share and involve everybody as much as possible in the processes. We made sure the field staff were involved in the policy development and the state rehab council. So I think that keeping it as simple as possible, I think probably knowing that you're not going to make everybody happy no matter what you do. We certainly had a lot of problem solving and decision making that we had to make. And you have to sit with that and be comfortable with it because you just can't please everybody and not everyone is going to come through on the other side after you're like that and all that change. You have those people that have a difficult time dealing with change anyway, but maybe do the best that you can and just know that there are going to be people that aren't going to be happy. And you can do a lot of time trying to make them happy and they're never going to get to that happy place. So you can hope that they'll maybe go somewhere else and find that happiness. Those would be the two things that I would remember from everything like that.   Carol: I really like that. So. So I know some time has passed now since all of this happened for both of you, cause I think you've been in there like three years now and I think it's been over a year for you. So how are things going now? Cora, I'm going to have you take that one first.   Cora: Well, I did mention the year that are combining of the agency was in two thousand and eighteen, so we did it effective October 1st 2018. So we are now three years past. And I think that you have to give yourself time because you'll have list after list after list. You have to do this. You want to begin to check things up. But I think we've tried to take our time. We do have policies that we're still working on, still writing policies and procedures, still working on the vendor process. Lots of things that we have in play. And one of the things that happened with the fiscal reorganized mentioned that then a couple of years later, they moved the fiscal operations to a cabinet level. And now we've undergone another reorg in our cabinet where they split the workforce programs. And so part of them are under labor and then part of us under the department and in the Department of Workforce. So that's been a major upheaval that's just happened over the last year or so. It was more change, and especially with the fiscal operations the way that they were, there were a lot of things that. The cracks because of how complicated the VR program is, still trying to pick up the pieces of that as well, and then by them doing another reorg where they have moved part of the program under labor, they moved to line Wagner Peyser, farmworker,  veterans, but they moved the operations under the Department of Workforce. It's kind of split right down the middle. So that's change that culture from what it was 30 years ago. So we're still undergoing lots of changes and then you put the pandemic on top of that. So just a lot of changes. And we've had to be very, very flexible even when we weren't happy about it.   Carol: So how has that impacted you with the partnership? So it seems like they wanted to have the people all together and now you're sort of split up again, which is really interesting. How's that going with partnerships?   Cora: Well, I think the partnerships on the local level have continued. It's probably more on a state level where there are still lots of things to be worked out and it's kind of in flux. But then with the onset of the pandemic, it's disrupted things as well. So right now, it's kind of hard to tell exactly what will be there after the clouds clear, you might say. We're dealing with so many different big factors that are going on.   Carol: Sure. And I completely understand that. So, Bill, how about you in times past? So how are things going now?   Bill: Yeah, so it was probably been about a little over two years and really the first eight months or so. And the new department was really about the new department just adjusting, everybody adjusting, because there was a lot of movement of not only V.R. but other agencies. And then as we had that first full year, I think the main thing was that we found like at the higher level working on the MOU use that we were all interested in, those seemed to work very smoothly because everybody was under the same umbrella department. The one thing that I think was the benefit of the pandemic was we were so new to each other. The pandemic increased all this extra communication via teams and the ability to meet more often. And so all of a sudden, we're getting to know each other better, even down to the counselor level. We're starting to know each other and the other programs a lot better. And I think that's been one of the benefits, as well as the fact that being in the Department of Labor during the pandemic with a lot of states were cutting other programs in the Pentagon or wherever it was, they were not immune to that. Our area was somewhat protected because labor was so important in terms of coming out of the pandemic. So it's going well. I mean, we're still learning from each other and we still have our growing pains, but it's going pretty well.   Carol: That's good to hear. That's good to hear. At least there were some upsides from the pandemic as well. Holy cow. So looking back on all this, what we've talked about, are there any other lessons you've learned or any words of wisdom you have for folks out there that might be facing this? Because it seems like this is a continued trend if the state hasn't done it yet. There are these continued moves that keep happening over time. So, Bill, I'm going to I'm going to give you the floor on any other parting words of wisdom.   Bill: Well, great. Thank you. I was just reading an article about successful business the other day. It wasn't about the structure or where the business grew out of. It was about serving the customer. The bottom line was, if you're serving the customer, you will be successful. I think the main thing is for us wisdom. I would pass on to anybody going through this to be true to yourself. Make sure that your mission as vocational rehabilitation does not get lost in this process. And also there's mission creep and mission drift. And it's easy to get into a new department. And there's a lot of excitement, a lot of other things going on. And you can have mission creep and mission drift. But if you're serving your customer and you're staying true to that, your mission, I think you can come out of these types of reorganizations really well.   Carol: I had a write that down-mission creep and mission drift. I like that. Holy cow. That's a good thing. Yeah, I love that. Good words for folks. How about you, Cora? Any parting words of wisdom?   Cora: And I think that Bill said. Very well, and that's really what I tried to emphasize, what we merged into the two agencies, that you're still here, you're still serving people and people are still benefiting from those services. I think that it's important you can dig your heels in and resist or you can work with everyone that's around you to make the change and make it work. And I think that's very important that you work together collaboratively to figure it out and make it work for the VA program.   Carol: Well, as always, it was such a pleasure to speak with you both. I sincerely hope that today's conversation helps our community think about navigating that DSA relationship.  We hope to see gaps bridged in a meaningful way. Thank you so much for joining us, and have a great day.     Speaker1: Conversations powered by VR one manager at a time, one minute at a time, brought to you by the VRTAC for Quality Management. Catch all of our podcast episodes by subscribing on Apple podcast, Google podcast, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening.

Bill Durrant is President at Exverus Media, a paid-media agency (TV ads, print advertising, sponsorships, and other types of media) that serves culture-creating, growth-stage brands. The agency's focus is not so much on big-budget, long-term brand building as it is on consulting with clients and recommending “how best to invest” to produce significant, trackable and measurable short- to medium-term results. Bill says, “all media is performance media” and that it can be very challenging to quickly determine the effectiveness of branding efforts and traditional marketing media. To address this, his agency tries to establish a “performance mindset” and “a structure to capture things that aren't directly trackable.” Bill finds it exciting that today's solutions for modeling are “significantly less expensive” than those that were available in the past. He says modeling has been “democratized” – that you can build and launch a model in weeks, update it continuously with sales and investment data, and track performance across a variety of marketing channels. Work that used to be done over a period of months by costly data scientists and analysts can be done now by utilizing a combination of artificial intelligence and machine learning. The agency's name, Exverus, is Latin for “from the truth.” In this interview, Bill explains how the name reflects the agency's values and the importance of transparency in how the agency conducts business, manages its clients' finances, and builds, over time, trust-based and truth-based client relationships. In a typical engagement, the agency consults with growing-brand clients and follows a step-by-step process that involves: understanding at a deep level client needs and stakeholder goals curating campaigns rooted in science and best practices  incorporating customized measurement solutions that prove campaign impact even when immediate, vendor-driven measurements aren't immediately available. The agency's “roots” are in a consumer-facing infrastructure. Over the past year, B2B clients have increased as brands “tired of being bland” seek to get more involved in being “adjacent to culture, creating culture, or participating in culture” in order to increase their visibility and cultural involvement. Bill can be reached on his agency's website at: www.exverus.com or on Linkedin at Bill Durrant (with two “R's.”) To make it easier to find him, add “Exverus.” Transcript Follows: ROB: Welcome to the Marketing Agency Leadership Podcast. I'm your host, Rob Kischuk, and I am joined today by Bill Durrant, President at Exverus Media based in Los Angeles, California. Welcome to the podcast, Bill. BILL: Hey, how are you? Thanks for having me. ROB: I'm excellent, and it's good to have you here. Why don't you start off, Bill, by telling us about Exverus and what the firm's superpowers are? BILL: Yeah, we do like to think of ourselves as superheroes every now and again. The first question we always get is “What does Exverus mean?”, so I'll start there. Exverus means “from the truth” in Latin. I think that as a paid media agency, which is our area of expertise, that can extend to things as rational as transparency in how we do our business and how we manage our finances for our clients to really the crux and the core of how the agency has been able to thrive over the past several years, which is trust-based and truth-based relationships with clients, building that over time. As we think about the mission for the agency and what the agency stands for, it's right there in the name. As I mentioned, we are a paid media agency. We like to think of ourselves as the paid media agency for culture-creating, growth-stage brands. I guess that's really where our superpower comes in. Our superpower is growing culture-creating brands that don't necessarily have the eight and nine figure budgets to invest in paid media and need their dollars to work harder. That's not only what we've found we're best at, but it's also what we've found gives us the most personal fulfillment as an agency team and as a leadership team within the agency. So it's something that's really easy to stick to, and that's something that we're very proud of as well. ROB: Does that pull a little bit more then towards consumer? Or do you also see some B2B brands you would also dub as culture-creating in their own way? BILL: It's funny; we've been having more interesting conversations with B2B brands probably over the last year. So it does extend to that space, even if it certainly has its heart, and certainly our roots, in more of a consumer-facing type of communications infrastructure. But yes, it's really interesting to see how B2B brands are now saying, “The idea of being adjacent to culture, creating culture, or participating in culture is to help stand out, to help gain association and equity from existing cultural platforms; why does that necessarily exclude us? Why does everything that we do need to be so bland, so to speak?” It's been really fun having those conversations. ROB: You mentioned a judiciousness required around the resources. Is it possible maybe for you to dive down into a client or two and share what it looks like to spend those budgets in a way that really has to deliver in a near- to midterm-way, where they can't just say “We're investing in brand, we're investing in brand”? I assume you're not posting Coke ads for Coca-Cola, right? BILL: We do some work with Coke. We can't say exactly where or how, but we do some work with some of their brands in Atlanta, your hometown. But yes, you're right; it's not about having that long-term branding campaign that's on a very long leash from organizations that are used to having the discipline and the budgets, frankly, to be able to support that and not stress about what their investment's immediate return was. That's a constant conversation that we're having with our brand partners, and helping them understand how best to invest. As we think about that, there are two axioms that we like to share with our clients. Number one is “all media is performance media.” Whether it's something that feels like a longer term-ish, traditional branding campaign, there is still a performance that's being associated with that. There is still a short-term lens that is almost always associated with that. So we want to make sure we're understanding that to satisfy and appease the stakeholders in their organization who are looking for those short-term or more “prove it to me” type results. As we think about what the science tells us, what an analysis of the world's most successful and least successful and average-success brands tells us about how to invest dollars, we know there is a huge economic argument to be made from having that kind of brand-led communications. It really comes down to how you measure it. If you have appropriate measurement in place that can measure things that aren't as immediate as “tell me what the return on ad spend was for my campaign on Amazon,” for instance, then you're going to be in solid shape. So what we try to do with our clients is really understand what their needs are, what their stakeholders are looking for, and then curate a campaign that is rooted somewhat in science and in what works best at growing brands, but does that in a way that also has measurement incorporated so they can prove the impact of what they're doing if it's something where that immediate, vendor-driven measurement isn't right away available. That's how we approach that, and it is absolutely central to our conversations with our brand partners. ROB: Does that focus on measurability in any way impact the selection of marketing channels? You mentioned selecting for the measurement and thinking about the measurement of the channel correctly. Is there anything that's completely out from a measurement perspective? BILL: That's kind of the knock on a lot of traditional media, that it's very challenging to measure them in a more immediate way. Really what you're looking at there is you're trying to put a structure in place that can capture things that aren't as directly trackable. That's where you're looking at, what kind of marketing mix model is my organization using? If my organization spends $10-20 million plus on media or on other important marketing channels, I may already have a marketing mix model in place. Let's figure out how we can align with that and ensure the decisions that we're making are able to be picked up by that measurement. But if you're not, then you might say “I need something that can help me understand what the impact was of a TV spot or radio spot or an outdoor ad” – all things that we know work but are really hard to pin down exactly how they worked for me exactly last month. That's where we're looking at more customized measurement solutions, and that's stuff we can provide directly to a client, to one of our brand partners. We're very proud of being able to do that, but it does require some – we'll call it hoop-jumping. I think that the prize is absolutely worth it, because you've now got a more balanced media mix that's proven to be more effective, 100%, in driving a return for the brand. So jumping through those initial hoops around measurement and setting that up is always worth the investment of time and energy and money. ROB: That's such a neat area to pull in on. I do think a lot of marketers, when they hear “media mix modeling,” it sounds like a high-class tool. Is there a size of brand or a size of budget where it's more viable? Or is it really just a limitation on thinking and it can start from just one or two channels? BILL: I grew up in my career to some degree working with Nestlé. Nestlé has a number of billion-dollar brands and significantly more nine-figure annual sales brands. Those brands very often had access to marketing mix models, and it did feel like a high-class tool, especially at that time. What we've actually been able to figure out over the last three years is that there are now solutions in place for modeling that are significantly less expensive. They're essentially utilizing what we hear about when we hear about AI and machine learning. They're essentially utilizing machine learning in a very efficient and democratized way where you don't need to have expensive data scientists and data analysts running analyses over the course of months. You can now actually build a model over the course of weeks and then have that model in market and be continuously updating it with sales figures and investment figures across different marketing channels, not just media. The fact that that's now democratized is a huge win for brands who aren't spending $10 million plus in their advertising and marketing efforts. We've actually had success modeling out the impact of a campaign that was in the low six figures for an extremely well-known national client, a Fortune 5 client that was really looking to drill down for one of their subsidiaries and understand what the impact was of their spend so that they could then scale it out further, but didn't know where to scale it. To be able to show this channel versus this channel versus the third channel, and this was the relative impact and this is how they all work together – which is another important element – in a way where they spent five figures to have that analysis and had it done in less than eight weeks is a very powerful example of how that works best. ROB: It certainly seems democratizing not only for the brand, but also on even the agency side, because this sort of tooling sounds like the thing that you had to be in a holding company agency at some point, or a very large brand or house of brands, to even consider having access to. BILL: Yeah, that's exactly right. I grew up in that space, working with Nestlé, working in a large holding company for whom I still have a lot of heart and love, and that was the case. It was also the case back then that you really needed to be in part of one of those infrastructures in order to get strong rates for your brand. That's shifted now as so much of our media inventory has become biddable. The standards around how we negotiate, how we manage media for clients, have changed. It really is a golden age for the small- to medium-sized brand or marketer, the growing marketer or brand, to get into the marketplace and to be a meaningful player from Day 1 and not feel like you're being outgunned by these massive organizations. It's very exciting for us. ROB: Indeed. Let's pull on that origin story thread for a moment here, Bill. How did you go from that Nestlé, that holding company agency world, and decide to jump off the cliff and start Exverus? BILL: This is always an interesting question to answer because there was no real one point where it all happened, which is usually the case for most agencies. It happened very organically. I had decided to shift from going full-time, working in one space, to freelancing and to working as a consultant, maybe 10 years ago. As I was doing that, within about three or four months of doing that, I got a phone call from one of my favorite people on Earth, a client of mine from Nestlé, who said, “Hey, I'm over at Clif Bar now. We're really shaping up how we look at media and advertising across our brands. Would you be interested in taking a stab at essentially being a one-person media agency for Clif Bar?” Of course, in my mind I was thinking “there's no possible way I could do that,” and my mouth was somehow saying, “Yes, I'll give it a shot.” [laughs] That began a really wonderful relationship with Clif Bar, and that relationship grew as their investments grew and their need to grow new brands and new product formats grew. Between them and Creative Artist Agency (CAA) and their extremely wonderful, award-winning marketing team, which is now known as Observatory, I think they hit a point where the amount of work was too much for one person plus a few helpers on the side to handle. We had a lot of built-in credibility, working with an organization that's probably over a billion dollars in sales annually in Clif Bar, and CAA, which is the world's best-known talent agency from a marketing standpoint. Impeccable reputation. So there was a lot of built-in credibility. There was new demand. We just made the decision – I still remember my Head of Operations saying, “We have to go for it,” driving to a soccer match one Wednesday night. And thus Exverus was born. We said “we're really going to give this a go” about five and a half years ago now. ROB: Wow. Congrats. A lot of companies don't even make it that far. You've got a team around you now, and it feels probably pretty real. I think the timing that a firm starts always confers some advantages and disadvantages. Your firm started around I guess 2012-2014, depending on where you are in that slow-motion window that you referred to; in performance marketing, that's an interesting time within the evolution of the different channels. How do you think that timing informed how you attacked the market? BILL: It did a few things. At a macroeconomic level, I think unfortunately it created a scarcity mindset because we had just gone through a massive crash in 2008. By the time I really started, there was no very clear boom and very clear recovery happening. That was a more recent thing. So there was a bit of a scarcity mindset, which took a long time to work out of and to shift into more that abundance mindset. I think that can keep you conservative, which is a good thing sometimes, in some years. In some years that holds you back. So from a macro standpoint, that's how the timing maybe helped and maybe slowed things down over time. As I think, too, about where the industry was, really from Day 1, it reaffirmed that even though it was much more straightforward to start a media agency and to focus on digital channels – there was much more access; it was a much more equitable system with a lot less in the way in terms of gatekeepers like there are with some traditional media – even though it was a little bit more challenging to have those other mediums in place, being media-neutral and being able to offer all media, even if we were still digital-first, was a really smart strategic decision. As the rise of performance media has come in, and now for many organizations performance media has overtaken brand media by multiple times over – knowing that that trend was happening and having a strategy and a perspective of neutrality really helped us a lot. It helped us to build more trust-based relationships with our clients because we weren't trying to push them into the latest fad or the latest channel or the latest tactic for its own sake. We were always trying to do that based off of what was best for their business, what was best to grow their brand. That helps build trust rather than saying “We're focused in this particular area which is hot right now.” So I think that can be great to be a particular specialist, even within the specialty of paid media, but I think that our timing really reaffirmed our strategy and our approach to market, and it's one that's seen us continue to grow and be successful into and beyond 2021. ROB: For sure. It's an interesting time. You got to start past the social for the sake of social, social as the source of infinite free growth, but also social as the bucket of infinite budget without accountability. It's interesting you mentioned the gatekeepers. It's almost easy to forget the times when if you wanted to manage let's say your Facebook ads, there were only a handful of companies you could talk to about that. BILL: That's right. ROB: That's a whole different world. BILL: And to see how much – at one point I was doing the Facebook ads, 9 or 10 years ago, and it was exhausting keeping up with the changes. Every three months, something minor would change that you used daily, and every six months it seemed like they were completely renovating and revamping the entire process. It was so funny to see that TV couldn't change fast enough, print certainly couldn't change fast enough, and here you had social and other channels that were changing so fast that it was almost impossible to keep up with them. It was certainly an interesting time to start things up. ROB: A friend of mine used to work for one of those vendors. They had to keep up with all the changes, and they used to call every Tuesday “new bug Tuesday,” because there would be something new they had to go out and fix. You probably had to deal with the other end of that stick. BILL: That's right. ROB: Bill, as you reflect on the journey so far with Exverus, what are some lessons you've learned along the way that you might do a little bit differently if you were starting clean, from scratch? BILL: Things that I would do differently. I think that we were never slow to meet our clients' needs, but we were sometimes slow to say, “This is a macro trend and we should have a whole staff around it.” One of the examples is more performance-based media. The reason I say that is because we have plenty of team members, particularly today, who are world-class experts in performance, but a few years ago we kind of missed the boat a little bit because we thought that by satisfying our clients' immediate needs and performance, we were doing our jobs. What I missed was that this was a strategic exercise. There needed to be a strategic team of people that were focused in the performance space. One of the reasons why was that it wasn't that they needed to have a particular technical skillset; in many cases we're talking about the same media channels that can be used for very different purposes, like search, like social, like digital video and digital display. But what we were doing was missing the mindset. Those folks who really excel in performance have a completely different mindset and approach to how they manage media and how they manage client relationships to get to specific results. There's plenty of reasons for that, which all make sense. But missing that mindset was number one in terms of what we could've done better, going back probably 3-5 years ago. The other thing, too, is I think really understanding the business and the business side of being an agency leader. The ups and downs are not communicated to you when you are working at an agency in a way that's terribly transparent, or frankly often necessary. You're usually hearing the very big undulations of the waves. “Things are amazing. We won this huge account” or “Things aren't great and we need to have layoffs.” Those are the types of things you're hearing. What you don't realize is that as an agency owner, things are up and down on an hourly basis, some days on a quarter-hourly basis. There is a mindset and there is a psychological helmet that you need to put on to be able to manage that in the context of doing all of the wonderful work that your clients are contracting you to do. I think that is one thing that I certainly didn't know about, and that's something that lives alongside what all business owners learn, which is that you're responsible now for every element of the business. I was ready to do the accounting. That's easy. [laughs] I went to an accounting school for college. But it was the psychological aspect of being in our business and being comfortable with the way that our business works that, if you're someone without a very risk-tolerant mindset, might be a bit jarring. ROB: How do you process that over time? I know certainly initially, a lot of your team, you feel like you can't tell them a lot of the gusts. Sometimes they'll surprise you and they'll have a great solution, and sometimes they won't know what the heck to do and you might just freak them out a little bit. How do you think about processing, learning some of these blind spots, those shifts that we all have to make? BILL: That's a great question. From my standpoint, we try to be as transparent as possible with our team. Today we actually just had our quarterly state of the union. This time we didn't go into as much detail as normal, but we try to be transparent. “This is what's going on. This is where we're struggling. We're struggling to fill this particular role. Do you have any solutions? Do you think you might be able to help? Or if nothing else, please know that we're working on it still, because we know that's had an impact on some people's workloads.” We'll be very forthright with everything that we can. Without being obligated to or sharing specific numbers financially, we will share where we are in terms of reaching our goals and what it means to reach our goals. Is it just profit for the sake of profit? Or does profit open up new doors and new opportunities to all of us for strategic partnerships? That's a very different conversation, and it's one that I think our team appreciates hearing. One great piece of advice that I got during COVID was actually from Simon Sinek, Start with Why, very famous guy. Incredibly intelligent. Everyone knows his public persona. He's a family friend; he's been good friends with my wife for over a decade. We were chatting about there are certain things that we just don't know what to do and how to move forward in COVID, and he said, “Put it on your team. Share it with your team. Do that in a thoughtful way and say, ‘I don't know the answer to this. I'm not going to pretend that I'm the person who has all the answers all the time, and I'd love to hear what your input is and what your feedback or solutions are.' You'll be surprised as to what you get back. Your team isn't necessarily thinking about your business all day long, but they are working in it, and they are people that you hire specifically for their intelligence. So see if that helps.” And it really did. I also think it made for more open dialogue, which in today's age of transparency is really valued by employees and by myself and the rest of the leadership team. ROB: All such really good points in there. Reminds me of a very recent experience where for a long time, I had been suggesting a certain sort of client engagement model. I tried to communicate why, but I maybe wasn't really getting my point across. In a totally different conversation, I expressed a particular business goal in terms of margin – and to your point about profit margin, the key of telling people where that goes and what that gets us when you're growing – you need cash just to be in cash reserves. You need to have good financial cushion on the business. You need to invest in growth. You need all those things. Helping them know why you need profit helps instead of just thinking you should break even and everybody should take all the cash out. But I shared a particular goal in terms of profit margin, and I had somebody super brilliant on my team who said, “Oh, why don't we engage more in this model?” It was exactly pretty close to what I had suggested before, but without the full picture and the rationale and the transparency, it was just hanging empty. And everybody does things better when they think it's their idea, and that's okay. I don't have any problem with that. So really good point. BILL: From your standpoint, where do you feel the line is in terms of transparency, in terms of how you communicate with team members? ROB: That's a great question that I'm still learning. I have typically been a tremendously private person on these sorts of things, and over the past year I engaged with a business coach about a year ago who came recommended by people who have billion-dollar companies. That was good enough for me, and I could still afford them. He's just continued to push me on the value of what I'll get by sharing more with the team. Where that stands for us right now, to be real specific about it, at an exec team level, we're talking about – in a services organization, on our services side, we're talking about revenue per employee. We're talking about target profit margin. We're talking about what that actually looks like. And that's uncomfortable for me. I could regret it. I could learn something from it. But it's going in the right direction. BILL: That's great. I think we've probably had a very similar experience. I may not dig into some of the KPIs that you do quite as in-depth, but sharing that information can be liberating when it's done properly, and it can show a lot of faith in the team. For me it was a great learning experience, and it was a great moment of growth starting to share that information. ROB: I'm glad to hear and gain some comfort. The worst story we ever had on here about somebody sharing stuff was someone who had an employee suck out $300,000 in payroll taxes that they were personally liable for, and they had to drive ahead and build the business and dig their way out. But that's a different lesson to be learned. BILL: Yes, and I don't necessarily think we should be giving access to the finances to everyone. [laughs] ROB: Totally agree. Bill, when people want to track you down and track down Exverus, where should they go to find you? BILL: Probably the best place for Exverus is our website. It's www.exverus.com. For me, I can be found on LinkedIn. I'm Bill Durrant with two R's. No relation to Kevin. I'm pretty easy to track down if you add “Exverus” to the end of that in the search queue. ROB: That's good. It's good to know we can't track down KD through you. We'll have to find our own way. BILL: Just want to set expectations. ROB: [laughs] Thank you so much, Bill. Congratulations to everything you and Exverus have accomplished so far, and I wish you the best. BILL: Appreciate it. Thanks, Rob. ROB: Take care. Bye. Thank you for listening. The Marketing Agency Leadership Podcast is presented by Converge. Converge helps digital marketing agencies and brands automate their reporting so they can be more profitable, accurate, and responsive. To learn more about how Converge can automate your marketing reporting, email info@convergehq.com, or visit us on the web at convergehq.com.

Bill: Well Sean, I'm going to Boston with you. You know The Guy Who Manages The Red Sox, the Red Sox's manager, gave me a job as coach for as long as you're on the team. Sean: Look Bill, if you're the coach, you must know all the players. Bill: I certainly do. Sean: Well you know I've never met the guys. So you'll have to tell me their names, and then I'll know who's playing on the team. Bill: Oh, I'll tell you their names, but you know it seems to me they give these ball players now-a-days very peculiar names. Sean: You mean funny names? Bill: Strange names, pet names...like Dizzy Dean... Sean: His brother Daffy. Bill: Daffy Dean... Sean: And their French cousin. Bill: French? Sean: Goofé. Bill: Goofé Dean. Well, let's see, we have on the bags, Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third... Sean: That's what I want to find out. Bill: I say Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third. Sean: Are you the manager? Bill: Yes. Sean: You gonna be the coach too? Bill: Yes. Sean: And you don't know the fellows' names? Bill: Well I should. Sean: Well then who's on first? Bill: Yes. Sean: I mean the fellow's name. Bill: Who. Sean: The guy on first. Bill: Who. Sean: The first baseman. Bill: Who. Sean: The guy playing... Bill: Who is on first! Sean: I'm asking YOU who's on first. Bill: That's the man's name. Sean: That's who's name? Bill: Yes. Sean: Well go ahead and tell me. Bill: That's it. Sean: That's who? Bill: Yes. PAUSE Sean: Look, you gotta first baseman? Bill: Certainly. Sean: Who's playing first? Bill: That's right. Sean: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money? Bill: Every dollar of it. Sean: All I'm trying to find out is the fellow's name on first base. Bill: Who. Sean: The guy that gets... Bill: That's it. Sean: Who gets the money... Bill: He does, every dollar. Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it. Sean: Who's wife? Bill: Yes. PAUSE Bill: What's wrong with that? Sean: Look, all I wanna know is when you sign up the first baseman, how does he sign his name? Bill: Who. Sean: The guy. Bill: Who. Sean: How does he sign... Bill: That's how he signs it. Sean: Who? Bill: Yes. PAUSE Sean: All I'm trying to find out is what's the guy's name on first base. Bill: No. What is on second base. Sean: I'm not asking you who's on second. Bill: Who's on first. Sean: One base at a time! Bill: Well, don't change the players around. Sean: I'm not changing nobody! Bill: Take it easy, buddy. Sean: I'm only asking you, who's the guy on first base? Bill: That's right. Sean: Ok. Bill: All right. PAUSE Sean: What's the guy's name on first base? Bill: No. What is on second. Sean: I'm not asking you who's on second. Bill: Who's on first. Sean: I don't know. Bill: He's on third, we're not talking about him. Sean: Now how did I get on third base? Bill: Why you mentioned his name. Sean: If I mentioned the third baseman's name, who did I say is playing third? Bill: No. Who's playing first. Sean: What's on first? Bill: What's on second. Sean: I don't know. Bill: He's on third. Sean: There I go, back on third again! PAUSE Sean: Would you just stay on third base and don't go off it. Bill: All right, what do you want to know? Sean: Now who's playing third base? Bill: Why do you insist on putting Who on third base? Sean: What am I putting on third. Bill: No. What is on second. Sean: You don't want who on second? Bill: Who is on first. Sean: I don't know. Bill & Sean Together:Third base! PAUSE Sean: Look, you gotta outfield? Bill: Sure. Sean: The left fielder's name? Bill: Why. Sean: I just thought I'd ask you. Bill: Well, I just thought I'd tell ya. Sean: Then tell me who's playing left field. Bill: Who's playing first. Sean: I'm not... stay out of the infield! I want to know what's the guy's name in left field? Bill: No, What is on second. Sean: I'm not asking you who's on second. Bill: Who's on first! Sean: I don't know. Bill & Sean Together: Third base! PAUSE Sean: The left fielder's name? Bill: Why. Sean: Because! Bill: Oh, he's centerfield. PAUSE Sean: Look, You gotta pitcher on this team? Bill: Sure. Sean: The pitcher's name? Bill: Tomorrow. Sean: You don't want to tell me today? Bill: I'm telling you now. Sean: Then go ahead. Bill: Tomorrow! Sean: What time? Bill: What time what? Sean: What time tomorrow are you gonna tell me who's pitching? Bill: Now listen. Who is not pitching. Sean: I'll break your arm, you say who's on first! I want to know what's the pitcher's name? Bill: What's on second. Sean: I don't know. Bill & Sean Together: Third base! PAUSE Sean: Gotta a catcher? Bill: Certainly. Sean: The catcher's name? Bill: Today. Sean: Today, and tomorrow's pitching. Bill: Now you've got it. Sean: All we got is a couple of days on the team. PAUSE Sean: You know I'm a catcher too. Bill: So they tell me. Sean: I get behind the plate to do some fancy catching, Tomorrow's pitching on my team and a heavy hitter gets up. Now the heavy hitter bunts the ball. When he bunts the ball, me, being a good catcher, I'm gonna throw the guy out at first base. So I pick up the ball and throw it to who? Bill: Now that's the first thing you've said right. Sean: I don't even know what I'm talking about! PAUSE Bill: That's all you have to do. Sean: Is to throw the ball to first base. Bill: Yes! Sean: Now who's got it? Bill: Naturally. PAUSE Sean: Look, if I throw the ball to first base, somebody's gotta get it. Now who has it? Bill: Naturally. Sean: Who? Bill: Naturally. Sean: Naturally? Bill: Naturally. Sean: So I pick up the ball and I throw it to Naturally. Bill: No you don't, you throw the ball to Who. Sean: Naturally. Bill: That's different. Sean: That's what I said. Bill: You're not saying it... Sean: I throw the ball to Naturally. Bill: You throw it to Who. Sean: Naturally. Bill: That's it. Sean: That's what I said! Bill: You ask me. Sean: I throw the ball to who? Bill: Naturally. Sean: Now you ask me. Bill: You throw the ball to Who? Sean: Naturally. Bill: That's it. Sean: Same as you! Same as YOU! I throw the ball to who. Whoever it is drops the ball and the guy runs to second. Who picks up the ball and throws it to What. What throws it to I Don't Know. I Don't Know throws it back to Tomorrow, Triple play. Another guy gets up and hits a long fly ball to Because. Why? I don't know! He's on third and I don't give a darn! Bill: What? Sean: I said I don't give a darn! Bill: Oh, that's our shortstop.

Beachy welcomes its first guest: The Italian Stallion, contributor to the Facebook page Ideal Progressive, puts on his Republican hat to duke it out with us. We at Beachy are all aware that things would've looked different if it were an integrated anti-racist demonstration, so instead we dive into the nitty gritty: media bias, splits within the ruling class, and the necessity of poop-smearing.   --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/aila-jimenez/support

Time To Toast & get to the News.

A Visit With Bill Bright During His Last Days (Part 1) - Bill BrightA Visit With Bill Bright During His Last Days (Part 2) - Bill BrightA Visit With Bill Bright During His Last Days (Part 3) - Bill BrightFamilyLife Today® Radio TranscriptReferences to conferences, resources, or other special promotions may be obsolete. Finish the RaceDay 2 of 3 Guest:                    Bill Bright From the series:   Reflections of Life:  A Personal Visit With Bill Bright  Bob:                There is a problem within the church today.  According to Dr. Bill Bright, there are a lot of people who say they love God when many of them don't really know Him. Bill:                  The average person has a superficial view of God, and you can't love someone you don't know, you can't trust someone you don't know, you can't obey someone you don't know.  So the most important thing is to find out who God is, discover His character, and just love, trust, and obey Him. Bob:                This is FamilyLife Today for Thursday, February 20th.  Our host is the Executive Director of FamilyLife, Dennis Rainey, and I'm Bob Lepine.  Today – a conversation with a man who has spent his life introducing people to their Creator.                         And welcome to FamilyLife Today, thanks for joining us on the Thursday edition.  You've been asked a number of times by people that question – if you could have dinner with any four people, living or dead, who would you invite to your dinner party and probably stopped and considered that question and thought about the Apostle Paul or about King David or whoever you might choose to be at your dinner party.                         I would imagine that there would be many listeners who, when asked that question, would have on their list, the opportunity to invite Bill and Vonette Bright to that dinner party and just to be able to interact with them about a life of faithfulness to Christ that God has honored in a remarkable way. Dennis:          You know, when I was a young man starting out right after college, I had no idea how Bill Bright's life would impact mine initially, from a distance.  But here in the last dozen or so years, I've had the opportunity to have many, many meals with Bill, to have personal time with him, and you and I had the opportunity to fly down to Orlando and sit in their living room and just have a sweet chat with an 81-year-old man who is suffering from a very serious illness … Bob:                … he's got a pulmonary fibrosis … Dennis:          … right – that has taken away 60 percent of his lungs' capacity, and, Bob, you and I both left those interviews, which we started on yesterday's broadcast, and if you missed it, I would encourage you to call and get the tapes and get the entire interview, because it's a great reminder from a man who has lived his life well, about what is really important.  And one of the things I wanted to ask him about and interview him about was the subject of money, because there's a lot of great stories about how Bill Bright personally has approached money and his own personal wealth, which he doesn't have a lot of personal wealth. Bob:                In spite of the fact that he has written a number of books and at one point was handed a check for $1 million. Dennis:          Right, he won the Templeton Award and gave that money immediately and invested it in Campus Crusade for Christ for the purpose of prayer and fasting. Bob:                In fact, I think he talks about that in the section of the interview we're going to hear today, because you did quiz him about the issue of wealth and how we handle our money and, in fact, that's where we'll pick things up today.  This is Part 2 of an interview done recently with the former president and founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, Dr. Bill Bright. Dennis:          You have rubbed shoulders with people who have had enormous wealth in your 81 years of life.  You've been a part of seeing people invest literally tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions of dollars in the kingdom work.  What advice would you have for the man, the couple, who really want to use their lives and their wealth for the glory of God? Bill:                  Well, first of all, wealth is a gift of God.  It all belongs to Him.  At best, we are stewards.  There is no one who could say, "Look, I've accumulated this vast fortune.  I did it with my own ability."  Everything is a gift, even the breath which we breathe, and I'm on oxygen 24 hours a day, so I appreciate breath as a gift of God.                           But anyone who thinks that they are responsible for their vast wealth is not thinking logically.  There are many, many factors that contribute to vast wealth, and so I say to men and women of wealth – live a good life.  Enjoy yourself, but you should not be extravagant and don't destroy your grandchildren by leaving them large sums of money.  Take care of sending them to college or whatever they may need but be sure you do not spoil your children and your grandchildren and future heirs by leaving a trust that will cause them to be lethargic, complacent, and never develop the skills which you've developed because you had to.                         Remember, it's all God's money, and you're going to be held accountable in a very real way when you get to heaven, if you make it, and if your money and your wealth and your material possessions are your god, you won't make it.   Bob:                Have you seen people leave money to children or grandchildren and that lethargic complacency that you're talking about – have you seen those who were destroyed by … Bill:                  … absolutely, absolutely.  I think of a tragic situation – a couple came to me one day.  They had worked hard together.  They had built a fortune.  They had one daughter, and she married an atheist who hated God, and they said, "What are we going to do with that money?"  I said, "Whatever you do, don't leave it to your daughter and your grandchildren, because he will use it for purposes that are contrary to everything you stand for.  Give it away while you're alive.  Take care of them in a modest way but don't give that money to your atheistic son-in-law," who wouldn't even allow his children to go to Sunday school.                         Well, their love for their children overruled that, and they left it to the family, and you can imagine what happened to it.  It was a tragic situation.  They'll be held accountable for this.  It's well known that people who inherit large sums of money in their youth generally are not properly motivated to maximize their gifts.  So they drift through life, living a life of ease, and they literally become parasites on society.  And, as you know, in parts of the world where there is the class of the super-rich, they're usually very decadent.  That's not always true but all too often extreme wealth clouds the thinking of the recipients of that wealth – bigger homes, bigger cars, a greater opulence and extravagance instead of "Lord, this is all yours.  How can we use it to bring greater glory, greater honor, and greater praise to You." Bob:                Does it seem to you that sometimes those who don't have any spiritual convictions are more generous and more inclined to give?  I'm thinking of Ted Turner giving millions of dollars to the United Nations or Bill Gates setting up a foundation for vaccinations around the world.  I sometimes wonder if we ought to take a lesson from some of these folks. Bill:                  Well, one should never question another's motives – why they give – but there are many tax benefits, many considerations, and I pray that those who God, whether they believe it or not, God uniquely blessed.  I think back on my own career as a businessman.  I started my business with a modest capital, and because of the influence of two men who were kind of like fathers to me – they had no sons of their own – and they were among the leaders in the whole confection industry.  They helped promote my merchandise – Bright's Brandied and Epicurean Foods – whenever people came to their businesses, and they were two of the top men in the nation.  They would promote my merchandise, because they liked me, and they liked my merchandise.                         I wasn't a believer, but at least one of the men, I know, was a believer.  The other one, I'm not sure of, but they helped me tremendously.  So, as a kid, in my early 20s, I was experiencing phenomenal success, and yet I can't say I was smart, I was brilliant, I did this, I did that – God arranges all these things, and I was able to succeed in the measure I did because of many factors.                         So anyone who is wealthy would have to say, if he thinks clearly, "I had a lot of help from God working through people," and I look back on my own business career; I have to say God orchestrated all these many wonderful things preparing me for the day when I'd be born into His family, and He could show me a whole new way of life. Dennis:          Bill, you're still highly motivated, even at 81 years of age.  You're on oxygen 24 hours a day; your lungs are only working at about 40 percent of capacity – what gets you out of bed in the morning? Bill:                  Well, my love for Jesus.  You know, people ask me "What's the most important thing we could pray for you?"  And I always respond, "Pray that I will never leave my first love."  Love God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and, of course, love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemies.  So my love for Him and my desire to please Him, to obey Him, He is my Master, my Lord, and I can't think of any activity in which I could be engaged that is more important than pleasing Him. And, of course, I say all that, including my precious wife.  She is the joy and delight of my heart.  We've been married over 54 years and all I can do is thank God at what an incredible, wonderful, fantastic wife He has given me – and lover and partner and friend in Vonette, and I encourage every man out there who wants to live a fruitful, wonderful life, to love your wife as Christ loved the church, even if you do it for selfish reasons, and you can't really do it for selfish reasons, because loving your wife has to be supernatural with His enabling, but if you don't have a happy wife, you're not going to have a happy heart.  And you need to give attention to your dear, beloved, precious spouse, who is a gift of God until death do us part, and don't ever think of divorce as a way out.  You find someone as God has led you to be married, or if He should lead you in the future to be married, remember, obey the Word of God; love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it – and sacrificial living. Dennis:          Bill, Bob and I – and I'm taking our average age together here, because Bob's about to correct me out of this, but we're approximately 30 years behind you in the race. Bob:                I'm a little farther behind than Dennis.  I'd just like to make that clear. Dennis:          And it's not that I'm that much older, Bill, than he is … Bill:                  … maybe a couple of days. Dennis:          Yeah, a couple of days, a couple of days older than Bob – certainly not more mature, though.  But what advice would you have for a man who wants to finish well?  I mean, if God grants strength and favor, Bob and I will live another 30 years.  What exhortation would you give us, as men, and just to men in terms of how they run the race and end up at the finish line like you are, still sprinting at the end? Bill:                  Well, you remember, Paul writes to Timothy – chapter 4, verses 7 and 8 – "I've fought a good fight, I've finished the race, and I've been faithful."  I would say the number-one priority – love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and that requires time in the Word.  You can't live a godly life unless you're taking God's Word in your daily moment by moment.  Communicate with God in prayer.  Prayer is like breathing.  We pray and talk to Him.  So love Him, trust Him, obey Him, and in order to all this, you have to know who He is. So if you have a superficial view of God, you need to begin to study the attributes of God.  That's the reason I wrote the book, "God:  Discover His Character," three or four years ago, because the average person has a superficial view of God, and you can't love someone you don't know; you can't trust someone you don't know; you can't obey someone you don't know.  So the most important thing is to find out who God is, discover his character, and just love, trust, and obey Him. Bob:                You see what Dennis has got in his hand there, don't you? Bill:                  I just happened to see that. Dennis:          I have a card that, Bill, you discovered the power of lamination before Bob did, but you laminated a card here that is entitled the name of your book, "God:  Discover the Benefits of His Attributes."  And on this card, on the front and back, are listed different attributes of God. Bill:                  Thirteen attributes. Dennis:          Thirteen attributes, and I'm not going to ask you to name all 13, although I'm confident you could do it. Bill:                  I memorized and meditate on them almost every day and night.  I wake up in the middle of the night and while I'm going back to sleep, I will run through different ones and just praise the Lord for who He is. Dennis:          Well, what I want you to do, and I was going to ask you this question, anyway, but you've taken me there – out of these 13 what three are the most meaningful? Bill:                  They're all important.  I can't … Dennis:          … I know they're all important, and I knew you were going to say that, but as you have meditated and have gotten to know God, and as He has revealed Himself to you, could you name three that are closest to you in your walk. Bill:                  I wouldn't say three are more important than the rest, but God is sovereign.  He rules in the affairs of men and nations.  He controls everything.  We think we're smart, and we're really dummies compared to Him.  After all, look at – study the human eyeball or the corpuscle, or anything about any of His creation, and you realize we're just dummies.  So He is sovereign.  He lifts up, and He puts down.  And then He is love. Dennis:          I'm going to stop you there, because I want to read what you wrote on the card – "Because God is sovereign, that's who He is, I will joyfully submit to His will." Bill:                  Yes. Dennis:          So it's more than just an intellectual realization that there is One who rules absolutely. Bill:                  I put the word "joyfully" in there especially, because it's not just kind of a duty.  God is sovereign, so I'm going to be – I'm just going to resign myself to the fact that He is in charge, and it's going to be a boring drudgery.  No, God is in charge, and it's a joyful journey to know that He's in charge.  If I didn't know He was in charge, now I'm breathing on oxygen for the last couple of years – I would probably be kind of anxious at times.  But God is in charge.  Nothing happened.  You know, you read Acts 4 – "Nothing happens to you and me that is not with His approval."  Satan has no power over us except that which God allows.  Everything is filtered through His love.                          You have cancer, you have a heart attack, you have a stroke, you have financial problems – what do you do about it?  Well, Paul writes, "Rejoice."  James writes, "Rejoice.  In all things give thanks."  Well, you know, one of the greatest lessons I've ever learned, which I learned maybe 40 years or so ago is that all things – give thanks.  Rejoice in adversity as well as blessings. Dennis:          And you can do that because you know there is One. Bill:                  I know there is a sovereign God.  He rules in the affairs, and when I say thank you, even through my tears I'm demonstrating faith, and the scripture says without faith it's impossible to please God.  That which is not of faith is sin.  The judged shall live by faith.  So I'm saying, when I praise God that I'm wearing this tube, breathing oxygen, I'm praising God out of a joyful heart not out of resignation, and then, of course, the love – God's love for me is unconditional.  Because God is love, he is unconditionally committed to my well-being and, you know, you could spend an hour talking about the love of God.  Nothing can separate us from the love of God, no matter how even we sin and grieve Him, His love reaches out to us.                         Which brings me to the third attribute, and I hate to leave out any of those 13, and, of course, there are many others – is mercy – because of His mercy.  If I confess my sins, He is always faithful and just to forgive me of my sins, because of His mercy. Dennis:          Right.  Bill, you mentioned your book, "God:  Discover the Benefits of His Attributes."  I've lost count of how many books you've written … Bill:                  … about a hundred … Dennis:          … you're writing them faster than I can read them.  It's over 100 books? Bill:                  Over 100 books and booklets. Dennis:          Okay. Bill:                  And thousands of articles. Dennis:          Bob gets onto me for asking these questions, but I'm going to ask you – do you have a favorite? Bill:                  I would say probably the best book I've ever written is "God:  Discover His Character," because it deals with the attributes of God, and you – you know, I've written on the Ten Commandment, living supernaturally in Christ … Dennis:          … you've written about the person of Jesus Christ … Bill:                  … the person of Jesus, prayer, on and on and on, but getting to know God, His marvelous attributes, you realize everything else falls into place. Bob:                Well, again, today we've been listening to Dr. Bill Bright, founder and past president of Campus Crusade for Christ rehearsing the attributes of God, which is a healthy exercise for all of us all the time, isn't it? Dennis:          It is, and if there's anything I've learned from Bill Bright is that we need to not only talk about God and what He's doing in our lives, but we need to know Him, and we need to continue to pursue Him to get to know Him and a part of that comes, Bob, as we understand the qualities that we use as human beings to describe little facets of God's character, and I do think, and I agree with Bill, this is the greatest book, this book on the character of God that Bill Bright wrote.  This is his greatest book he's ever written. Bob:                The book is called, "God:  Discover His Character," and we have it available in our FamilyLife Resource Center.  This is a book that is great for private devotions, it's a book that parents can use in family time with the children to help introduce the children to the greatness of our God.  If you'd like to get a copy, you can call 1-800-FLTODAY or you can request a copy online at FamilyLife.com.  Again, the title is "God:  Discover His Character," by Dr. Bill Bright.                         When you get in touch with us, you may also want to request either cassettes or CDs of our complete interview with Dr. Bill Bright.  We have only been able to feature portions of it here on FamilyLife Today, but if you'd like to hear the entire conversation, you can ask about those tapes or about CD copies of the interviews when you contact us again, at 1-800-FLTODAY or, if you'd like to, you can order online at FamilyLife.com.                         I was thinking about Dr. Bright's book, and I was thinking about our mission at FamilyLife to effectively develop godly families who change the world one home at a time.  If we're going to succeed in that mission of developing godly families, then we have to make sure that our families know the God we want to reflect in our own character and in our own lives, and FamilyLife is committed to that spiritual agenda. We want husbands and wives and moms and dads to be centered on the priority of God's Word in your marriage and in your family.  We are joined in that agenda by a whole lot of folks around the country who are FamilyLife Champions or Legacy Partners – in fact, some brand-new Legacy Partners who just joined with us here in the last few weeks, and it's nice to have you folks on board with us.  A Legacy Partner is somebody who, on a monthly basis, makes a contribution to our ministry. We often will hear from those Legacy Partners, Dennis, who write to us and ask us to pray for them.  In fact, I just saw that we've gotten a note from a 69-year-old grandmother in South Dakota who is raising two boys – she's raising a 12-year-old and a 16-year-old, and I don't know the circumstances that have her raising those young men, but she said, "Please pray for me.  I need strength and patience."  And we do take those requests for prayer seriously, and our team joins in praying for folks who write to us with those kinds of requests. If you'd like to find out more about becoming a Legacy Partner and joining with us financially or if you'd like to write to us with a prayer request, our mailing address is FamilyLife Today at Box 8220, Little Rock, Arkansas.  Our zip code is 72221.  Once again, it's FamilyLife Today at Box 8220, Little Rock, Arkansas, and our zip code is 72221.  You can also get in touch with us by calling 1-800-FLTODAY.  You can donate over the phone or you can make an online donation at our website at FamilyLife.com. Well, tomorrow we will hear the concluding portion of our conversation held recently with Dr. Bill Bright, the past president and founder of Campus Crusade for Christ.  I hope you can be back with us for that. I want to thank our engineer today, Robbie Neal, and our entire broadcast production team.  On behalf of our host, Dennis Rainey, I'm Bob Lepine.  We'll see you back tomorrow for another edition of FamilyLife Today. FamilyLife Today is a production of FamilyLife of Little Rock, Arkansas, a ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ.   We are so happy to provide these transcripts for you.  However, there is a cost to transcribe, create, and produce them for our website.  If you've benefited from the broadcast transcripts, would you consider donating today to help defray the costs? Copyright © FamilyLife.  All rights reserved. www.FamilyLife.com 

A Visit With Bill Bright During His Last Days (Part 1) - Bill BrightA Visit With Bill Bright During His Last Days (Part 2) - Bill BrightA Visit With Bill Bright During His Last Days (Part 3) - Bill BrightFamilyLife Today® Radio TranscriptReferences to conferences, resources, or other special promotions may be obsolete. Final ExhortationsDay 3 of 3 Guest:                    Bill Bright From the series:   Reflections of Life:  A Personal Visit With Bill Bright   Bob:                Dr. Bill Bright has a message for Christians today, and it's a simple, basic message. Bill:                  I would say to all believers – love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.  Seek first His kingdom, obey His commandments, trust His promises, and spend the rest of your life getting to know Him so you can love Him and trust Him and obey Him without any hesitancy. Bob:                This is FamilyLife Today for Friday, February 21st.  Our host is the Executive Director of FamilyLife, Dennis Rainey, and I'm Bob Lepine.  Today a conversation with a man whose life is centered in The Great Commission and The Great Commandment.                         And welcome to FamilyLife Today, thanks for joining us on the Friday edition.  For the last couple of days we've been listening back to an interview that was conducted recently with the past president and founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, Dr. Bill Bright.  I don't know if you've ever wondered this – but have you ever asked yourself what would have happened to Bill Bright if he'd never been converted, if he'd never come to faith in Christ?  What do you think his life would have been, what would it have looked like? Dennis:          Well, he described himself a couple of days ago on FamilyLife Today as a happy pagan.  He was very successful in the candy business and had created a line of candies called "Bright's Confectionary Candies," I guess. Bob:                "Bright's Delights," wasn't it? Dennis:          Bright's Delights, that's right, that's right.  So maybe some major chocolate lines wouldn't be here because Bill Bright would be ruling in the candy world.  But he didn't do that, Bob.  He yielded and surrendered his life and signed over a title deed of his life, along with his wife Vonette, and for more than 50 years they not only have been married but also have been in surrendered service to Christ and have been used mightily by God. Bob:                I think one of the things that has stuck in my mind, as I've had the opportunity to meet and interact with Dr. Bright, has been his remarkable focus.  Most of us get distracted by all kinds of lesser things, but I don't think I've ever seen him in any environment at any time when he's been distracted by anything other than the Gospel.  It's always about life with Christ.  It's always about evangelism and discipleship and walking with Christ and getting to know the Savior.  I don't know if he's paid attention to anything mundane in the last 50 years. Dennis:          I think some of our listeners would probably be shocked at how little television, how few movies he's ever seen in his life.  I doubt if he reads much of the newspaper, but he saturates his mind and his heart and his life with the scriptures, and I've heard him say on a number of occasions, "I evaluate every day of my life as to how it will contribute to The Great Commission.                          Now, if you think about it, it makes sense that if Jesus Christ said "I have the greatest commission that has ever been given, that I want to give to you," wouldn't it be wise for us to evaluate our lives and how they are contributing to fulfilling what Jesus called the greatest commission – to go to the world and proclaim the Gospel. Bob:                Well, let me take our listeners with us to Bill Bright's living room at his condominium in Orlando, Florida, where we had the opportunity to enjoy a casual conversation about some deeply profound subjects.  Here's Dr. Bill Bright: Dennis:          By all measures of this world, you have lived, not a storybook life, but certainly a successful life.  You undoubtedly have a definition of what a successful life looks like.  Would you mind sharing that? Bill:                  Successful Christian life, and that's summum bonum – that's more important than any other – is the crucified life.  Paul writes in Galatians 2:20 – "I am crucified with Christ.  Nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live with the faith of the son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me."  So the success of the Christian life belongs to those who know the reality of being crucified with Christ. Dennis:          Putting to death the flesh. Bill:                  Putting death to flesh – and out of that relationship, where Christ is all – He is Lord, He is Master, He is Savior, He is King – comes joy and rejoicing and full of glory.  So that's success – being dead to self and alive to Christ. Dennis:          As a man, as a husband, and as a father – do you have any regrets? Bill:                  I shared one with you – my failure to witness to Coach Red Sanders. Dennis:          The coach at UCLA back in the early 1950s? Bill:                  Yes.  That was an experience I've lived with all these years, because I disobeyed God. Dennis:          Any others? Bill:                  I, obviously, am far from a perfect husband or father or anything, but I don't have any regrets.  I look back on a life that's been rich and full, even the defeats, even the times of heartache and sorrow, God has used for His glory.  It's like Joseph said of his imprisonment and his problems as a result of being sold into slavery by his brothers – "What you intended for evil, God used for good."  And I've found that even in my mistakes, if my spirit is right, my heart is pure, my motives are pure, God turns my mistakes to blessings. Dennis:          Looking back over your life, you've done a lot of courageous things.  Obviously, God at work in you, but what would you say, looking back over 81 years, was the most courageous act you've ever performed? Bill:                  Well, there are many thoughts that come to mind – surrendering everything, where we signed a contract to be slaves of Jesus, putting everything in His hands – all that we owned or ever would own – that was simply an act of obedience, so I don't think it was that courageous, because I was doing what He told me to do.                           Moving to UCLA to start the ministry – I was the only one on staff, thought I was teaching school, and she joined me the second year.  I think, for example, when God led us to start Expo 72.  We'd never done anything like this and a good percentage of the staff leaders objected and some resigned.  Another time, when 13 men marched into my office, men who were like my sons whom I love to this day, every one of them, and God never allowed me to resent them, but they came into my office and demanded I resign.  They were taking over the movement.  To this day, when I have met them on different occasions, I give them a big hug and mean it.  I say, "I love you," and mean it.  That was something that God used to be a blessing.  Incidentally, six of those men left.  They were going to take the whole movement, and 750 people joined the staff that summer, and it was like God pruned so He could give fruit. Dennis:          Bill, you've been close to death because of your lung disease.  Have you ever been afraid to die? Bill:                  No. Dennis:          There's never been the fear of dying? Bill:                  As a matter of fact, God has graciously given me the joy of dying.  You know, face it, you can't lose when you go to be with the Lord.  But Vonette and I were on this airplane out of New York flying to Washington one evening some years ago, and it rained all afternoon.  The flight was delayed and delayed and delayed and finally the pilots apparently just took it in their hands and said, "We're going to fly."  So within minutes after we got in the air, we were in the middle of a firestorm.  I mean, a ball of fire and a tornado type wind, and the plane was like a leaf in the wind – it was awesome.  The wings were just going up and down like a bird, and we knew we couldn't possibly survive. So Vonette and I sat there in the plane, held hands, and prayed and said goodbye and thanked the Lord that we would soon be with Him, and it was very somber and yet – I can't say it was joyful because, frankly, it was frightening.  The plane was just about to come apart, from our perspective.  And we flew and flew and flew and just kept flying and Washington isn't that far away.  By this time, it was night, and finally we landed in a little out-of-the-way airport and discovered that the lightning had struck a hole in the fuselage.  I'd never heard of that before.  It knocked out all the navigational instruments and the pilot was flying blind. When we got off the plane, he was as white as a sheet, and he said, "In all my millions of miles, I've never had an experience like this."  Well, I didn't know it, how serious it was – oh, I knew it was serious – but when I got to Washington, D.C., the next morning we rode the bus from that place to the airport, and I got to the desk, and the girl said, "Oh, you were on that plane that was struck by lightning, and the plane has a big hole in it."  I didn't know that, of course.  I'd never heard of that happening. So then I was in Ghana – I had a summer experience where, in those days, most national airlines were not safe.  The flight was delayed again and again and again.  Finally, after some hours, we took off.  In the meantime, I'd gone around witnessing different people – nobody seemed to be interested, and so just as we were off the pad, just barely, there was this big explosion.  So I thought a tire blew out, but we came to a screeching halt and got off, and the motor had blown up, and had we been in the air, we'd be dead. Dennis:          Unbelievable. Bill:                  So I've had a few of these … Bob:                … but it's not the fear of death – we're never sure how we're going to get there, whether it's going to be a bumpy ride, whether we're going to wind up with a disease that takes us, but all of us are headed to the same place. Bill:                  Death is universal, we're all going to die.  That's the reason it's so important to know where we're going while we're still alive. Dennis:          Bill, someday the news will go out around the world, because it will be an international news event of your home-going, and when that happens, we want to honor Christ for what He did in your life, and I'm most certain that will happen through your memorial service and all that occurs after your home-going.  But I'm wondering what you would want the world to know – your final exhortation – because we're going to play a tape of a broadcast like this with you that Bob and I have done and have some of your words on it.  What would be your final exhortation to the world? Bill:                  I would say to all believers – love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.  Seek first His kingdom, obey His commandments, trust His promises, and spend the rest of your life getting to know Him so you can love Him and trust Him and obey Him without any hesitancy.  Vonette and I have talked about this and concluded:  My own desire was to die as I've tried to live – Galatians 2:20 – Bill Bright is crucified with Christ.  And I asked her if she would bury me in an unmarked grave as a testimony of Galatians 2:20, because dead people are dead. She didn't think it was a good idea.  So we agreed that we would have on our tombstone – "Bill and Vonette Bright, slaves of Jesus" – Philippians 2:7, Jesus was a slave.  God the Creator came to earth disguised as a slave.  And Paul speaks of himself, Romans 1:1 – "slave" and Peter and others – so we'd have appropriate references – but Bill and Vonette Bright, slaves of Jesus, because, as you know, we signed the contract in the spring of 1951 – literally wrote out a contract and signed it to be His slaves, and it's the most liberating thing that's ever happened to us.  I want that to be a testimony of the greatest privilege anyone can have – to be a slave of Jesus. Dennis:          Well, I want you to know, over a year and a half ago when the news came that it looked like you were going to be coming back to Florida, where we are here for this interview, to spend your final days and to die, I spent several hours writing you a letter of – just expressing my profound appreciation for being an employee for 33 years of Campus Crusade.  I'm coming up on my 33rd year.  Bill, it's a miracle you didn't fire me. Bill:                  You're too young. Dennis:          But I really – I appreciate you, your life, and I wanted you to know that face-to-face.  I wrote you the letter and expressed that in that letter, God used my dad in my life and some key pastors to disciple me, and I count you right up there at the top with them of men who have had a profound impact on my life. Bill:                  I'm not worthy to hear that, but I was so moved when you expressed your love in that way in the letter.  I treasure that. Dennis:          Well, I know you received quite a few of them, because I would run into guys who had said they had been to visit you, and I thought, "He's not going to have time to die.  He's got too many people lined up to express appreciation," but I love you. Bill:                  Well, you are very special to me, Dennis.  I have shared with many people through the years what an inspiration and challenge you are to me – what a blessing you are, and I'm just honored to be on this program, and I believe, in spite of the way God's already used you, the best is before you, and I predict that in your lifetime your influence will be as great as anything I've been privileged to experience worldwide. Dennis:          You are very kind. Bob:                Well, this has been a treat.  Over the last three days we've been listening to an interview that was recorded just a few months ago with Dr. Bill Bright, the founder and past president of Campus Crusade for Christ, and, boy, there at the end, it was a tender moment. Dennis:          It was and, frankly, I didn't think I was going to have the opportunity to say that face-to-face, Bob.  I had written some very tender words to him privately and had sent them to him because I thought, frankly, he was dying, but it was not something that I intended to do there at the end of our interview, but looking back on hearing those words again, it was a sweet moment, and I don't want our listeners to go away just yet, because at the end I was sitting there, and I was looking at you, Bob, and I really love and appreciate you, and I was thinking, "You know, if I was Bob, I would really like to hear Bill Bright pray for me."  And so I asked him to do that at the end, and he prayed for not only Bob but for me as well … Bob:                … he prayed for both of us … Dennis:          … and I want our listeners to hear that prayer. Bob:                Before we play that, let me let you know that we have copies of Dr. Bright's book on the character of God, the attributes of God.  It's called "God:  Discover His Character."  You can call 1-800-FLTODAY to request a copy or you can go online at FamilyLife.com.  Either way, we can have the book sent to you.  This is something you can use in your quiet time, you can use it for a group Bible study, you can use it for family devotions.  If you're home schooling, you can use it for your Bible curriculum with your children.  This is fundamental to how we live as Christians.  So let me encourage you to get a copy of this book, make sure it's in your library.  Again, it's called "God:  Discover His Character," by Dr. Bill Bright, and you can call 1-800-FLTODAY to request a copy or order online at FamilyLife.com.                         When you do contact us, if you'd like to get a copy of the complete interview with Dr. Bright – we've only been able to feature portions of it here on FamilyLife Today – but we have the entire discussion available on CD or on cassette, and you can request that resource online at FamilyLife.com or when you call 1-800-FLTODAY. As we played back that conversation, Dennis, I was thinking about the letter that you are going to be sending out to our Legacy Partners here in the next few weeks, where you talk about the fact that we have lost our respect for authority and our fear of God.  When we do know God, we develop a reverence and awe for who He is, and I appreciated your comments in that letter.  It's part of our regular communication with those folks who so support this ministry on a monthly basis.  Not only do they hear from you, but we often hear from them.  In fact, we had a Legacy Partner in New York state who wrote recently and said, "Pray for guidance on what would be God's perfect plan for us, whether we ought to add a fourth child to our family.  We just finished our most recent Homebuilders study, and our spiritual growth has skyrocketed.  Thank you for your prayers.  We are praying for you."  What a delight to hear from folks who not only support this ministry with their financial gifts but those of you who pray for us as well.  We have just added a whole bunch of new Legacy Partners to this ministry, and thanks to those of you who have joined with us in this effort. If you'd like to find out more about becoming a Legacy Partner, or if you'd like to request prayer, you can write to us at FamilyLife Today at Box 8220, Little Rock, Arkansas.  The zip code is 72221.  Once again, it's FamilyLife Today at Box 8220, Little Rock, Arkansas.  The zip code is 72221, or you can make a donation online at FamilyLife.com, and you can also phone in your donation at 1-800-F-as-in-family, L-as-in-life, and then the word TODAY. Well, I hope our listeners have had the chance to listen over the last three days.  If not, I hope you'll get either the cassettes or the CDs of our conversation with Dr. Bill Bright.  That dialog went on for nearly two hours, and at the end of that time, Dennis, you asked Dr. Bright to pray for us, and we wanted our listeners to hear that prayer.  Here is Dr. Bill Bright. Bill:                  Father, Father, Holy Father, we bow in reverence before Your majesty.  We are in awe of Your greatness.  When we think of who You are, we realize how little we are, how small in comparison, and yet even when we were yet in our sins, You died for us.  You love us.  You delight in us, and I thank You that in your sovereignty You chose Dennis and Bob to do what they're doing, and You've anointed them and given them favor and great blessing, and I ask, Holy Father, You'll keep them pure, keep their motives pure, their hearts pure, their attitudes, their desires, that they will be men of God after Your heart.  There will be no sin in their lives that will hinder Your working in and through them.  That is they speak day after day to millions of people, and that number, O gracious God, I pray will increase by the millions.  They will be channels of Your love, Your forgiveness, Your grace, to the multitudes of earth.  I pray for the day when their ministry will literally encircle the globe, where millions upon millions, day after day, will be drawn closer to You, will love You and trust You and obey You because of their influence.  Lord Jesus, bless their families – their families and their children's children's children yet unborn, that they may always love You, serve You, trust You, obey You, and that the legacy of these men will go on and on until You return.  Blessed Holy Father, thank You once again for these men whom You have chosen, whom You have anointed, whom You have empowered and may all glory, honor, worship, and praise go to You.  We pray it in the name of the One whose name is above everything, the Lord Jesus Christ.  Amen. Bob:                FamilyLife Today is a production of FamilyLife of Little Rock, Arkansas, a ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ.   We are so happy to provide these transcripts for you.  However, there is a cost to transcribe, create, and produce them for our website.  If you've benefited from the broadcast transcripts, would you consider donating today to help defray the costs? Copyright © FamilyLife.  All rights reserved. www.FamilyLife.com  

What's the best - and quickest - way for a B2B business to gain marketing traction and turn contacts into customers? This week on The Inbound Success Podcast, boomtime CEO Bill Bice talks about his approach to word of mouth marketing. A serial entrepreneur, board advisor and one-time venture capitalist, Bill has seen what works across a wide range of companies, and now his company boomtime is helping B2B businesses grow by leveraging content and LinkedIn to generate buzz. Check out this episode to get the details of Bill's process and learn how you can use it to improve your own inbound marketing results. Highlights from my conversation with Bill include: Bill says that the three main objectives of word of mouth marketing are to build our audience, follow up on all of the prospects that you're generating, and stay top of mind with that audience. The easiest way to generate new business is through referrals, and the key to getting referrals is to give your audience something to talk about. Bill says most companies make the mistake of talking all about themselves on social media, when in reality they should be focused on educating their audiences. The two most common mistakes that companies make when it comes to marketing are to not make it a top priority and not be consistent with it. Three keys to successful marketing are building a response mobile website, having a robust email marketing program, and making a lot of connections on LinkedIn. In a crowded content landscape, one of the best ways to stand out and attract qualified leads is to build an audience and then invest in educating them through your content. Boomtime helps companies use this same process by outsourcing content creation for them to 300+ subject matter experts. They also help manage their clients' LinkedIn strategies. Bill says that with a well optimized profile, he'll get between a 35 and 50% acceptance rate on connection requests, sending 40 to 50 connection requests a day, and 6 to 8% of those people will start a conversation either from the connection request or he will often send a followup message with whatever the best performing piece of content is. Resources from this episode: Visit the boomtime website Connect with (or follow) Bill on LinkedIn Check out Bill's B2B Marketing podcast Listen to the podcast to learn how word of mouth marketing can help you increase the ROI of your marketing strategy. Transcript Kathleen Booth (Host): Welcome back to the Inbound Success Podcast. I'm your host Kathleen Booth and this week my guest is Bill Bice, who is the CEO of Boomtime. Welcome to the podcast, Bill. Bill Bice (Guest): Kathleen it's great to be with you. Thanks. Bill and Kathleen recording this episode. Kathleen: Yeah, thanks for joining me. I love your story because you scratched your own itch and solved a problem that you were having and I always find that those are some of the most interesting conversations. So I'm really excited to dig into it. Can we start by having you tell my audience a little bit about your story, who you are, what you're doing now with Boomtime, and what led you down that path? Meet Bill Bice Bill: So I feel like I was born an entrepreneur. I started my first company when I was 18, a software company, and of course I had no idea what I was doing, but over enough time, got a great team, and built a great company, and out of that we had enough success in selling that company that I got to be part of an early stage VC fund. And so I have founded and invested and been on the board of a whole host of companies. I actually sat down and counted them up so I could say it's 27 companies, and there is a not shocking correlation in those companies, which are the ones where we've had the most success are where we really focused on going to market and nailed that. And so you do all this really hard work to create an amazing product or service, and yet how good you are at marketing is going to determine what kind of reward you get for doing that. And I just got really frustrated in trying to get great marketing for my own companies, and so I decided to tackle that problem. Kathleen: I love it. And I think probably most of the people who listen to this podcast would agree that great marketing is important for growing your company. So that's awesome. So can you talk a little bit about specifically what Boomtime does? Bill: Yeah, so we've really focused in on B2B, we have a history in doing some work in B2C, but most of my experience has been in B2B. And the thing that I really like about B2B is that we've been able to take sort of the core framework or playbook and apply it to really any sort of highly complex, valuable transaction. So it doesn't really work for things that are volume-based. But if you're selling something high value, then the approach, I mean, I'm really a programmer at heart, so to me it was all about the data. And one of the things that I have found really challenging about marketing is unlike every other discipline in our businesses, here we have one that just refuses to accept scale and efficiency. It's just a core problem with marketing. And we do it everywhere else in our business, and it really has to happen in marketing also. And so I just tackled that from the standpoint of following the data in a very iterative process and learning what works. We don't really have to, although experimentation is key, we don't have to you, you've got bigger competitors who have spent millions of dollars figuring out how to do exactly what you need to do. You've just got to figure out what's the smaller version of that for my business that's going to work for me. And so that's what we've been doing in the B2B world. It's very much a B2B content marketing inbound approach that is what's really compatible with most of the sort of small, that two to $20 million a year business that really does a great job of taking care of their customers, but would like to grow. Or maybe has been growing in that sort of plateaued and didn't really quite understand what was making that work before, and what was making it work was word of mouth. And so we now live in this great era where we can actually really amplify the effect of word of mouth because we're all connected digitally. And so that's the thing that we have focused on. Word of mouth marketing Kathleen: So let's take it to another level of detail. I love that you said that the challenge that you're trying to solve is making companies go-to-market strategies repeatable, scalable, more efficient and really focusing that around the power of word of mouth. What does that look like in practice? If somebody is using boomtime for example, and this isn't necessarily a commercial for the product, but obviously you were trying to solve a problem that you saw through the product. So I'm curious to know, in detail, what does that really look like? Bill: Well, so the three things we want to accomplish is we want to build our audience, we want to follow up on all of, we would be much better at capturing and following up on all of the prospects that we're generating. And then we want to stay top of mind with that audience. And if you do those things really well and you do it with this focus on, let's take the thing that's already working, word of mouth, and let's just leverage digital tools to accomplish the same thing. So we think of it as social currency, like we're going to create a lot more referrals. So let's assume that referrals are really valuable to your business. And the vast majority of business owners I sit down with and I say, well, one of my favorite questions is, where'd your last couple of new clients come from? And the answer, 99% of the time is, "Oh, it was a referral from so-and-so." Because that's what really works. And if you focus on giving your audience social currency, giving them a reason to talk about you, there's a really wonderful thing happens, which is you get more referrals. And the way you do that is just flip your content, flip your marketing on its head. So most marketing for most companies, 100% of what they do should be 10%, because it's all about them. It's the number one mistake in marketing is talking about yourself. Nobody cares. I mean, honestly, your clients just don't care about the new person you hired, the new client that you won. That should be 10% of your marketing. If you put 90% of your effort into sharing your expertise, then suddenly your marketing becomes this really valuable way to communicate with your audience and you give them reasons to talk about you. Word of mouth marketing in practice Kathleen: So can you give me an example of a campaign, for example, that either you've done or that one of your customers has done using the system that you have in place, just so that we can maybe have a mental model through which to understand how it all works? Bill: Yeah, I'm going to use ourselves as the example, because we had the classic problem that a lot of, we don't really consider ourselves a traditional agency, but you see agencies do this all the time, which is you're really good at marketing and yet you don't apply it to yourself. Kathleen: Our first child. Bill: Yes. The thing that's really helped us grow is when we, we actually changed our internal processes to be able to treat ourselves as a client and give one of our marketing strategists credit for us as if we were paying ourselves as a client. Because only by doing that did we actually put the priority in our own marketing. We're literally having the same problem that every business has, which is marketing's always the fourth or fifth thing that you think about, and everybody gets stuck in this same cycle of you focus on marketing when things are kind of slow and then they pick back up. And yet the second biggest mistake in marketing is inconsistency. And it's just clear in the data that being consistent in your marketing is the number one thing you can do to make it pay off. Whatever you're going to do, do it consistently. Pick a longterm strategy you can really commit to and be serious about it. And so when we started doing the same thing for ourselves, which is literally just laying out everything we've learned and following the data, I mean, it's amazing what happens when you bring several hundred like clients together, put them on one platform, be able to aggregate that data and see what's happening. It's so difficult, even if you can have the best marketing director in the world, you only have the data in your one company to work with. Being able to multiply that across several hundred companies, it's incredible what you learn. So we've just taken that and started sharing what we've learned. I'm very passionate about small businesses. It's where innovation comes from, it's what drives our economy. I would love for every small business owner to be doing exactly these things. And our version of this is to share our expertise and what we've learned and layout exactly what you want to do in your marketing. It's the best way to promote what we do, just to share. I mean you can literally take this and go do it yourself. You will be better off if you do that. And that's my number one goal with every one of our clients is we want their prospects to be better off because sat down and got exposed to that company. Whether they ever choose to use their product or service or not, because that's what's going to create word of mouth. Kathleen: So you guys used it for yourselves and what did that look like? Talk me through your campaign that you did. Bill: So it's very content oriented. So in B2B, one of the things that I love about it, it's actually pretty simple. Because if you do three things well your marketing is going to work. If you build a responsive mobile website that really pays attention to the customer journey, if you do really good email marketing and you build an audience on LinkedIn, and if in particular, if you stitch those together and understand the customer journey across those three channels, you will really understand what's working, what's creating engagement and you will be able to get new prospects and pull them down the funnel. And so when we started doing that for ourselves and putting out regular content that was just sharing what we know how to do, it created a different perspective in our audience about who we are and what we do. And it started bringing to us prospects that are much better educated, that were ready for much deeper conversations when we got started. It's one of the core problems in marketing today, which is our prospects have access to so much information, and there's so much that they can learn. You've really got to decide do you want to be an order taker or do you want to be part of that educational process? And the only way you can really create new sales opportunities is to start at the very top of the funnel and be part of that educational process. So that was the change that happened for us when we really started talking about here's what works, here's what we've learned, and just laying that out and doing that consistency thing. When we started doing that really, just week in and week out, every single week. It takes a while. That's the problem with it. I don't believe there are any miracles or short term fixes in marketing, but if you commit to it and then the results start to come in over time and it really changes the trajectory of your company. How content fuels word of mouth Kathleen: Now, how does the content that you're creating feed into word of mouth? Bill: Well, that content is that social currency. It's giving people really concrete things that they can do. So let's take LinkedIn, for example. Like no matter how much effort you're putting into LinkedIn, you should be putting more. If you just look at the engagement data and the growth over the last two years, it's incredible what's happening on LinkedIn, and they really made the switch to getting people to really put time in depth into LinkedIn. And I look at LinkedIn as the ideal networking event, right? I get to meet exactly who I want. I don't have to eat high calorie food at the same time, and you need to approach it like a networking event, which is you're really there to build your network and be helpful, to that note. And if you take that approach and you say, "Okay, I've got an audience now that I'm going to build on LinkedIn, I'm going to run an aggressive connection campaign to get connected to every great prospect for me that's in the market." And then you say, "Okay, now I'm going to share the thing that I know, that I'm an expert at because I've got perspective across..." You might be the CEO or CIO, whoever your decision maker is in your prospective company, you're running your one company. But I work with hundreds or thousands of companies like you, which means I can bring perspective to you that's really valuable to you. And if you're willing to share that, to give away whatever you consider the most valuable thing that you have, give that away as your marketing. That will dramatically change how prospects see you and it will create sales opportunities that didn't exist before. And so executing it on that on LinkedIn is the primary way that we grow. This is very meta, because that's how we grow and the way we do it is to describe exactly how you should do it. Kathleen: Got it. So it's an education play through LinkedIn, then? Bill: If you're in B2B, it's really the best way to grow your company. You'd have to be in a really strange niche for the prospects you want to not be sitting out there on LinkedIn today. Now there are quite a few other software platforms that help B2B and other types of companies with content marketing, with inbound marketing, companies like HubSpot, you've got SharpSpring, there's a ton of them out there. How does the solution that you've built fit within that ecosystem? Well, sort of the short answer is HubSpot with help. So we're not selling a piece of software. What we're doing is selling the end result, the service. So the big surprise with HubSpot, and HubSpot's a great platform, there are a ton of really good marketing automation systems out there, and if you're going to do this internally, you absolutely should implement one of them. The problem, the surprise, after you start paying for that subscription is then the two people you have to hire to get any value out of HubSpot. And a lot of companies, what they really want is just the end result of that as opposed to having to go through all of that process. And one of the things I've seen over and over again, so if you're going to do that internally, one of my strongest recommendations is everybody tries to create the content internally and unless you really put tremendous focus and resources behind that, it almost never works. You really need to go. So the way we've done it is we've built a network of 300 subject matter experts. We don't do any writing internally. There's always somebody out there who already knows your audience really well. Go find that person who you don't have to teach them your market, they've been writing for it, they have been working with the industry pubs or the events in that area, and you can, half hour brainstorming session, you can come up with six months of editorial. What you need is a great stream of regular content that doesn't require you sit in front of a blank screen and have to come up with it yourself. So you can implement all of this yourself, you just, you need to put in the marketing automation system. You need to find the resources that know how to do that. And then you've got to follow the data to really understand what's creating engagement and keep testing every piece of it so you get better with every turn of the cycle. Kathleen: So if somebody is using Boomtime, do they also need to have these other platforms or is Boomtime really a replacement for these things? Bill: So if we're doing that as a service for somebody that you don't really need a marketing automation system. It's great if you have a CRM. One of our biggest challenges is that nobody really uses their CRM the way that they should. And so our approach is to integrate with the CRM and put the end results in the CRM system. One of the challenges with that building your audience part is that your sales team always has many more opportunities that they're working on than what ends up in the CRM. CRMs are really designed for sales managers. And if you put somebody in the CRM, you're going to get questioned about it. So what most sales people do is they only put people who are fairly deep into the funnel into the CRM, which means we're not building our audience and we're not following up with all of the prospects that we have. So one of the tricks that we do is go mine the email boxes of everybody who's customer facing in your company and feed that into your CRM so we're getting that central database. Because particularly if you're in B2B, your sales people are talking to those early prospects via email. So there is a record of it and we can go capture it and we can make their job easier by filling that information in for them. And it's amazing what happens if you just follow up on all those prospects that are already in your firm. It's great low hanging fruit, you just got to go get it. Kathleen: So do you typically work with smaller companies? Because it sounds like really this is a solution for companies that don't have a large marketing team, for example, that really need the external help and that don't have a super sophisticated tech stack already in place. It sounds like it's a good way for a company that recognizes that they need to be able to make their marketing more scalable to really get started with that. Is that accurate? Bill: Yes. So you sort of have two groups. It's the kind of $2 to $5 million year company where we're really doing it for them. And then once you get to the point where you have a marketing director, often we're just working under their direction doing this one piece that I recommend you get automated and process around it no matter how big you are, which is just this regular flow of really great content. The ideas come from in the company, come from the executive team, but we get the content creation outsourced because it's so expensive to do it internally. And if you do this well, that of course is the hard part. Doing it well is difficult. But if you do, then having this regular flow of great content come in, no matter how big your company is, just feed your whole marketing operation in a really wonderful way. So unless you're to the point where you can have a full time staff of writers doing that for you, and even then I would argue it's going to be really cost effective to supplement that with outside resources. So we'll often work with a larger company where that's the piece that we do, because we've gotten really good at it, and there's just, there's a ton of value for you getting that piece essentially automated. From the marketing director standpoint, you just have this great flow of content that shows up and gets distributed and you get data behind it. So I recommend making that happen no matter how big you are. Kathleen: So it's very interesting, because there's a lot of debate around this topic of should you insource or outsource content creation and you are definitely falling on the outsource side. It's interesting, I am building a team right now at my company and I've chosen to totally insource it. So I've hired a writer. For me- Bill: You know what you're doing. Kathleen: Well, let's just say for me it's also that we're in a very technically complex industry and I feel like I need somebody who can, it's a big learning curve and I want somebody who's full time in it, really learning it. Have you found success in addressing that through outsource content? Bill: Yeah, but you have to avoid the copywriter problem, which is the somebody who was working, really good writer, but was working on a car dealership last week and he's going to figure out your very niche enterprise SaaS solution this week. And so the way to do that, we do a lot of work in professional services, law firms. So if you're going to work in a law firm where the partner, the practice head for that area of law is very particular about that content. The only way you can do that is to go find a JD who's practiced in that area before. But the law firms never going to create it internally because they could be billing $600 an hour instead of writing the blog article you want them to create, but you can go find somebody who's been in that practice area, didn't enjoy the practice of law, understands the area really well. Get the ideas from the practice head in that 30 minute brainstorming session, give them five bullet points about the things that they need to cover. They can go do the research, and then all we have to do is get the voice right, which frankly is really difficult. We've ended up dividing that into two levels. The expertise to get the content and then an editor who's really good at capturing the voice. Kathleen: Yeah. I will say that when I've seen outsource content creation work, the only way I've seen it work is when you have a writer who's interviewing your subject matter expert. Anytime I see companies say, Oh, here's a topic, go run with it, I just see crappy, crappy results. because honestly whenever you're outsourcing and you're just giving somebody a topic, I feel like with that person is doing is they're Googling that topic. And so by definition you're not going to have anything new to add in your content, because it's coming from aggregations of other sources. Whereas if you interview a subject matter expert, you can get something original. But that does take a very strong writer and a very strong editor to really be able to do that well and in a way that is unique. Bill: Absolutely. And if you just wanted a content farm, I mean 90% of the efforts should be on creating great content. And so by definition, you're not going to get there if you're cutting the corners there. If we don't have great content, all the tactics that we talk about aren't going to matter one bit. We have to start with really capturing the unique expertise that you have and finding interesting ways to communicate that. Kathleen: So if somebody is listening and they're thinking, I want to improve my marketing results, I'm a B2B company, what are some really concrete things you think that they could do right now to get started? Getting started with word of mouth marketing Bill: Well, what everybody always wants is more leads, and the easiest solution is to go spend money on ads to generate those leads. And yet one of the reasons it's so difficult for that smaller company to ever get an ROI on that is that without the marketing foundation in place, that's never going to pay off. So don't take the easy route. You got to focus on those core pieces first and build that funnel and actually be capturing and following up on all your prospects. And then the easiest way to expand your audience is to focus on LinkedIn. If you take the same approach and you're very helpful and you're sharing expertise, then you can run a LinkedIn connection campaign where you're adding 1,120 new connections a month, every single month, growing this audience of exactly the right prospects that you're now sharing really valuable insight with and that will do a wonderful thing for you. It will create sales opportunities you didn't have before. It'll be the right sales opportunities with people who are much further down the process and are really ready to have a serious conversation with you. So what we see in the data is with a well optimized profile, we'll get between a 35 and 45%, sometimes in the low 50% acceptance rate on on the connection requests, sending 40 to 50 connection requests a day, and six to 8% of those people will start a conversation either from the connection request or we will often send a followup message with whatever our best performing inside driven piece of content is. None of this can be salesy at all, we all get those kinds of connection requests. Kathleen: I was going to say, are you doing an InMail? What are you doing there? Bill: It's not InMail. It's really building the network of people you should be connected to, because you have expertise that's directly relevant to them. And it's sharing that, it's not selling them. I mean, I see that all the time of we get something back from a client who just wants to dive right into the sales pitch. And that would be the same thing as walking into a cocktail party, meeting somebody for the first time, and then starting to give them a sales pitch. Until they ask for it, that doesn't work. You've got to build the relationship first. But if you take that approach, this is the easiest, most concrete thing you can do in B2B to get more sales opportunities. But ironically, the way you do that is stop selling. What kinds of results can you expect? Kathleen: So what kinds of results have your clients gotten from doing this? Bill: So that those are kind of aggregate numbers across the hundreds of of connection campaigns that we're running in just sort of any kind of high value B2B, a lot of professional services, a lot of high end products. And so the thing that we really look at is how many new opportunities are we creating and so, oh, a really good campaign, so my connection campaign, I'm running at about a 54% acceptance rate on connections, which is great. One of the things you often have to do is optimize your profile specifically for that audience that you're going to go after. If you're going after multiple niches, do one at a time, because you'll get a much higher connection. And then we're getting our primary source of new clients is off of the connection campaigns that we run for myself and our chief revenue officer. So this works much better for the executive team in your company, particularly for smaller companies. It's really not about your company profile at all. That's just not where we're going to get the activity. And even in a larger company, the more you can get the executive team and people higher up in the company to participate, the better the results that you're going to get. People want to connect with other people on LinkedIn and it just, it works so much better. And so that six to eight percent of new conversations, when you think about that coming from a thousand new connections a month, this is really the new form and you can run this yourself. You can take an hour a day and do a golden hour of prospecting around LinkedIn connections and you will get much more value out of that than making cold calls for that same time period. But if you're a salesperson who's responsible for doing that for your company, you will get better results if you can get the VP of sales or CEO to do that and let you run it for them. Kathleen: So you have about a 54% connection acceptance rate. And you mentioned that those turned into clients. What is your conversion rate from the people who accept your connection to your leads and then to your customers and how are you measuring that? How are you, how are you tracking? Bill: So there's a plus and minus to LinkedIn, which is the data's really easy to follow, but for personal profiles, the only way you can get it is logging in and looking at it, and it disappears after three months, which is kind of annoying, but it's really easy to see what's working to create engagement. And the LinkedIn algorithm is really simple. Likes and comments are essentially equal value and then you can just chart it and see how many likes and comments you get versus the percentage of your network that gets exposed to that feed. It's just a direct relationship. So I call it going everyday viral. Like our goal isn't to come up with the one piece of content that just explodes. It's to have regular content that does well over and over again in this really specific audience is exactly the people that you want to talk to. And that gives you two bites at the apple. When you make the initial connection request and sometimes you just happen to be reaching out to somebody right when they need your expertise and so you get lucky. But now, because they belong to your network, if you follow that up with a regular flow of insightful content, then you get to talk to them forever so you get a second forever bite at the apple, and both of those are really effective. You get sales opportunities that come right out of the gate and then it just comes with that regular followup. As long as you're good at getting exposure to this audience that you've created. And so many people do work on LinkedIn where they only focus on the first part, building the network, and they don't really focus on the regular updates to that network that really leveraged having created it. And if you do both, you'll get a much better pay off from that effort. Kathleen: How quickly should somebody expect to see results from something like this? Bill: You're going to get early positive indications. So you'll get some wins that show you you're in the right direction. We typically see it within the first 30 to 60 days. But the real payoff comes when you've been doing this for six months, 12 months, 18 months. We really put a focus internally ourselves on LinkedIn starting two years ago and we're seeing a much more significant pay off today than we did in the first six months. Because you really get a reputation for providing valuable information. then one of the great things you can do, somewhere about 5,000 connections, you should switch your LinkedIn button from being connect to follow, because you'll get enough organic traffic now that people will just start following you because of the content that you're sharing. And they won't even show up as asking for connection requests. They're just following you, you're not following them. And that's really when you sort of hit the point of getting a real payback on what you're doing. Kathleen: And you do that in your LinkedIn settings? Bill: I do. Yeah. And you need a big enough following where it makes sense that people would come and start just following you because because of what you're doing and you need to be doing those content updates very regularly. But I get about, right now, about 40% of the additions to my network come from people just following me as opposed to the connection requests that we're sending out. Kathleen: Got it. Very cool. Well that's an interesting tip I haven't heard somebody mention before, so there's a new one for you. Switch your button from connect to follow. Kathleen's two questions Kathleen: Before we get too close to out of time, quick questions for you that I always ask all my guests. The first one is, we've talked a lot about inbound marketing here and content marketing. I'm curious, who do you think, company or individual, is there somebody that you think is doing particularly well right now? Bill: What I want to do is, is turn that into a suggestion for, because there's somebody in your market that is doing that really well. And what I always find very valuable, anytime I'm starting to work with in a new area, is I want to go find whoever is the, I'm not looking for the biggest player, I'm looking for sort of the mid size company that is big enough to have weight behind what they're doing, they're really good at it and they're showing innovation. So I want to flip that around just a little bit and say there's somebody doing, I mean, I've always been able to find one in every single market we've gone into. So even in legal, this enormously conservative market, there's always, we start working with an intellectual property law firm. We found a firm that is doing an excellent job of content marketing in that area and I find it so much faster to learn from somebody who's already doing a really good job of that then to figure it all out ourselves. And somebody is doing that in your market, so spend the time to go do that. And every single market we work in, we have found somebody who's really great at it, who's already doing it, that we've learned a ton from. Kathleen: Anyone in particular who stands out, anyone who somebody wants to go online and see someone who's really best in class that they should look at? Bill: So the IP example, Fish and Richardson does a really good example of, that's one of these really niche-y examples. That's a deep technical area that's tough to do well. And so seeing somebody do it well, it's really the best answer to the question you asked before, which is how do you pull that off? Kathleen: Okay, great. And digital marketing obviously changes so quickly. How do you personally stay up to date on everything that's going on in that world? Bill: So I've become a huge fan of podcasts, now. I'm finally following in your footsteps and doing a podcast. So I've learned from your podcasts, there's about 20 different marketing related podcasts that I listened to. I really like, particularly in the sort of email marketing and LinkedIn side, I like Growth Hackers, because there's always somebody who's already run a test that's doing the thing that you're thinking about doing. So I'm just a big, so unlike when I was 18 and I thought I knew it all and it took me a really long time to figure anything out, I think it makes so much more sense to take advantage of this unique attribute we have of being able to find somebody who already is doing what we're doing, put ourselves in their place and learn from them. Like our ability to get where we want to go so much faster, because of that is amazing. So let's learn from everybody who's already done it before and Growth Hackers is just full of people who are doing exactly that. And I love, a lot of it's very data-driven, which obviously I'm big on, and just great way to learn. How to connect with Bill Kathleen: Bill, if somebody wants to reach out and learn from you or has a question and wants to get in touch, what's the best way for them to do that? Bill: So I'm a CEO of boomtime.com. I love talking about marketing. Happy to have you reach out if you want to. If you want to see the thing that I'm talking about, I'm easy to find on LinkedIn. Go look up my profile. You'll see exactly what we are talking about and of course we're at boomtime.com. You know what to do next... Kathleen: Great. All right, well if you are listening and you learn something new or liked what you heard, please stop what you're doing, take a minute, and go to Apple podcasts and leave a five star review for the podcast. It makes a huge difference. That's how people find us and I would greatly appreciate it. And if you know somebody else who's doing kick ass inbound marketing work, tweet me @workmommywork, because I would love to make them my next interview. Thank you so much, Bill. Bill: It's been a lot of fun. Thanks. Kathleen: Thanks.

The Charity Stripe is back with another show for the people, as per usual. We talk the new law passed in California that allows Collegiate athletes to get paid…I REPEAT GET PAID! We talk Gardner Minshew and all the wild week 2 NFL finishes. Who’s been worse: Suns or Hornets? Who will win each of … Continued

Welcome to our latest episode where we discuss our 2 picks from last week for our "Feel Good" double bill. Warning, there is some waffling in this episode along with language and themes that may not be suitable for young humans. In this show:1 Anything Goes2 Double Bill   Yes Man & Cocktail Review   Next weeks picks - Zombies3 Stitch-Up   Dan reviews Les Miserables   Results of next week's stitch-up   Announce stitch-up for next week's poll

Bill D'Alessandro believes that one of the most fulfilling things in life is working on hard things with smart people. The allure of the 4-hour work-week mentality can easily take over when starting out as an ecommerce entrepreneur, but might not be the smartest tactic for all businesses. There is now a trend gearing businesses towards something more lasting. Bill was living the 4-hour work week dream until he decided to change it up and “grow up” in his business. Since having made the decision to hire, Bill has seen business grow as his company, Element Brands, grows. He's now able to step away less often but more easily because he runs his business with quality people, that he pays well, and who are motivated to help him grow. Bill is based in Charlotte, North Carolina and currently owns a portfolio of nearly 10 e-commerce sites primarily focused on household goods and personal care. Though Bill started the entrepreneur life as a digital nomad, he recently made the the switch to a corporate warehouse/office location in Charlotte and has 22 full time employees. Episode Highlights: The building of the Elements portfolio and how that process came about. Using in-house vs. a broker for brand acquisition. How Bill came to the choice of creating this more traditional business style. What Bill's typical day is like. An example of when an employee saved Bill money as a result of their loyalty to the company. How the structure allows Bill to disconnect thanks to the competent team he has in place. Tips on hiring, vetting, and finding the cream of the crop. Bill's own hiring process. Preferences for outsourcing people vs in-house training them. Noncompetes Bill has in place and how they work well for him. There are plenty of people out there interested in not being entrepreneurs but are interested in helping build great brands. Transcription: Mark: Okay one of the most popular business books that I can remember coming out in the past 15 years has been the 4-Hour Workweek by Tim Ferriss. And I'm going to admit I was a little annoyed when this book came out because all of a sudden everybody tried to become Tim Ferriss juniors where they were having their 2-hours per week that they were setting aside to answer e-mails and take phone calls. And so if I needed to reach out to them they would explain to me … they would say well I only answer e-mails during this time or I only take phone calls during this time and of course if it didn't work with my schedule tough luck because they had their 4-hour workweek and they only had half of that dedicated to e-mails. And I think a lot of people went to that 4-hour workweek. During that time there was this allure of I can sit on the beach, I can take vacations and have this business that's completely automated. That still has some allure today but more and more I hear people talking about being grownups in their business. Changing the way that they're going about their business, hiring staffs instead of just doing pure outsourcing, building something that's a little bit more lasting than what we've seen with some of that 4-hour workweek sort of business structure. So, Joe, I know you talked to a friend of ours Bill D'Alessandro. He was living that dream of the 4-hour workweek for a long time and then so to speak and Bill I would not say that you are a kid by any means but he grew up in business. Joe: Yeah, he did and let me say right now folks that I'm having my house power washed so you're going to hear the people in the background. Mark: That's why I was talking so long I was hoping that it would stop but it did not stop. Joe: We're all entrepreneurs, right? Life of an entrepreneur, I'm working from home. These guys already took a lunch break and they're back and so you're going to hear them every now and then. Anyway lunch … I had lunch with Bill D'Alessandro. He lives in Charlotte … I live just north of Charlotte a couple of months ago and we were talking … Bill just got married and we were talking about the honeymoon and he said yeah no it was great because I hardly checked in. I was gone for two weeks and I hardly checked in at all. And then he goes back when I was a digital nomad I went to the same country, the same beach, but I felt like I had to work all the time because it was me and me only. I had to tell my VAs what to do and I had to do certain things every day. On this vacation I turned it all off because I had good quality people working for me, running my business while I was away on my honeymoon and I was making money. And it just sort of clicked. Like you said, you just said grown up right? And that's really… I mean it is what it is but you don't mean it to be and I don't mean it to be offensive to those that choose not to run a business that way. I've sold many businesses where there's one owner operator and that's it doing his thing. Look at that you can actually see the people power washing in my window in the background. Mark: You know what it looks like? It looks like a scene from Oceans 12 where the guys on the background can really be is just setting up a big con on you Joe. You better look out. I hope you did a background check on these guys. Joe: It's hilarious they actually have giant trash bags on and just the holes cut out for the sleeves. And literally, I've got a house … the entire house right now they're choosing to do right in front of my office in the windows outside. So if you want to see it and see the trash bag folks go to the actual video instead of just listening to the audio. Mark: And we'll make sure we put this one video up; at least this clip. Joe: At least this clip. Anyway, it just sort of … it was an epiphany with … Bill has an interesting story. I first learned about him back in 2015 in Savannah at the eCommerceFuel event and Darren was there with us; Darren Harden a former broker at Quiet Light. [inaudible 00:04:19.8] Joe you got to meet this guy he's raised like 20 million dollars and he's building a portfolio of e-commerce companies. I don't know if that dollar amount was right. I didn't feel the need to ask but I got a tour of Bill's facility down there in Charlotte. He's got an actual warehouse. He ships it all himself. He's got rack space, he's got staff, he's got warehouse employees that he pays really well and they found ways to make him more money by cutting costs. And that's really what this is all about, it doesn't make sense to outsource all of this stuff two of 3PL, two VAs or does it make more sense for you in your business to bring it out in-house and run it and go to work every day, take vacations and not worry about it because you've got good people in place to do the job for you. Mark: Yeah, he talked on this topic if I remember right at eCommerceFuel last year and let's give a shout out to Andrew Youderian from eCommerceFuel Live. Anybody that is in e-commerce I always recommend, take a look at eCommerceFuel as a community to join. That's a fantastic community. But he gave this talk in eCommerceFuel Live and I remember being struck by it because it was something that we haven't been hearing. And I'm going to double down on what you said, Joe, if you choose that lifestyle sort of business which was the business where you are running just remotely and maybe not four hours but maybe eight hours a week that's a really good and viable option as well. I think a lot depends on your personal priorities but sometimes we'd look down at those businesses that require an office and going in and having employees and stuff like that. It is a really good alternative as well for a lot of people. I'm interested to listen to this one. Again hear what Bill has to say about this and kind of how he made that transition over to a fully staffed business. Joe: I'll tell you right now there's no doubt we'll have Bill back on some day and we'll be talking about his 50, 60, 70 million dollar exit because that's the path that he's going down. Now quickly before we go to that Mark we talked about eCommerceFuel, we talked about Rhodium, right now I'll just name three or four other conferences that we're going to and then we'll go right to the podcast. Mark: We can actually name them. So Prosper Show is coming up if you do anything with Amazon … that's in March and if you do anything with Amazon go to Prosper Show for sure. We're going to have a presence at T&C at Traffic & Conversion. Joe: San Diego in February. Mark: That's right and then we're going to be doing Blue Ribbon Mastermind with Ezra Firestone; an awesome marketer. Everybody knows who Ezra is. We're going to be at that event as well. Joe: Miami in January, there's one more in there right? Mark: Capitalism.com absolutely … Ryan Moran's conference. We're going to be there and I'm looking forward to that as well. That's in Texas right? Joe: Yes, it's going to be in Dallas. So we've had Ryan on, we've had Ezra on, we've had [inaudible 00:07:01.8] on, we've had James on; we've had them all on. They're great folks and we'll be at each of those conferences and we'd love to get together with you guys for dinner, for an event that we might put on, something along those lines. Please let us know if you're going to go to those conferences so we can connect. Mark: Sounds great. Joe: All right, off to the podcast. Joe: Hey, folks, it's Joe Valley from Quiet Light Brokerage and on today's podcast, I've got Bill D'Alessandro. A lot of folks from eCommerceFuel know Bill very well. Bill is from the Charlotte area right here in North Carolina and owns a portfolio of e-commerce sites and is a regular guest on the eCommerceFuel podcast. Bill, how are you today? Bill: Doing well Joe. Good to see you, man. Joe: You too man, you too. So I saw you a couple of months ago, I got a nice tour of the warehouse and you're moving to a much much bigger one. And we talked a little bit about your experience and what you've gone through over the last several years but I want you to tell the folks that are listening who you are and what you do and give them a little bit of background. So we can start with that and then we'll go from there. Bill: Yeah, sure. So for the folks that don't know me … Hi, my name is Bill D'Alessandro. I'm the CEO and founder of Elements Brands. Elements Brands is a portfolio of consumer products brands. We focus on what we call household goods and personal care. So that's everything from sunscreen, shampoo, body lotion, lip balm, laundry detergent; all sorts of things like that. We own nine brands today and are under LOI to acquire a 10th. I started life as sort of your classic 4-hour workweek digital nomad entrepreneur but since then the business has evolved and I've kind of made a conscious choice. And now we're located … Elements Brands is located in Charlotte, North Carolina. We have as of this day of recording 22 full time employees and growing. And as Joe mentioned we are moving into a new 51,000 square foot office/warehouse kind of facility. So it's a far cry from my early digital nomad days. Joe: Yeah, it's definitely a far cry but one of the things that was interesting is that you kind of have more freedom in terms of when you want to take off from work. You can take off, turn your phone off and you've got a great staff there. So let's talk a little bit about that. I want to talk a little first though Bill about how you managed to build a portfolio of nine brands and you've got one under LOI. Did you start with one small brand and kept adding them on? Did you raise some funds? Did you go to family and friends? How did that work out for you? What was your process? Bill: Yeah. So I started the 1st brand in 2010. I got it up to low hundreds of thousands of revenue; basically just enough to fund my digital nomad lifestyle. And at that point … you know I kind of did that for a while, and I realized that as I wrote on my blog Thailand will not make you happy. And I realize that it was fun but you go to Thailand, you sit on the beach and you're still you. You're sitting with you on the beach and all of your hopes, dreams, aspirations, problems, demons; all those things come with you to Thailand. And I also felt like I was kind of wasting my potential. So I thought all right how do I make this thing a lot bigger? And I come from an investment banking and M&A background so my thinking was I know how to run an e-commerce brand, I also know there are a bunch of people out there selling e-commerce brands, why don't I go buy … I mean roll them up onto a single platform. So that led to our 1st acquisition in 2013 for which I basically used my entire life savings at the time and borrowed some money. And we bought that company and then in 2015 basically based on cash flow from the 1st one and we bought the 2nd one in 2015. And then we bought two in 2016. Then we bought another one in 2017. And then as I mentioned we'll do another acquisition this year. So … and then also I was fortunate enough doing work with you to sell one of my other distracting side businesses too so I can focus on Elements Brands full time. Joe: Yeah. You know it's funny because I don't think we've mentioned that at all when we had lunch a few weeks ago. You've built these brands and we have a relationship … Quiet Light Brokerage is a business brokerage firm but we haven't sold any of these to you. You've sourced most of these deals on your own through building networks and buying smaller troubled brands and turning them around directly for the most case wouldn't you say? Bill: Yeah for the most part we … you're always number one in my heart Joe but we do talk occasionally with some other brokers who shall not be named. And we also have fulltime staff here at Elements that is going out calling brands all the time to see if they're interested in selling and to see if Elements Brands would be a good home for them. I have a guy and he's an ex private equity guy and he spends his all day every day talking to new brands. Joe: So let me say right now, anybody that's listening, you can go to ElementsBrands.com and find Bill and his staff. If you've got a household brand of … what size Bill? Does it matter what size if they've got something that might be a good fit do you think they should reach it out to you? Bill: Yes, so we look at basically between half a million to a million in revenue in the low end to probably about 10 million on revenue on the high end. Joe: Got you. Now if you want to save Bill the trouble call me and I'll put together a great package and then I'll call Bill. Bill: Exactly which we actually love Joe. Because on a lot of times when the seller does have a broker, it makes the whole thing go a lot more smoothly so call Joe first. Joe: The guys at 101 commerce, RJ Jalichandra from 101, they're buying literally 101 FBA businesses. He said the same thing on a panel of buyers a couple of months ago at the Brand Builders Summit. He said look we've done this, we've done a lot, we'd prefer to work with a broker because all the vetting is done, the package is put together. It makes our buying process much smoother and much quicker. So please go with a broker and they're going to choose a select few that they'll work with and that's it. It does make it quicker for you guys for sure. Why don't we talk about a little bit of the advantages of a guy like yourself who I have to classify as a grown up in a sense. And I say that in the nicest possible way in putting myself down because I'm sitting here in my home office and I have no employees. None of us do at Quiet Light. We're all independent contractors brokering from different parts of the country in some cases we all live here talking to Bryan. He's usually in a different location. You, on the other hand, you've got 21, 22 employees that you are responsible for. You have a warehouse, you have offices. You are building a real business that maybe someday components of it will be sold off to private equity or the entire thing will be. How was that choice other than you just saying you're limiting your potential by not doing it, how has that choice come to and what has it been like for your lifestyle as opposed to that 4-hour workweek that you started off with. Bill: Yeah so it was very intentional. I'm sitting here in my office right now and to my left here are 22 folks. I've just got my door closed in recording with you but I come in every day. I'm in typically before nine o'clock and I leave at six-ish. I take lunch. I only work about a mile off from my house. I kind of … the realization came to me while I was doing the digital nomad thing that one of the most fulfilling things in life is working on the hard things with smart people. And you know just as humans we love to solve hard challenges and it's really rewarding to succeed with other people. And I realize that as a digital nomad a lot of the times I was working with VAs or contractors who were basically just pictures on Upwork profiles to simplify but I didn't really have a relationship with these people and they … even if I had a full time VA I couldn't grab a beer with them after work. And frankly when you're hiring VAs oftentimes you're operating on a shoestring and there's a language barrier and you're generally … and I will generalize here but I will say if you are operating a whole business on VAs and you may love your VAs but there's a whole other level of caliber of employee that is out there that you've closed yourself off to because you're not willing to give them a W2 and health insurance and their office that they're meant to. A lot of really really brilliant people want that. Joe: Can you give an example of that? I know that we talked a little bit about your warehouse workers and how you pay them higher than average, there's no turnover and they find ways to save you money and increase your profit. Can you give an example of maybe what we talked about there? I don't remember the specific details … a thing to do with honestly this cardboard boxes so- Bill: Yeah. Joe: [inaudible 00:15:12.13] I might have tuned out a little but the overall picture was you took care of your people and you paid them well. They appreciated it and I think that they saved you a fair amount of money just by being loyal to you. Bill: Yeah so Joe what you're referring to is we do all of our own warehouse and logistic. So instead of using a 3PL, we've got a warehouse and we've got a crew here that packs boxes. We ship them out of here. And if I talk to other e-commerce entrepreneurs either A. they outsourced their 3PL and complain about how much their 3PL sucks. Or they operate their own warehouse and complain about turnover and how hard it is to manage a warehouse. So going into it we pay our folks here in the warehouse easily 30 to 40 or more percent more than the minimum wage that they can get somewhere else. And occasionally we bring temps in and they go oh my God for less money I was putting chickens in bags in an unconditioned warehouse last week this is amazing. And we've had … unfortunate to say because we pay well we have had zero turnovers in our warehouse. And our warehouse crew they're not packing Elements Brands orders in between packing other companies orders. So they're thinking about our problems all day. And we had our warehouse manager, she came to me and said I've been looking at the way all the laundry detergent comes in on pallets and I think it's not optimal. If we switch from eight packs to 12 packs I can fit X% more bags on a pallet and stack it higher and use more the footprint and it's going to save us 20 plus percent shipping per bag. And we did it and we saved five figures because of that. And a 3PL would never do that for you or a VA that is not physically present could never see that stuff and even notice it. What I love about having employees is having people that think about Elements Brands all day every day. Like they think about it in the shower, think about it on their commute to work, like it's the thing that they do. It's their job and their career and they want to be good at it so I just love it a lot. Joe: So by taking care of them and putting a good environment together, a good employment package for them what does it do for you and the other folks that are focused on building the brands and building a larger portfolio? Are you able to put more focus on that and less nitty gritty on some of the other things? Bill: Yeah I mean I at this point … so I just went on my honeymoon that for two weeks we went ironically to Thailand. Joe: You sat on the beach but you weren't alone, that's good. Bill: Yeah so I'm not alone I was [inaudible 00:17:39.6] yeah thanks. And while I was there you know I was halfway around the world and spotty cell service and I was basically fully disconnected and the team ran the business in a fully … to use a digital nomad term fully automated way. But it's not automated because I've got 22 people that come in here and they want to be good at their jobs. And they've got their own managers who come in to work every day and see them and if they don't come and there's … everybody says hey where are you I didn't see you today, is your stock end gone? So for me, I found that when I was working with VAs because there is no senior person who the buck stops with, that person is you. You can never really unplug. You might be able to travel or you might be able to unplug for a week but when you unplug for a week everything kind of stops; like nothing moves forward. It might be in stasis but nothing moves forward. So when I was gone for two weeks I came back and we had launched the targeting marketing campaigns and we wrote a new product and it had progressed pipe on. Stuff actually moves forward without me because we've got senior people with accountability and a bonus structure that incentivizes them. As such they come into work every day without me. So I think in a way being really committed and put down some roots and commit to not just being in one place but also commit to your people they commit back to you and it lets you have even more freedom than if you pursued this digital nomad thing hardcore. Joe: And the reality is that it's not just the digital nomad thing where you're having more freedom because you're not doing that. You can disconnect and recuperate on your honeymoon in Thailand on the beach for instance. But the beautiful thing is that while you are away you're not stressed about it and other people are working hard to make money for you. Bill: Yeah. Joe: They're getting paid for it and getting paid well for but that's really truly a beautiful thing. So you have 21, 22 people on staff. That can be one of the hardest things to do; it's to find good people. Do you have any secrets or tips on your process on how to find the right people and your interview process or techniques or just vetting them in getting to the cream of the crop? Bill: Yeah so as you alluded to hiring is the most important thing in business. And the more people I hire the more I realize how critical it is. Like the bigger, we get every time we hire somebody if I introduce one toxic person or one slacker into this group it poisons the whole well. So it gets harder and harder to get a job here as we get bigger and bigger which I don't know if I would get hired at my own company today. So we do a series of written application with there are some gotchas in there where you have to follow directions extremely precisely and if you don't you are disqualified. If you make it through the written application without stepping in it you get a phone screen. I try to keep those phone screens to 15, 20 minutes and during that time what I'm trying to figure out is A. do you really want this job or do you just apply to everything on the internet, B. are your salary expectations in line with what we intend to pay for this job, and C. are you somebody just off the top that I think has a positive personality that I want to work with. And you can do that in 15, 20 minutes if you would cut out the small talk; if you get right to it. Joe: And are you making every hiring decision or do you do the initial vetting or somebody else does it? Bill: So it used to be that I did everything. Now where at a point where my employees do the written application, phone screen, and the next bit of the process is a written assignment where it will say like in the case of if we're hiring somebody to work on Amazon we'll say here's one of our Asense what do you think could be improved? No length limit, go and we'll see when you get back. Or if we're hiring a graphic designer we'll say something like make an info graphic about go … something anybody can do, something that's pretty broad but you're going to know if somebody is a good graphic designer based on the effort that they put in and then the quality of that work output. And make sure homework assignments are good we typically bring in two to four for in person interviews and I sit in on the in person interview. And if you do well in the in person interview you're hired. And my message to the team is I'm never going to tell you we have … I'm never going to force you to hire someone you don't want to work with but I might veto somebody that I don't think is right for the company. Joe: Okay, so you get that certain veto power for sure. If they're not reporting directly to you, you let others make the decisions. Bill: Well up to the final interview, yes. Joe: Up to the final interview; got you. So if you're sitting with a group of e-commerce entrepreneurs that have physical products are you generally advocating bringing on staff and having your own warehouse as opposed to outsourcing or are you simply saying it's got to be right for you and you got to do what's right for your situation? Bill: Different models are good for different people. I think the … what I see myself as doing and the model that I've become convinced is very good in a lot of situations and people don't fully give a fair shape to is hiring full time employees and not hiring gig based contractors. And those full time employees … I think it's awesome if they're in the same physical location as you but even if they're not, if they're full time and you have video with them one on one every day and you create this personal relationship such that they don't have any other clients and such that they begin to build up a confidence about your business so you don't have to explain to them the task you want done at the beginning of every task. You want to build up this surf of confidence where they just know about your business and you can say hey do that and so much as widen it because they already work for you. So what I tend to advocate for is people really want to create this web of outsourcers or gig based people, I can say find a person … like you probably live in a town or near a town of a sizable amount of people and sizeable would be 100,000 or 200,000. Try to find somebody … consider finding somebody locally that's talented that's not a bottom of the barrel price type of person. Find a quality person locally and it will unlock you as a CEO because your time is way too valuable to be spent typing into at a box on Upwork in describing to someone how they should scrape locations from a website that you should not be doing that. So if you're willing to pay somebody $50,000 a year which if you're in the in the freelance world they're like holy crap it is like [inaudible 00:23:49.8] the money, right? But $50,000 a year buys you a college educated American in your town likely or less even who is probably pretty smart and got a good GPA. And he will come in every day and you can teach them. That's a good requirement. Joe: And be very very well. What about finding experts in certain areas that may not be available in your town? If you want to outsource your Facebook advertising and your Google advertising are you training and doing that in-house and putting them through courses and programs or are you hiring agencies to do that type of work? Bill: Yeah, so we … the answer is both with the preference for hiring and training. So when we're absolutely pinched we use agencies but we have hired and trained a bunch of people in Amazon specifically. I've put people through courses on Amazon. I put people through courses on Facebook ads. I put people through courses on YouTube because if you hire a smart person who did well in school you just say guess what this is graduate degree. I'm going to spend a couple thousand dollars, I'm going to put you through these courses, and I'm going to train you then on the fly. You're going to do … you're going to learn for 4 hours in the course and you're going to learn from the person you report to for 4 hours a day and before you know it you're up the curve in a month, maybe two. I find about two months is before is the curve until someone can be dangerous. Joe: Is there any particular online programs and courses that you always dwell that you go to? Bill: I've used Ezra's courses a fair bit; Ezra Firestone. I've used the guys at amazing.com, they operate a 40 bucks a month kind of subscription and there's a bunch of courses in there so I picked out a few. I've used the copyrighting course by [inaudible 00:25:29.4] for some people to just kind of learn and write e-commerce copy that converts. Those are ones that come to mind. Joe: Yeah for the folks that are- Bill: I basically look- Joe: I'm sorry Ezra's course is the Smart Marketer. We sat Ezra on the podcast. We actually just had a podcast go off, it will be a few weeks back once this airs with Bret Curry who created another course with Ezra on monetizing YouTube; smartmarketer.com you can find a lot of great courses there. I'm sorry, continue. Bill: There are others but if you invest a couple of thousand dollars in hiring someone you can create talent that you can't find in almost any city. I mean we live in this world where there is incredible amount of information available on the Internet in courses and it's relatively cheap. I mean a few grand you can … if you … people complain oh there's no Amazon expert, you can't hire them anywhere. Well, you can you should train them though. Joe: I love what you just said; you can create talent that you can't find by spending a couple thousand dollars on a course and finding the right person to go through it essentially getting their graduate degree. And you know what it does? It makes them employable for the rest of their life either with you or remotely if they decide to move on some day or maybe they'll become an entrepreneur themselves. That last point though, become an entrepreneur themselves, what do you do if anything in regards to non-competes? Because you're teaching a lot of people how to compete with you and they could step out of Elements Brands and perhaps go and launch their own business that might be competing with similar products. Do you have NDAs in place when you hire people? Bill: Yup, we do. We have non-competes and NDAs. I view it as once I train them and make them great it's now my responsibility to make sure they want to keep working for me. I want to give them access to nine soon to be 10 brands that they can work on. I mean I'm sure all the entrepreneurs out there listening remember you're like God I read all these articles but I can't do AB testing when I have 100 hits a week. Well I can teach them how to AB testing on a site that has 100 hits a minute. And you can do … pull in big leverage is just fun. So I got to make sure that they're having fun with me. And if somebody wants to go out and do their own thing I mean at this point nobody is running the whole business. My marketing folks are running marketing, they have no idea how the warehouse works. They have no idea how supply chain works. So it's harder than you would think for some of your employees to kind of see the whole business. And also … and this is the thing that I've really come to realize, I used to be of this mind that entrepreneurship is for everyone and everyone should be an entrepreneur and it is the best thing you could possibly do with your life. And I've started to realize that that's not true. There are a ton of people out there that don't want any part of this entrepreneurship thing and think it's stressful and uncertain and lonely and all these and they're just not cut … I don't even want to say they're not cut out for it. I'm saying their personality type is not fulfilled by it. So there's lots of really bright excellent people out there that are not entrepreneurs and they want to be employees and they want to be employed by a great company. And sometimes I interview people that I think they're to entrepreneurial and it makes them not a good fit. Joe: Right. And you know just to summarize everything I think you've done just that Bill, you've sort of … you're pulling big levers but you've checked all the boxes I think to someday have a sizable exit if you ever choose to do that. It could be 40, 50 years from now. It will be the one in buffet of the e-commerce world right there at Charlotte, North Carolina. But you're building amazing brands. You're really focused on building brands with great quality products and you're taking control of the whole process from beginning to end from the marketing to the fulfillment of it and you're taking care of your people. You're creating a local base of people that are going to focus on and think of your company first and helping building more value for the company, profits for the company that I have the feeling you go ahead and pay them back for through better facilities and more vacation time and bonuses and benefits and all that type of thing. You seem like a great guy to work for. If I ever decide to move on I might just try to fill up one of those applications but I think you'll probably stump me and I'll get thrown into the trash. Bill: We got a room in [inaudible 00:29:34.9] Joe. Joe: I won't pass. I won't pass, I know for sure. I'll just come down and have lunch with you instead. Bill, listen I know you've got to jump to another call. I appreciate your time thanks for sharing your story, your success on building a great brand, company environment, and not living that digital nomad lifestyle and creating more freedom for yourself. Hopefully, the folks will take some nuggets from this and do that as well. Bill: Yeah thanks for having me on Joe. Good to see you, man. Joe: Talk to you soon.   Links and Resources: Element Brands Bill's Blog Bill's Twitter Upcoming Quiet Light e-commerce conference attendance: Prosper Show T & C Summit Blue Ribbon Mastermind CapCom Conference

Bill Bodine is a graduate of the soon to be University of Lynchburg with both undergraduate and graduate degrees there.  Much of his career was spent in healthcare, but he is now the President and CEO of the Greater Lynchburg Community Foundation, which was formed in 1972 and last year provided grants to local nonprofits and scholarships totaling just under $1.7 million.   The Interview Transcript   Hugh Ballou: Welcome to The Nonprofit Exchange. This is Hugh Ballou. My guest today is a dear friend of mine who I have known for less than a year because I have been in Lynchburg, Virginia for less than a year. He was one of the first people I met at a rotary breakfast. Bill Bodine. He runs an organization that is now known as the Lynchburg Community Foundation. Bill Bodine, welcome to The Nonprofit Exchange. Bill Bodine: Glad to be here. Appreciate it. Hugh:And there are people who are watching it on video and listening to the podcast. I like to start out these sessions by asking my guest to tell us about themselves, your journey. How did you end up doing this really important work that you do? Bill:Mostly luck, Hugh. I'm originally from New Jersey. I ended up in Lynchburg via Lynchburg College, which in two weeks will be the University of Lynchburg. I didn't necessarily intend to stay, but I got a job working in health care right out of college. The longer I was here, the more I liked it. I have been a resident of Lynchburg now for about 40 years. I know I don't look nearly that old. Hugh:You don't. Bill:It's true. It's true. As far as getting into fundraising, I spent most of my career in health care. I was really looking for something that I could be more excited about and feel like I was making a real difference and helping the community. I have served on several boards. It was important to me to find something that was more service-oriented. I luckily saw that at the time, the Greater Lynchburg Community Trust was looking for a president and CEO because my predecessor was retiring. I went after the job and three years ago, they gave it to me. I have loved that. It's been a little bit of a circuitous journey, but I finally figured out what I want to be when I grow up. Hugh:Oh, I don't think men ever grow up. Bill:I don't know if I ever will, but at least I figured out what I want to be. It's been really enjoyable. Hugh:And you and I both drive convertibles. Bill:We do. We do. I have a little Miata that I try not to get in trouble with. Not driving it today because it's too darn hot with the top down. Hugh:It's 97 in Lynchburg. Bill:I know it's crazy. Next time it cools down, I'll be in it. Hugh:Probably had the remarks about, “Oh, it's a mid-life crisis.” Bill:That would be true if I was in midlife. Hugh:It's too late. Bill:A late-life crisis. More accurately. I have always enjoyed driving cars, and it's a fun car to drive. I know your Mustang is a lot of fun. Hugh:It is fun. It's fun to go slow. Bill:It's fun. I'm not in a hurry. I just enjoy the journey. Hugh:It takes getting some age on. Also, the wisdom of leadership is impacted by our journey and our age. You came into this leadership position, I don't think by dumb luck. I think people looked at you and said, “Oh, this guy can do it.” From what I've heard from people, you have stepped up to that plate. Bill:I feel like things are going well. I think the things that I bring to it are I really enjoy people. I enjoy talking with people. I have a passion for the mission of the organization. If you have that, you are more than halfway toward doing what you really need to do. I have a great story to tell, and I enjoy telling it. People are willing to listen. That's been nice. Hugh:What does leadership mean? You lead an organization that leads and supports leaders of organizations. There is no real membership. Bill:There is no membership. My leadership stems from the fact that we touched 175 nonprofit organizations last year alone in terms of providing grant money. I get to interact with a lot of other leaders. I try to help them fine-tune their grant application process. I also try to pay attention to what the needs of the community are. How can we work together, and how can we best serve others? The leadership part of it comes from being in a chair that touches a lot of other leaders in terms of the grants and trying to make this a better community in any way we can. That's just a byproduct of the job, but I enjoy that, too. Hugh:I picked up something. You just revealed our topic today: grants, and how to do a better job of applying for grants. You slipped in something there, and I'm going to pull it out. You work with people so they do a better job. People just don't know how to apply for grants mostly. Bill:It's all over the board, Hugh. Some people are really good at it and have a lot of experience doing it. Quite honestly, some of the smaller nonprofits that we work with, that's not what people are trained to do or have done or have a lot of time to do. A lot of the smaller nonprofits are making things work with as few staff as they can and as little resources as they can. What I've found is that it's helpful to work with people and speak with them about fine-tuning their grant. What I want to do is give them the best opportunity for success. Our foundation is not there to hold onto money. Our foundation is there to give that money away according to our donors' wishes. The better job I can do helping people access those funds means I do a better job for our donors. That's really what it's about. Hugh:That's amazing. I don't think everybody understands that. This is a good point to make. I posted on the web page some of the questions we're going to address that came from you because you know what you're talking about. Bill:Maybe. Depends on who you ask. Hugh:Part of my career I served megachurches. I was in the interview process in the five biggest megachurches at the same time. Nobody knew what questions to ask. That was amazing. I pretty much had to provide my own questions. Bill:It helps things go smoother if we have an idea of what we're going to talk about. Hugh:Or to get to the bottom line. What is it we need to know about this? Let's start at the top. If I'm going to make a grant request- I run a 501(c)3. It's a foundation. I give away services. I don't give away money. I help people leverage what they have and attract money. Part of my work could conceivably be preparing people to do this process. What I tell my nonprofits is that funders are gonna look at the impact of your work, what results it will create. I want to check my accuracy. If we give you this money, what results will it produce? They will also look at your team. Can they really implement it? Are those the factors that are high? Bill: Those are the big deal. That is the real meat and potatoes of it. You could actually go back to a baseline. One of the first things I would tell people is if you are going to apply for a grant, make sure you review what exactly the grantor is looking for in terms of information. It surprises me occasionally how many applications we get that are incomplete because people have not thoroughly read what it is we are asking for. We get grant applications that come in without a list of the board of directors, which is one of the things we ask for. I would encourage people at the very baseline of it to read very carefully what the requirements are for the grant application, and make sure you include all that information. That seems basic and elementary, but it surprises me how many of them we get that are not fully completed. First and foremost, make sure you understand what that grantor is looking for and what their requirements are in applying for them. Make sure it's complete because it's a little bit like when you write your resume, make sure you spell things correctly. First impressions are important. That is maybe the first step. But you're absolutely right. We like to know first of all what do you want the money for, and how is that going to help my community be a better place? How is that going to satisfy the wishes of the donors who have given us the money in the first place? First and foremost, I am bound by their wishes and their desires. My responsibility is to use the money that our donors have provided as wisely as possible and as closely to their various intents as possible. Hugh: I want to introduce you to somebody who got stuck on the viewer side of this, who is my co-host. He has been AWOL here. Russell David Dennis is joining us in this podcast from Denver, Colorado. I thought you were maybe having technical difficulty today. Russell showed up a year and a half ago and was very consistent with this. Russell is one of our WayFinders. It is our antidote to a consultant. It's a WayFinder. We guide you; we don't tell you what to do. We help you define what you're going to do. Russell has been through the whole methodology of SynerVision, and he is now one of our bonafide WayFinders. I made him co-host. He outshines me many times. I like to say I pale in comparison. I've used that line. Russell, welcome. You're muted. Russell Dennis: Greetings. I had to turn to my tablet. My computer has been loading updates all morning, and it doesn't seem to want to finish. Hugh: Welcome to the party. I already warned him that my co-host has the zingers of the questions. He is braced for ya. I'm getting chats from across the screen. Russell, we're talking about grants today and what makes a good grant request. So far, Bill has validated our premise that we need to have worthy goals in terms of what difference we are going to make, and people on board to do that. Bill, people maybe do read the requirements. You think they just forget? Or they weren't careful? I guess you go back to people and resubmit. Bill: We do. We review all the applications. Before we put them in front of our distribution committee, we review them for completeness and accuracy. We try to track down questions we know they might ask. But yeah, it's hard to know the reasons, Hugh, why people don't always include everything. Sometimes they don't have the information, and sometimes they forget, and sometimes they are just flustered by the process and don't think it through well enough. Whatever the reasons, again, what we want to do is help people be as successful as possible. I just throw that out there as step one. Make sure you read the requirements and do your best to fulfill them. If you have a question or problem, call us, or call whomever you are applying to and ask for their help. Hugh: Are there community foundations in every area in the country? Bill: Just about. When the Greater Lynchburg Community Foundation was formed in 1972, there were probably about 30 community foundations nationally. We know from the Council of Foundations in Washington that in 1975, there were only 50. So we were formed in ‘72. There are now over 850. So they are all over the place now. A community foundation is a little different from family foundations or corporate foundations. Often family foundations and corporate foundations have more specific purposes. Ours is probably more general. We have more general purposes than a lot of other foundations. We cover the waterfront. As I mentioned before, we gave grants to 175 nonprofits in Lynchburg and the four surrounding counties last year alone. We will support basic human needs, the arts, historic preservation, the environment, all kinds of things. Most foundations you'll find have a little bit narrower focus. That's true for hospital foundations, the United Way for example. All of them do fantastic work. But our reach is a little broader. For some people, that fills in. Hugh: It fills in some gaps I would imagine. Bill: Yeah, it does. We have a flexibility that appeals to people. The other thing is community foundations are intended to be forever. We are perpetual. The appeal we have for people is that you can set up a fund, name it after your grandmother or whomever you want, and it will be here long after you're gone and probably after your children are gone. It leaves a legacy. That is one of the appeals to community foundations. Hugh: I found more and more people who are interested in the legacy component. They are the instigator. They start this thing. But they are not going to be around forever. We want to have impact that goes on after our lifetime. There is a value. When they get money and enough money that they put it under management, you assist with that. Bill: Our purpose is to grow the fund and to distribute monies annually or more often than that sometimes from that fund, but continue to grow it so it continues to expand and lasts as long as the world lasts is the idea. People like that. Hugh: I'm hearing some fundamental principles. One, which we talked around, is pick up the phone and call. I don't think people do that who are applying for grants. Maybe not all foundations are equally as successful as yours. Bill:Well, I don't know about that. I haven't worked at other foundations. I've talked to some colleagues. I think we are all generally here for the same purpose, which is to help people out and help the community be as seamless as possible. I really love it when someone calls me and says, “Hey, can I talk to you about this grant? I've been thinking about this proposal. Can you help me fine-tune it a little bit?” I do a lot of that. Hugh:Part of our due diligence, and Russell worked 11 years on an Indian reservation and he did grants, he comes up with another experience. Part of our job is to do our due diligence to learn about the grantor. What is the purpose of the grant? What requirements are there? Will what we want funded match up with what you want to fund? And spell the name right. Bill:Sure. We get applications that are for things we can't do. If an organization is renting a building, and they come to us and ask for renovations to that building, that is something we really won't do because we don't pay for renovations to a building that is not owned by the organization. We only provide money to nonprofits, and we don't want to improve a building for a landlord. We want to help that organization. I try to guide people not to do those kinds of things. We typically don't like to pay operating costs such as salaries. We need to hire a new person and we need this for a salary. We'd rather not do that. We'd rather put our donors' money toward programs, resources that go directly to help people, and that sort of thing. That is part of the guidance I try to provide. I don't want people to waste their time or our time with an application that I know is just not going to perform. Hugh:One of the deficits we see often is that there is an organization trying to fly by tradition and history by the seat of their pants without a strategy. By the way, Russell, he is a fellow musician. He is an actor/musician. He has been a professional production for the past couple of weeks, so he far exceeds my capabilities. We need a map. What do you sing when? When do you go off stage? When do you go on stage? When do the trumpets play? The way we think is there is a core map for where we're going and how we're going to get there and what kind of impact we're going to have. That gives us substance for our thinking. When people are looking at funding, if there is a deficit in leadership or lack of strategy, are those pieces what we might call capacity-building? Are there capacity-building grants for them to up their game so to speak? Bill:There are. There certainly are. For example, let's say somebody needs new computer equipment. We have helped people with that before, but only if we understand what they are going to use that computer equipment for. If you apply for a grant saying, “I need new computers,” that's great, and we can assume a certain number of things. What I'd really like to see is “We need these computers because we are putting them in front of school-age children to make them more familiar with technology. It will impact 80 kids.” That kind of detail is very helpful. If it's capacity-building, that's great, but what are you building that capacity for? What's your plan? Anything like that is more helpful than not having that information. Hugh:Russell, you're here and smiling. I'm sure you have some reflections or additional questions for Bill Bodine. You sat on the other side approaching grantors. This stuff, I'm sure, rings true for you, does it not? Russell:Yes, it does. One of the biggest mistakes people make is to contort what they're doing into the requirements of a funding source they are not familiar with. To back up further than that, the number one reason grant proposals are turned down is because they don't follow instructions. If you do that with a government grant, I have sat on grant panels for three years, if they don't follow the instructions, we don't even read it. It goes on the pile. I have seen some bad proposals. It may be a really good one, but because they didn't follow the instructions… There is a strategy to this. The first piece of that is making sure you're talking to the right source. You get these applications that don't fit what you're doing because people will sit and do a shotgun/M50 machine gun approach where they apply to 150 foundations and see what sticks. Bill:Like a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. That's not good. Russell:And it doesn't work. There is a strategy and a process. I have mind-mapped that a bit. I need to build a course on that. I have a couple of courses, but that's one I need to build. I'm working on one for donors, too, at the moment. There is a strategy and there is a process. Everybody that sends you a grant proposal should be calling you on the phone and talking to you just to get clear because the guidelines are out there, the instructions are out there, the requirements are out there, but when you take a few minutes to call, ask about some things. Please do your homework, folks. You don't want to ask people information that is already on the website. What you really want to do is get a feel of what is going on between the lines. Are there some things within this broad category that are really important to the foundation right now? What sort of things have they funded recently? Talk a little bit about your project. I'm thinking about does this fit in what is important to you? If not, what would be more of a fit? Would it be all right if I send you a proposal based on what you're thinking? Hugh:Can I slate that data point for just a second? What he outlined was an exploratory conversation. What does that look like from what you sit? Sorry to interrupt you, Russell. I just wanted to capture that. To me, that was a notable sound bite. Bill:Russell and I are definitely on the same page here in terms of making sure you follow the instructions. But also what he said is really important about knowing what the grantor is and what resonates with them. The other piece is: What is a reasonable amount to ask for? All these foundations have different amounts they are comfortable providing. With our foundation, we gave away $1.7 million last year alone, but it went to 175 different nonprofits. That includes scholarship money for high school students going to college. The amount of money that we have is not as huge as many community foundations might be, and it gets spread out over a large number of agencies. If someone asks us for $100,000 today, that is not something we can really do without taking away from our other responsibilities. I like to sort of give people an idea of what is a reasonable amount to ask for and what we can do. That tends to be helpful, I think. That is another piece. Russell:That is knowing what your source is all about. Community foundations, which is a donor-advised fund because people have purposes, is it always is in the guidelines. You will see a range of funding that is awarded. That breaks things down into pieces, put them in sequence. What can you accomplish with that? It's understanding how much you have and how much you need. Here is the thing that I want to stress to any nonprofits out there who are listening. It's every bit as difficult, if not more, to get this money into the hands of people who will make good use of it than it is to apply for it and get it. Community foundations, a lot of family foundations are running lean. They don't have all the people and tools that they have to try to give technical support to these nonprofits. What a community foundation does is work with smaller organizations. Finding good projects is really difficult. You have to put yourself in their shoes and understand that it's not just difficult for you to get the money, it's difficult for them to find projects to invest in and make sure that money is making the impact it's intended. Bill:That's right, Russell. The biggest sense of responsibility I have is to remember that it's not my money. This was money provided to us by donors, individuals, corporations, and families who have a dream. They really have a desire to do something important with that money. I always have to remember that I need to find things that are worthy of those desires and that I am fulfilling that responsibility. If I don't, I am not only letting those people down, but I am also possibly ruining potential contributions to the foundation to continue that purpose. That is a real responsibility that I feel strongly about. Hugh:While Russell is formulating his difficult question… As you're looking at projects, is there any value for looking at collaboration coming to you, like two, three, or four different entities coming to you and saying they are going to do something together? Bill:Very highly. Again, getting back to that core value of trying to do the most good for the community we possibly can with our ultimately limited resources, any time we can encourage collaboration- One of the things we are in a good position to do in my spot is look for gaps in services and look for overlap. There is a lot of both quite frankly. So trying to get some of the smaller nonprofits to talk to each other, it might be the people providing food or shelter or furniture, or even arts organizations. How can we encourage collaboration with the ultimate purpose being how we can get our dollars to work as efficiently as possible and to do the most good they can do. Yeah, Hugh, that's a vital point. You hit on something really important. We have to try to encourage collaboration. We just started to scratch that surface. Hugh:Maybe there is a place SynerVision could play in facilitating some conversation. Bill:I think so. Hugh:We have to get Russell over here from Denver. Bill:If I lived in Denver, I'm not sure I'd ever leave. Maybe we can get Russell to come because Lynchburg is great, too. Russell:I'm happy to come out there and see what's happening now. I have some friends out in Virginia Beach. I have excuses to come over and poke around and have some fun. The challenge that you talked about of getting people to collaborate, this scarcity thinking that I'm not going to share my resources with anyone, is trying to get people to break out of that way of thinking. I think even something as simple as saying we encourage collaboration on projects that involve collaboration between a number of entities that are different from what is out there will be given extra special consideration so that maybe triggers something in people's minds to say let's talk to other people. There seems to be a lot of resistance to that. I don't know why. More hands makes the work lighter. Bill:I think you're right. I think we need to get at the sources of those feelings. Some people may have a control issue. I need to control this so I can make sure it goes in the direction I want it to go in. Or some of it is just not knowing who the other leaders out there are. If we can identify those reasons, then we can appeal to those people based on whatever their sensitivity is. Maybe we can provide assurances and say, “If we combine with this other group and they provide a service, you can still run that. You can still be in charge of that. Let's say if we can't strengthen your organization by getting some help from over here,” or whatever your trigger is. If we can identify those, then we may have a chance to approach it properly with a chance for success. Hugh:You could apply for one of the grants at SynerVision. You could say, “Hey, we want to fund this project. We are going to ask for SynerVision to group you together and come up with a plan to present this to us.” It would be the work that we do, facilitating people collaborating.  Bill:And the carat for them is these funds are available in terms of the grant. You have to figure out- Just like with donors. What is their hot button? What appeals to them? When you hit resistance from people who maybe are not willing to collaborate, maybe they are in that overused term of being in their own silos—that is the buzz phrase for the year—but whatever it is, and we can figure out what that is and address that, then we maybe have a chance to hook up some of these collaborations. Hugh:It's an exploratory conversation first. Get some knowledge. Part of what I see, and I think you have, too, is people don't understand how to collaborate or how to get it started. We think consensus and collaboration are the same as- What's the other side? Compromise. A lose-lose. A consensus is a win-win. A collaboration is how we do consensus. We come together with a common purpose and a common mind. Actually, we can make the dollars go further because we are making lighter work for everybody. Bill:Sometimes it's just that people are paddling as hard as they can and they don't feel they have time. Who wants to go to another meeting unless you're sure it will be extremely beneficial? Some of it is just battling that. Whatever it is, we ought to be able to figure it out and address it. Hugh:I think it's a new way of effectiveness here. Our initials, people in business invest money for ROI. In nonprofits, people invest money for ROL, return on life. How we get there is ROR, return on relationship. What you're talking about is let's develop a relationship with the funder to know that we're in sync. We were both smiling when you were talking about the intent of the donor. We ask people why they want to serve on the board and what they want done with their money. We don't really go there because we don't think about it. So really, how do we understand the intent of the donor? Russell, you had some time. Come back to Bill here with a goodly framed question. Couldn't get that out. Russell:That is why I left the IRS. People started thinking I was this horrible, scary guy, and that's just not true. Hugh is trying to turn me into this evil quizmaster that will send the guest running for the exit. That's not the truth. You talked about getting the money into programs. I think that a lot of this scarcity thinking is really centered around the fact that for some nonprofits, because they don't have diverse funding, they're worried about how to keep the lights on and pay the bills that eats up a lot of our resources. How much of that do you think is a factor in people not collaborating? Bill:It's hard to quantify it. That's a good question. It is a factor. I think we can safely say it's a big factor. What percentage? I would have a hard time putting my fingers on that. That's part of the job is trying to make sure you're helping people take care of those basic needs so that they feel more available or open to diving deeper into this stuff. I don't really know if that answers your question, but I think you have identified a big factor. How to quantify that, I'm not sure. In different organizations, it varies widely, I would guess. Russell:That falls in line with the airline safety theory of putting your own mask on first. People really feel they would actually be taking something away from themselves to collaborate when in fact they might find some extra resources for their programs. This is the motivation for trying to find other ways. We live and die by the grant. We did have some private donors and other sources. When I was working for the tribe, we spent a whole lot of time focusing on grants as opposed to any other sources of revenue. We did try to start some businesses. There is a lot of snake oil out there. You have to keep your eyes open. That diversity of funding is important, and building relationships with donors is critical. That funding usually has more flexibility on the bottom end. When we start getting into the top end of the donors, they are usually a little bit more focused with what they want to see happen with that money. It's trying to get other sources of revenue in the door. Grants are not intended to keep you operating. They are for special purposes: to build them, test them until you can make them sustainable. That's another mistake folks make with grants. Bill:The other comment I would make on that is you are exactly right. The other thing is grants, we tell people that you can't put us in your budget for next year and assume you will get a grant every year. We have two grant cycles a year. We evaluate those separately every cycle. You can't count on that grant income. If you're good at it, you may have a good track record. You really have to develop other resources for funds that are steadier than that. I guess you found that with your Native American work. Hugh:When you review people, they have to submit financials or something. Do you look for alternate sources of funding? Bill:Yes, we do. It's one way you judge the strength of the organization. Do they have other sources of funds? I don't really want people who depend solely on us for their annual budget. There are some smaller agencies that probably truth be known they are very dependent on us. It's a stronger application if they can show us other sources of funds or have programs that generate funds. That helps the application. Hugh:There is a lot of data here that I think is helpful to any grant application. Understand what the grantor wants to achieve. Know about them. Follow the directions. Be very clear on the impact of what the money is going to provide. Here is another topic. We don't think about the administrative. I imagine a $5,000 grant would have fewer administrative requirements than a $500,000 grant or a $5 million grant. So there is some reporting back of how the money was utilized. How important is that? Bill:It's really important. Quite honestly, there is not really much difference for us because our grants generally run from a couple thousand to $25,000. We don't do half-a-million dollar grants. The administrative requirements are essentially the same for all the grants we provide. We feel it's our responsibility to our donors that first of all, the money was used for the purpose that was stated, and also that the impact that was expected was achieved or nearly achieved as well as could be done. We require written documentation of all that within a year from receiving the grant so that we can have a record of that and show the money was used for what our donors and we intended it to be used for and what the agency said it was going to be used for. That's a big deal to us. I know there are foundations that struggle with that sort of validation. They will go back later and find out there have been some discrepancies, or that the money wasn't used for what it said it was going to be used for. Whether you get $1,000 from us or $25,000 from us, you have to jump through the same hoops. Russell:If you are going to have a high-performance organization, you should track everything you do. This is strategy as we lay it out. You're tracking everything you're doing. This should not really be a stretch to reach out to your funding sources and say this is what you did. You built the framework, you built the strategy, you're tracking what you're doing, and you're getting it out there. Sometimes, things don't go well. People don't want to be transparent. I went to my mastermind network that I have out here. I put some stuff on the table. I got a lot of suggestions that were helpful. Some of the stuff was very basic, but it's the transparency. Now these folks can help me more than they were ever able to if I hadn't done this. The transparency supported me. Sometimes things don't go as well as they're planned, but we need to be in constant contact and transparent so that we can right the ship and get it back on track. A lot of foundations don't have the resources to track because you guys have to review everything you get back to make sure that project is on track. If you're effective, you're doing that. In structuring these programs, getting back the strategy piece and building things out, you will want to create systems that capture all the information you need, but they're easy to understand, access, and use by the people who are running the programs. If the evaluation tools are too hard, people will not use anything that is hard to implement. It has to be simple. It has to flow in line with their work. As these programs run, they are easy to track. It doesn't become a stretch at the end of the quarter, at the end of year to scramble and finish these reports. Been there, done that. That's how I know. If you got these things as part of your process, you can just roll this stuff out because you are tracking it all the time. Hugh:Part of what he referred to is we teach people when you have a strategy, you have milestones. This is your success. You've reached this. Then a milestone, you have a budget over here. When you pay a dollar, you achieve a milestone, so there is a redundancy in the budget. We find a lot of organizations don't really have any way to track things because they don't have a system in place. It's the Covey principle, as you were talking, Russell, of begin with the end in mind. You're going to have to do a report, so let's think backwards. What do we need to create now so it's not a big deal? The question to you is: Do you have pamphlets or educational materials or trainings for people to master these skills they may not have? Bill:The answer to that is no, we really don't. That is not something we have seen in our role up to now. What we have tried to do is as Russell was saying make it as easy for people as possible. Three years ago, we required paper copies of all applications, ten copies, so you'd get a stack of paper a foot tall from this little agency. Not only that, but all the trees we were killing. We have brought the process online on our website. While you're there, you can look at all the grants we made last year, who we granted to, how much, and for what purpose. We tried to make that as simple as possible and with as few clicks as possible. To your point, Hugh, I think maybe that's one of the next steps. I really see organizations like yours being at the forefront of helping people gain the tools they need to be successful. I don't know that with the staff I have, which is me, another full-time person, and a two-day-a-week accountant, that we could provide a lot of these resources. But there are good people out here like yourself who can do that. We'd certainly be interested in helping out. Hugh:Sure. We might have something we could provide for you. Russell, that was a good point you opened up there. What else are you stirring up in that no-hair head of yours? Bill:It's a good one. I'm not going to make any comments about hair. I'm right behind ya. Hugh:Oh, he has hair! Russell:I'm going to have to take a razor to it because when it comes in, it's pretty gray. I promised myself after I recovered from chemotherapy six years ago, no formula. I'm going to remind myself that I'm on blessed time, I got a few extra days, and I'm going to wear it proudly. That is part of the piece. A lot of nonprofits don't have the budget and development. That's something community foundations- Denver Foundation will provide technical support to grantees who they have granted funds to before. You spread too thin in terms of resources to do that. Partnerships between entities like SynerVision and my company and community foundations makes sense to go in and talk to people and help them get the training they need. Doing that for a community foundation, you touch a lot of entities because I don't know how many organizations you have, but the Denver Foundation probably has somewhere between 200-300 organizations who are grantees and members. That is a common size. To be able to talk to people about these things and to help them and to provide that sort of technical assistance that you haven't been able to provide is still good stewardship. It's about good stewardship and protecting those investments. That is something that benefits grantees and the foundation. It's really about going out and making that impact and supporting one another. Maybe something like a mastermind group from time to time. Some of our community foundations have put on a training event. But a mastermind, I just left a mastermind for my business. Is that something you have thought about with some of the folks you work with? Creating a mastermind group. Bill:That's something that Hugh and I have had conversations about. That's not something I have really envisioned our foundation doing. But I think in collaboration with people like you guys and maybe others, that's something we could work toward. I think it's a great idea. Hugh:Having a conversation with people about the gaps – they will discover something. We will discover what they think they need versus what they really need. The problem with blind spots is you can't see them. It's like your hair, Russell. I am glad it's coming in gray because you have earned every one of them. Are there any pitfalls that we have not identified in this conversation for people who are applying? Bill:I think we have touched on the ones that I can really think of. Make sure you ask for the right kind of things. Make sure you ask for the right amount of money based on what you have been able to find out about the foundation or whomever you are applying to. Make sure your application is complete and according to the requirements specified by the grantor. We have touched on all those things. Those are the key things, Hugh. The other thing I would mention is follow-up. The grant process doesn't end when you get that phone call or that letter that says, “Congratulations, you have been granted such-and-such money,” or the phone call that you might get- It's a good idea to make sure that you thank the organization, that you show a level of gratitude. We all like to feel like it's appreciated. That can only help. Particularly, in a community like ours, where most of these organizations will apply regularly, what you want is to be looked upon favorably as someone who has been A) a good steward of that money and B) appreciated getting it in the first place, and that we develop a relationship where we know who you are, what you're doing, and why you're a good outfit and good people doing good work. Hugh:That's a fundamental principle. I'm so surprised people don't honor it. Bill:Some people are really good at it, but not everybody. The ones who are good at it might be in the minority. But that's an important piece. We all like to be thanked and to have it known that what was done is appreciated and that you take it seriously. I would just encourage the grantees to make sure they do that. Hugh:Attitude or gratitude. I'm thinking back over the in-kind grants I've done. In my symposium, you had a board meeting… Bill:I know. How lame can you get? Hugh:People applied for a grant for that even though it was $40, and they got it. They were very grateful. But there were some small community leaders who didn't have any money who I granted. And only one of them said thank you. One. One. Bill:It is a bit of a lost art. Hugh:It is. Like conversation. We are going to give you the last word here. We try to keep it under an hour. This has been very helpful information.  Bill, this is great. He came over to my house so we could hang out and do this. One day, he'll have a camera on his computer. Bill:I just wanted to come over and check out your house. Hugh:Do you like it so far? Bill:It's great. Hugh:So Bill, what do you want to leave people with? What's a challenge or a tip or a thought you want to leave people with as we are ending this really good interview? Bill:Always remember the work you're doing is critically important. On the days when it feels like things are piling up and you feel varied, you are making a difference. I get to jump out of bed every morning and think, Wow, what can happen that will help the community be a better place to live? That's incredibly motivating. Don't lose sight of it. That's what we're here for. Yeah, it's about fundraising, it's about giving grants, but it's really not. What we're here for is to improve our communities and give people a sense that their money is going to help their fellow man and help their community. The vast majority don't give money to foundations for tax purposes and things like that. It's about philanthropy. We're helping people feel good, and we should feel good about that. Hugh:Most people don't give money because of donations. It's because they want to make a difference. Bill:It's not for taxes. It's because it makes them feel good. They do it with their heart. Hugh:I see you smiling, Russell. Thank you again for being here, my friend. Russell:Always a pleasure. If you don't tell people what difference their dollars are making, they will put them somewhere else. You stay in touch no matter what the results is. Bill, thanks a million. Hugh, thanks for making it through a broadcast without the magic phrase. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Its the return of Brad Carter to the cave! Choo Choo Stu is away on the Isle of Wyte but Big B and DK are supper excited to welcome Brad back. DK proclaims that after being declared sane on last weeks show we are about to prove everyone wrong! Big B and DK have a debate about Canada leaving all their old shoes in the USA and DK argues that we now have legal marijuana. Brad tells us a story about a former caller that is accused of digging a 200 foot tunnel under his home and the possibility that he is a serial killer. Remember our friend Bill? Yes we were trying to place 11 Syrian refugees and a goat in a room he had for rent. Well its time to call him again. First Carol from the Snow Plow Show gives him a call, then Brad gives him a call, then DK gives him a call. Lets just say we think he still hates us. We get a call from Choo Choo Stu's older brother and true the Choo Choo family we lose connection. He announces himself has Bus Driver Bill but his name is Nick. Stu gets on the line and Brad wants to know why he bails everytime hes on. Time for some news......have you ever tried hot dog water? How about a guy who is suing a pharmacy because they told his wife about his viagra prescription, and the #MeToo generation arrives at Netflix. A big announcement! It appears Choo Choo Mania 2 will arrive in September. Who will his opponent be this year. Cave Crew Radio airs live every Thursday at 9pm eastern 6pm pacific on http://www.cavecrewradio.com and exclusive video feed on Facebook Live Here are the links from tonight Listen to Brad Carter on the Snow Plow Show here http://snowplowshow.com Here is Brads last appearance on the show http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-75090/TS-1249842.mp3 The original Call Bill Episode http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-75090/TS-1123135.mp3 Choo Choo Mania 1 http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-75090/TS-1225473.mp3 Links to tonights news stories https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2018/05/court-docs-reveal-new-details-inside-bethesda-tunnel-house/ https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/cvs-michael-feinberg-viagra_us_5b155dcee4b02143b7cecbd0 http://torontosun.com/news/weird/people-cough-up-38-for-hot-dog-water-at-vancouver-festival/wcm/3e5f1336-0266-4896-a7e9-d5315ae1e889 http://torontosun.com/entertainment/television/metoo-much-netflix-reportedly-tells-staff-maximum-eye-contact-length

In a previous conversation with Dr. Bill Smith, we talked about how polygamous sealings were considered nearly permanent.  There are cases in which those can be broken.  After Joseph Smith died, Brigham Young claimed sole possession of the sealing power. Many apostles disagreed. How did it get resolved? Dr. Bill Smith explains in this interview. Does more than one man hold the sealing keys? And who is in charge of breaking sealings?  Is it just one man, or are there several people who can do it? https://youtu.be/D-iErTs19ro Bill:  I think that—opinions sort of vary with this but Brigham Young's divorces where a sealing was involved, I think Brigham Young's divorces that he granted were taken as dissolving the sealing. GT:  Theological?  Ok. Bill:  Which is in perfect harmony with the idea that sealing.  You could do it and you could undo it. GT:  As prophet he had power to loose. Bill: Yes, so that's another big point in the discussion of the book is that in the revelation it's very clear that only one person at a time has this authority to decide you can be sealed, you can't be.  Or, you can engage in polygamy, you can't, kind of thing.  This has all evolved onto a single person.  It even says historically, this is the way it has always been.  I don't know how serious to take that, but it supports the idea that it's really a one-man job.  So, who has the authority to decide?  This is a huge issue in succession.  Because obviously the guy who has this one-man authority is the guy to be in charge, right? At one point, Joseph tries to separate his church presidency from his temple priest position as the one guy.  People don't like this.  They are worried about it.  They don't want to accept Hyrum as the church president and Joseph as saying.  Unfortunately, he is addressing a group, a very small group who is acquainted with his temple theology.  The people who aren't are really upset by this.  “We don't want Hyrum to be the prophet.  You are.”  He can't be the prophet. So, he takes it all back that afternoon.  But yes, he is really speaking to this idea of where things are, and I can't go into the background here, but his sort of presidency of the High Priesthood sort of vaults him into the position of the one guy.  So, after he has died, after he is dead, the apostles weren't in that tradition of High Priesthood. They weren't in there at all.  They try to write themselves in at first, and then they say you can't really do that.  It doesn't work.  So, we have to a new tradition about this. Is adultery grounds for breaking sealings? Bill:  Adultery is a really touchy point within the revelation.  It's a little bit confused.  Also, the whole thing is tied up in this idea where I mention in Matthew about the binding and loosing thing.  That is sort of Mark Staker's thing about Peter, James, and John.  That's connected in there.  So, the text is not perfectly clear.  That's another point I try to make about the revelation. Check out our conversation….. After Joseph Smith died, Brigham Young claimed only he held the sealing power. Many apostles disagreed. Bill Smith tells how the issue was settled. [paypal-donation]  

Adam Zickerman and Mike Rogers interview author, weight lifter, and personal trainer Bill DeSimone.  Bill penned the book Congruent Exercise: How To Make Weight Training Easier On Your Joints  Bill is well known for his approach to weight lifting which, focuses on correct biomechanics to build strength without undue collateral damage to connective tissue and the rest of the body.So, whether you are an aspiring trainer, serious weight lifter, or even an Inform Fitness client who invests just 20-30 minutes a week at one of their seven locations this episode is chock full of valuable information regarding safety in your high-intensity strength training.  A paramount platform of which the Power of Ten resides at all InForm Fitness locations across the country.To find an Inform Fitness location nearest you visit www.InformFitness.comIf you'd like to ask Adam, Mike or Sheila a question or have a comment regarding the Power of 10. Send us an email or record a voice memo on your phone and send it to podcast@informfitness.com. Join Inform Nation and call the show with a comment or question.  The number is 888-983-5020, Ext. 3. To purchase Adam Zickerman's book, Power of 10: The Once-a-Week Slow Motion Fitness Revolution click this link to visit Amazon:http://bit.ly/ThePowerofTenTo purchase Bill DeSimone's book Congruent Exercise: How To Make Weight Training Easier On Your Joints click this link to visit Amazon:http://bit.ly/CongruentExerciseIf you would like to produce a podcast of your own just like The Inform Fitness Podcast, please email Tim Edwards at tim@InBoundPodcasting.comBelow is the transcription for Episode 20 - Author Bill DeSimone - Congruent Exercise20 Author Bill DeSimone - Congruent ExerciseAdam: So there's not a day that goes by that I don't think by the way that I don't think of something Bill has said to me when I'm training people. Bill is basically my reference guide, he's my Grey's Anatomy. When I try an exercise with somebody, I often find myself asking myself, what would Bill do and I take it from there. Without further ado, this is Bill, and we're going to talk about all good stuff. Joint friendly exercises, what Bill calls it now, you started out with congruent exercises, technical manual for joint friendly exercise, and now you're rephrasing it.Bill: Well actually the first thing I did was [Inaudible: 00:00:43] exercise, but the thing is I didn't write [Inaudible: 00:00:45] exercise with the idea that anybody other than me was going to read it. I was just getting my own ideas down, taking my own notes, and just to flesh it out and tie it up in a nice package, I actually wrote it and had it bound it up and sent it off to Greg Anderson and McGuff and a couple others, and it hit a wave of interest.Adam: A wave, they were probably blown away.Bill: Yeah well, a lot of those guys went out of their way to call me to say boy, a lot of what I suspected, you explained here. But when I read it now, it's pretty technical, it's a challenge.Mike: There's a lot of, I think, common sense with an experienced trainer when you think about levers in general, and I think what you did in that manual was make it very succinct and very clear. I think it's something that maybe we didn't have the full story on, but I think we had some — if you have some experience and you care about safety as a trainer, I think you are kind of looking at it and you saw it observationally, and then I think when we read this we were like ah, finally, this has crystalized what I think some of us were thinking.Adam: Exactly. You know what I just realized, let's explain, first and foremost. You wrote something called Moment Arm Exercise, so the name itself shows you have technical — that it probably is inside, right? So moment arm is a very technical term, a very specific term in physics, but now you're calling it joint friendly exercise, and you called it also congruent exercise at one point. All synonymous with each other, so please explain, what is joint friendly exercise or fitness?Bill: It's based more on anatomy and biomechanics than sports performance. So unlike a lot of the fitness fads that the attitude and the verbiage comes out of say football practice or a competitive sport, what I'm doing is I'm filtering all my exercise instruction through the anatomy and biomechanics books, to try to avoid the vulnerable — putting your joints in vulnerable positions, and that's so complicated which is why I struggled with so much to make it clearer. So I started with moment arm exercise, and then I wrote Congruent Exercise, which is a little broader but obviously the title still requires some explanation. And then — how it happened, as for my personal training in the studio, I would use all this stuff but I wouldn't explain it because I was only dealing with clients, I wasn't dealing with peers. Since it's a private studio and not a big gym, I don't have to explain the difference between what I'm doing and what somebody else is doing, but in effect, I've been doing this every day for fifteen years.Adam: I have to say, when you say that, that you didn't explain it to clients, I actually use this information as a selling point. I actually explain to my clients why we're doing it this way, as opposed to the conventional way, because this is joint friendly. I don't get too technical necessarily, but I let them know that there is a difference of why we're doing it this way, versus the conventional way. So they understand that we are actually a cut above everybody else in how we apply exercise, so they feel very secure in the fact that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but I digress.Bill: Generally what I do is any signage I have, a business card, website, Facebook presence, all lays out joint friendly and defines it and kind of explains itself. I would say most of the clients I have aren't coming from being heavily engaged in another form of fitness. They're people who start and drop out programs or they join a health club in January and drop out. It's not like I'm getting somebody who is really intensely into Crossfit, or intensely into Zumba or bodybuilding, and now they're banged up and need to do something different. The joint friendly phrasing is what connects me with people that need that, I just find that they don't need the technical explanation as to why we're not over stretching the joint capsule in the shoulder. Why we're not getting that extra range of motion on the bench press, because again, they haven't seen anybody doing otherwise, so I don't have to explain why I'm doing it this way.Adam: Yeah but they might have had experience doing it themselves. Let's take an overhead press for example, having your arms externally rotating and abducted, versus having them in front of you. There's an easy explanation to a client why we won't do one versus the other.Bill: But I have to say I do not get people who do not even know what a behind the neck press is. Now in Manhattan is a little bit different, more denser.Adam: So for this conversation, let's assume some people know, or understand in a way what the conventional is, but we can kind of get into it. What is conventional and what's not conventional. So it's joint friendly, how is it joint friendly, what are you actually doing to make it joint friendly?Bill: Well the short answer is that I use a lot less range of motion than we've got accustomed to, when we used to use an extreme range of motion. If bodybuilders in the 60s were doing pumping motions, and then you wanted to expand that range of motion, for good reason, and then that gets bastardized and we take more of a range of motion and turn it into an extreme range of motion — just because going from partial motions to a normal range of motion was good, doesn't make a normal range of motion to an extreme range of motion better. And in fact —Adam: What's wrong with extreme range of motion?Bill: Well because —Adam: Don't say that you want to improve flexibility.Bill: Well the HIIT guys who would say that you're going to improve flexibility by using —Adam: HIIT guys means the high intensity training sect of our business.Bill: So the line about, you're going to use the extreme range of motion with a weight training exercise to increase flexibility. First of all, either flexibility is important or it's not, and that's one of those things where HIIT has a little bit of an inconsistency, and they'll argue that it's not important, but then they'll say that you can get it with the weights. That's number one. Number two, a lot of the joint positions that machines and free weight exercises put us in, or can put us in, are very vulnerable to the joints, and if you go to an anatomy and biomechanics textbook, that is painfully obvious what those vulnerable positions are. Just because we walk into a gym or a studio and call it exercise instead of manual labor or instead of — instead of calling it submission wrestling and putting our joints or opponents' joints in an externally rotated abduct and extended position, we call it a pec fly, it's still the same shoulder. It's still a vulnerable position whether it's a pec fly stretching you back there, or a jiujitsu guy putting you in a paintbrush, but I don't know, for most of the pop fitness books though, if anybody else is really looking at this. Maybe not in pop fitness, maybe Tom Pervis —Adam: What's pop fitness?Bill: If you walk into a bookstore and look in the fitness section for instance, any of those types. No offense, but celebrity books, glossy celebrity fitness books, but I don't know that anybody — and the feedback that I've gotten from experienced guys like [Inaudible: 00:08:26] or the guys we know personally, is — even McGuff said yeah, I never associated the joint stuff with the exercise stuff.Adam: Let's talk about these vulnerabilities that you're talking about and extreme ranges of motion. So we have to understand a little bit about muscle anatomy to understand what we mean by the dangers of these extreme ranges of motion. So muscles are weaker in certain positions and they're stronger in other positions. Maybe talk about that, because that's where you start getting into why we do what we do, like understanding that muscles don't generate the same amount of force through a range of motion. They have different torque potentials.Mike: And is there a very clear and concise way of communicating that to a lay person too, like we have practice at it, but in here, we're over the radio or over the podcast, so it's like describing pictures with words.Bill: The easiest way to show it to a client who may not understand what muscle torque is, is to have them lock out in an exercise. Take a safe exercise, the barbell curl, where clearly if you allow your elbows to come forward and be vertically under the weight, at the top of the repetition, clearly all of a sudden the effort's gone. There's no resistance, but if you let your elbows drop back to rib height, if you pin your elbows to the sides through the whole curl, now all of a sudden your effort feels even. Instead of feeling like — instead of having effort and then a lockout, or having a sticky point and then a lockout, now it just feels like effort.Adam: Or a chest press where your elbows are straight and the weights are sitting on those elbows, you're not really working too hard there either.Bill: Same thing. If you have a lockout — what's easy to demonstrate is when the resistance torque that the machine or exercise provides doesn't match your muscle torque. So if your muscle torque pattern changes in the course of a movement, if you feel a lockout or a sticking point, then it's not a line. If all you feel is effort, now it matches pretty evenly. Now here's the thing, all that really means, and part of what I got away for a moment on — all that really means is that that set is going to be very efficient. Like for instance, the whole length of the reputation you're working. It's not like you work and lockout and rest, all that means is that it's going to be a very efficient set. You can't change a muscle torque curve, so if you were just to do some kind of weird angled exercise, you wouldn't get stronger in that angle. All you would do is use a relatively lower weight. Nobody does like a scott bench curl, nobody curls more than a standing curl. You can't change the muscle torque curve, you might change the angle, which means the amount of weight that your hand has change, to accommodate the different torque at that joint angle, but you're not changing where you're strongest. If you could, you would never know you had a bad [Inaudible: 00:11:36], because if the pattern — if the muscle torque pattern could change with a good [Inaudible: 00:11:44], it would also change with a bad [Inaudible: 00:11:47], and then you would never know. Take a dumbbell side raise, everybody on the planet knows it's hardest when your arms are horizontal. Your muscle torque curve can never change to accommodate what the resistance is asking. Now if you go from a machine side raise, which has more even — like where those two curves match, that set feels harder because you don't have to break. You do a set of side raises with dumbbells to failure, if it feels — if it's a difficulty level of ten, of force out of ten, and then you go to a machine side raise and go to failure, it's like a ten, because you didn't have that break built into the actual rep. So the moment arms, knowing how to match the resistance required by the exercise and the muscle torque expressed by your limbs, that makes for a more efficient exercise. In terms of safety, it's all about knowing what the vulnerable positions of the joints are and cutting the exercise short, so that you're not loading the joint into an impingement, or into like an overstretched position.Mike: How different are these…. like thinking about limitation and range of motion on them, we mentioned that before and I think it's kind of adjacent to what you're talking about is — we also want to help people understand that if they're on their own exercising or there are other trainers who want to help their clients, and for our trainers to help our clients… troubleshooting, we know generally how the joints work, where the strength curves exist, but how to discern where those limitations are. Like you said before, that one of the things you do is you limit range of motion and get much more stimulus and muscle.Bill: I'm saying limit range of motion because that might be the verbiage that we understand and maybe listeners would understand, but it's really a lot more complicated than just saying, use this range of motion. So for instance, in a lower back exercise, say a stiff leg or dead lift, which, when I used to misinterpret that by using a full range of motion, I'd be standing on a bench with a barbell, and the barbell would be at shoe level. My knees would be locked, my lower back would be rounded, my shoulders would be up my ears as I'm trying to get the bar off the ground, and so yes, I was using a full range of motion.Adam: That's for sure.Mike: That can be painted for that description.Bill: It's also pretty much a disaster on your lower back waiting to happen, at least on your lower back.Adam: I've got to go to a chiropractor just listening to that.Bill: Exactly, but you still see it all the time. You see it all the time on people using kettle bells, you see that exact posture. The kettle bell is between their legs, their knees are locked, their lower back is rounded, and now they're doing a speed lift. At least I was doing them slow, they're doing speed dead lifts, so if I was going to do an exercise like that, it wouldn't be an extreme range of motion, I'd be looking to use a correct range of motion. So for instance, I wouldn't lock the knees, and I would only lower the person's torso so that they could keep the curve in the lower back. Which might require a rep or two to see where that is, but once you see where that is, that's what I would limit them to.Mike: Do you do it at first with no weight with the client?Bill: That'd be one way of lining it up.Mike: Just sort of seeing what they can just do, make sure they understand the position and stuff.Bill: So for instance, the chest press machine I have in the studio is a Nitro —Adam: [Inaudible: 00:15:37] Nitro.Bill: And it doesn't — the seat doesn't adjust enough for my preference, so the person's elbows come too far back. So for instance, to get the first rep off the ground, the person's elbows have to come way behind the plane of their back, which —Adam: So you've come to weigh stack themBill: Weigh stack, right.Mike: It's like our pull over, you know how we had to pull it over at one point?Bill: So what I'll do is I'll help the person out of the first repetition, help them out of the bottom, and then I'll have my hand to the clipboard where I want their elbow to stop. So as soon as they touch my hand with their elbow, they start to go the other way.Adam: So they're not stretching their pecs too far.Bill: Well more specifically, they're not rotating their shoulder capsule. So that's another thing we tend to do, we tend to think of everything in terms of the big, superficial muscles — right, those are the ones that don't get hurt, it's the joints that [do]. That was one thing of all the stuff I read, whether it was CSCS or Darton's stuff or Jones' stuff, there was always a little murkiness between what was the joint and what was the muscle. That stuff was always written from the point of view of the muscle.Adam: What's a joint capsule, for those that don't know what a joint capsule is. A shoulder capsule.Bill: It's part of the structure of what holds your shoulder together, and so if the old [Inaudible: 00:17:06] machines, 1980 vintage, that bragged about getting such an extreme range of motion, some of them… it really took your shoulder to the limit of where it could go to start the exercise, and we were encouraged to go that far.Adam: And what would happen?Bill: Eventually it just adds to the wear and tear that you were going to have in your shoulder anyway. And that's if people stayed with it, I think a lot of people ended up dropping out.Mike: Often times exacerbating what was going on.Bill: You rarely see, it's occasional that we have that sort of catastrophic event in the gym, it's occasional —Mike: Almost never happens.Bill: A lot of the grief that I take for my material is well, that never happens, people do this exercise all the time, people never explode their spine. Well a) that's not true, they do, just not in that persons' awareness, and b) but the real problem is unnecessarily adding to life's wear and tear on your joints. So it's not just what we do in the gym that counts, if somebody plays tennis or somebody has a desk job or manual labor job — let's say a plumber or some other manual labor guy has to go over his head with his arms a lot, that wear and tear on his shoulder counts, and just because they walk into your gym, and you ask them about their health history, do you have any orthopedic problems and they say no, yes. I'm on the verge of an orthopedic problem that I don't know about, and I've worn this joint out because of work, but no I have no orthopedic problems at the moment. So my thing is, the exercise I'm prescribing isn't going to make that worse.Adam: Well you don't want to make it worse, and that's why you're limiting range of motion, that's why you're matching the strength curve of the muscle with the resistance curve of the tool you're using, whether it's free weight or machine or the cam.Bill: Yeah, we're supposed to be doing this for the benefits of exercise. I do not — I truly do not understand crippling yourself over the magical benefit of exercise. I mean there's no — in 2014, there was a lot of negative publicity with Crossfit, with some of the really catastrophic injuries coming about. There's no magic benefits just because you risk your life, you either benefit from exercise or you don't, but you don't get extra magic benefit because you pushed something to the brink of cracking your spine or tearing your shoulder apart.Adam: Well they talk about them being functional or natural movements, that they do encourage these full ranges of motion because that's what you do in life.Bill: Where? Mike: Well I mean like in sports for example, you're extending your body into a range of motion — and also there are things in life, like for example, like I was saying to Adam, for example, sometimes you have to lift something that's heavy and you have to reach over a boundary in front of you to do so.Bill: Like… putting in the trunk of a car, for example.Mike: Things like that, or even —Adam: So shouldn't you exercise that way if that's what you're doing in every day life?Mike: If your daily life does involve occasional extreme ranges of motion, which that's the reason why your joints of kind of wearing and tearing anyway, is there something you can do to assist in training that without hurting it? Or exacerbating it?Bill: You know it's interesting, 25 years ago, there was a movement in physical therapy and they would have back schools, and they would — it was sort of like an occupational oriented thing, where they would teach you how to lift, and at the time, I thought that was so frivolous. I just thought, get stronger, but lifting it right in the first place is really the first step to not getting injured. Mike: Don't life that into the trunk unless —Bill: Well unless you have to, right? For instance, practicing bad movements doesn't make you invulnerable to the bad movements, you're just wearing out your free passes. Now sport is a different animal, yes you're going to be — again, I don't think anyone is doing this, but there's enough wear and tear just in your sport, whether it's football, martial arts, running, why add more wear and tear from your workout that's there to support the sport. The original [Inaudible: 00:21:52] marketing pitch was look how efficient we made weight training, you can spend more time practicing. You don't have to spend four hours a day in the gym, you can spend a half hour twice a week or three times a week in the gym, and get back to practicing.Adam: I remember Greg [Inaudible: 22:06] said to a basketball coach that if his team is in his gym more than 20 minutes or so a week, that he's turning them into weight lifters and not basketball players.Bill: Well there you go. Now —Mike: The thing is the training and the performance goals in getting people stronger, faster, all that kind of stuff, is like unbelievable now a days, but I've never seen more injuries in sports in my entire life than right now.Bill: It's unbelievably bogus though is what it is. You see a lot of pec tears in NFL training rooms. Adam: So why aren't they learning? Why is it so hard to get across then?Bill: Well for starters, you're going to churn out — first of all you're dealing with twenty year olds. Adam: So what, what are you saying about twenty year olds?Bill: I was a lot more invincible at twenty than I am at sixty.Mike: Physically and psychologically.Bill: The other thing for instance. Let's say you've got a college level, this is not my experience, I'm repeating this, but if you have a weight room that's empty, or, and you're the strength and conditioning coach, because you're intensely working people out, briefly, every day. Versus the time they're idle, they're off doing their own thing. Or, every day the administrators and the coaches see people running hoops and doing drills, running parachutes and every day there is an activity going. What looks better? What is more job security for that strength and conditioning coach? Adam: Wait a second. What is Jim the strength training coach doing? He's working one day a week and what's he doing the rest of the week?Mike: And what's the team doing the rest of the week?Bill: But again, don't forget, if you're talking about twenty something year old athletes, who knows what that's going to bring on later.Adam: You are seeing more injuries though.Bill: Right. A couple of years ago, ESPN had a story on a guy. He had gotten injured doing a barbell step up, so a barbell step up, you put a barbell on your back, you step onto a bench, bring the other foot up. Step back off the bench, four repetitions. Classic sports conditioning exercise, in this guys case either he stepped back and twisted his ankle and fell with the bar on his back, or when he went to turn to put the bar back on the rack, when he turned, it spun on him and he damaged his back that way. Either way, he put his ability to walk at risk, so the ESPN story was, oh look how great that is he's back to playing. Yes, but he put his ability to walk at risk, to do an exercise that is really not significantly — it's more dangerous than other ways of working your legs, but it's not better.Adam: The coaches here, the physical trainers, they don't have evidence that doing step ups is any more effective in the performance of their sport, or even just pure strength gains. Then lets say doing a safe version of a leg press or even squats for that matter.Bill: And even if you wanted to go for a more endurance thing, running stadium steps was a classic exercise, but stadium steps are what, three or four inches, they made them very flat. Even that's safer because there's no bar on your back. So on the barbell step up, which I think is still currently in the NSCA textbooks, the bar is on your back. If the bench is too high, you have to bend over in order to get your center of gravity over the bench, otherwise you can't get off the floor. So now you're bent over with one foot in front of you, so now you don't even have two feet under you like in a barbell squat to be more stable. You have your feet in line, with the weight extending sideways, and now you do your twenty repetitions or whatever and you're on top of the bench, and your legs are burning and you're breathing heavy, and now you've got to get off. How do you get off that bench when your legs are gassed, you're going to break and lock your knee, and the floor is going to come up — nobody steps forward, they all step backwards where you can't see. Mike: Even after doing an exercise, let's say you did it okay or whatever and whether it was congruent or not congruent, sometimes, if it's a free weight type of thing, just getting the weight back on the floor or on the rack. After you've gone to muscle failure or close to muscle failure —Adam: So are these things common now, like still in the NFL they're doing these types of training techniques? Bill: I don't really know what's happening in the NFL or the college level, because frankly I stopped my NSCA membership because I couldn't use any material with my population anyway. So I don't really know what they are — I do know that that was a classic one, and as recently as 2014 — in fact one other athlete actually did lose his ability to walk getting injured in that exercise. Adam: It's cost benefit, like how much more benefit are you getting —Bill: It's cost. My point is that the benefit is — it's either or.Mike: That's the thing, people don't know it though, they think the benefit is there. That's the problem.Bill: They think that for double the risk, you're going to get quadruple the benefit. What, what benefit? What magic benefit comes out of putting your ability to walk at risk?Mike: One of my clients has a daughter who was recruited to row at Lehigh which is a really good school for that, and she, in the training program, she was recruited to go. She was a great student but she was recruited to row, and in the training program, she hurt her back in the weight room in the fall, and never, ever was with the team. This was a very, very good program — Bill: Very good program, so it's rowing, so a) it's rough on your lower back period, and b) I'm completely guessing here, but at one time they used to have their athletes doing [Inaudible: 00:28:22] and other things —Adam: Explain what a clean is —Bill: Barbells on the floor and you either pull it straight up and squat under the bar, which would be like an olympic clean, or you're a little more upright and you just sort of drag the bar up to your collarbones, and get your elbows underneath it. Either way it's hard on the back, but at one time, rowing conditioning featured a lot of exercises like that to get their back stronger, that they're already wearing out in the boat. They didn't ask me, but if I was coaching them, I would not train their lower backs in the off season. I would let the rowing take care of that, I would train everything around their back, and give their back a break, but they didn't ask.Adam: I don't know why they didn't ask you, didn't they know that you're a congruent exerciser?Bill: You've got to go to a receptive audience.Mike: I think because there are things we do in our lives that are outside, occasionally outside our range of motion or outside — that are just incongruent or not joint friendly, whether it's in sports or not. The thing is, I'm wondering are there exercises that go like — say for example you have to go — your sport asks for range of motion from one to ten, and you need to be prepared to do that, if you want to do that, the person desires to do that. Are there exercises where you go — can you be more prepared for that movement if you are doing it with a load or just a body weight load, whatever, up to say level four. Are there situations where it's okay to do that, where you're going a slight increase into that range where it's not comprising joint safety, and it's getting you a little bit more prepared to handle something that is going on.Adam: So for example, for a golf swing, when you do a golf swing, you're targeting the back probably more than you should in a safe range of motion in an exercise. I would never [Inaudible: 00:30:32] somebody's back in the exercise room to the level that you have to [Inaudible: 00:30:34] your back to play golf. So I guess what Mike is asking is is there an exercise that would be safe to [Inaudible: 00:30:41] the back, almost as much as you would have to in golf.Bill: I would say no. I would say, and golf is a good example. Now if you notice, nobody has their feet planted and tries to swing with their upper body.Mike: A lot of people do, that's how you hurt yourself.Bill: But any sport, tennis, throwing a baseball, throwing a punch. Get your hips into it, it's like standard coaching cliche, get your hips into it. What that does is it keeps you from twisting your back too much. In golf, even Tiger who was in shape for quite a while couldn't help but over twist and then he's out for quite a while with back problems.Mike: Yeah, his story is really interesting and complicated. He did get into kind of navy seal training and also you should see the ESPN article on that which really — after I read that I thought that was the big thing with his problems. Going with what you just said about putting your hips into it, I'm a golfer, I try to play golf, and I did the TPI certification. Are you familiar with that? I thought it was really wonderful, I thought I learned a lot. I wasn't like the gospel according to the world of biomechanics, but I felt like it was a big step in the right direction with helping with sports performance and understanding strength and mobility. One of the bases of, the foundation of it, they — the computer analysis over the body and the best golfers, the ones that do it very very efficiently, powerfully and consistently, and they showed what they called a [Inaudible: 00:32:38] sequence, and it's actually very similar, as you said, in all sports. Tennis, golf, throwing a punch, there's a sequence where they see that the people who do it really, really well, and in a panfry way, it goes hip first, then torso, then arm, then club. In a very measured sequence, despite a lot of people who have different looking golf swings, like Jim [Inaudible: 00:32:52], Tiger Woods, John Daley, completely different body types, completely different golf swings, but they all have the — if you look at them on the screen in slow motion with all the sensors all over their body, their [Inaudible: 00:33:04] sequence is identical. It leads to a very powerful and consistent and efficient swing, but if you say like if you have limitations in you mobility between your hips and your lumbar spine, or your lumbar spine and your torso, and it's all kind of going together. It throws timing off, and if you don't have those types of things, very slowly, or quickly, you're going to get to an injury, quicker than another person would get to an injury. The thing is, at the same time, you don't want to stop someone who really wants to be a good golfer. We have to give the information and this is a — people have to learn the biomechanics and the basic swing mechanics of a golf swing, and then there's a fitness element to it all. Are you strong enough, do you have the range of motion, is there a proper mobility between the segments of your body in order to do this without hurting yourself over time, and if there isn't, golf professionals and fitness professionals are struggling. How do I teach you how to do this, even though it's probably going to lead you to an injury down the line anyway. It's a puzzle but the final question is, what — I'm trying to safely help people who have goals with sports performance and without hurting them.Bill: First of all, any time you go from exercise in air quotes to sports, with sports, there's almost an assumption of risk. The person playing golf assumes they're going to hurt a rotator cuff or a back, or they at least know it's a possibility. It's just part of the game. Football player knows they could have a knee injury, maybe now they know they could have a concussion, but they just accept it by accepting it on the court or the turf. They walk into our studio, I don't think that expectation — they may expect it also, but I don't think it really belongs there. I don't think you're doing something to prepare for the risky thing. The thing you're doing to prepare for the risky thing shouldn't also be risky, and besides, let them get hurt on that guy's time, not on your time. I'm being a little facetious there, I don't buy the macho bullshit attitude that in order to challenge myself physically, I have to do something so reckless I could get hurt. That's just simply not necessary. If somebody says I want to be an Olympic weightlifter, I want to be a power lifter, just like if they want to be a mixed martial artist, well then you're accepting the fact that that activity is your priority. Not your joint health, not your safety. That activity is your priority, and again, nobody in professional sports is asking me, but I would so make the exercise as safe as possible. As safe as possible at first, then as vigorous as possible, and then let them take that conditioning and apply it to their sport.Adam: If a sport requires that scapulary traction at a certain time in a swing or whatever they're asking for, I don't really think that there's a way in the exercise room of working on just that. Scapular traction, and even if you can, it doesn't mean it's going to translate to the biomechanics and the neuro conditioning and the motor skill conditioning to put it all together. Bill: You can't think that much —Adam: I'm just thinking once and for all, if strong hips are what's important for this sport, a strong neck is what's important for this. If being able to rotate the spine is important and you need your rotation muscles for the spine, work your spine rotationally but in a very safe range of motion. Tax those muscles, let them recover and get strong so when you do go play your sport, lets say a golf swing, it's watching the videos and perfecting your biomechanics, but there's nothing I think you can do in the gym that is going to help you really coordinate all those skills, because you're trying to isolate the hip abductor or a shoulder retractor. Mike: Well I was going to say, I think isolating the muscles in the gym is fine, because it allows you to control what happens, you don't have too many moving parts, and this is kind of leading up to the conversational on functional training.Adam: Which is good even if you can do that. You might notice there's a weakness —Mike: Yeah but if you're going to punch, you don't think okay flex the shoulder, extend at the — Adam: There are a lot of boxers that didn't make it because they were called arm punchers. Bill: So at some point you can't train it. You need to realize gee that guy has good hip movement, let me direct him to this sport.Adam: So I think what Mike's asking is is there some kind of exercise you can do to turn an arm puncher, let's use this as an example, turn an arm puncher into a hip puncher? If you can maybe do something —Bill: I think it's practice though. Mike: I think there's a practice part of it. Going back to the golf swing, one of the things that they were making a big deal out of is, and it goes back to what we mentioned before, sitting at a desk and what's going on with our bodies. Our backs, our hips, our hamstrings. As a result of the amount of time that most of us in our lives have, and we're trainers, we're up on our feet all day, but a lot of people are in a seated position all the time. Adam: Hunched over, going forward.Mike: Their lower back is —Bill: Hamstrings are shortened, yeah.Mike: What is going on in the body if your body is — if you're under those conditions, eight to ten hours a day, five days a week. Not to mention every time you sit down in your car, on the train, have a meal, if you're in a fetal position. My point is, they made a big thing at TPI about how we spend 18-20 hours a day in hip flexion, and what's going on. How does that affect your gluten if you're in hip flexion 20 hours a day. They were discussing the term called reciprocal inhibition, which is — you know what I mean by that?Bill: The muscle that's contracting, the opposite muscle has to relax.Mike: Exactly, so if the hip is flexed, so as the antagonist muscle of the glue which is being shut off, and therefore —Bill: Then when you go to hip henge, your glutes aren't strong enough to do the hip henge so you're going to get into a bad thing.Mike: Exactly, and the thing as I said before —Adam: What are they recommending you do though?Mike: Well the thing is they're saying do several different exercises to activate the gluten specifically and —Adam: How is that different than just doing a leg press that will activate them?Mike: Adam, that's a good question and the thing is it comes back to some of the testimonials. When you deal with clients, often times if you put them on a leg press, they'll say I'm not feeling it in my glutes, I'm only feeling it in my quads, and other people will say, I'm feeling it a lot in my glutes and my hamstrings, and a little bit in my quads.Adam: But if they don't feel it in their glutes, it doesn't mean that their glutes aren't activated, for sure.Mike: Bill, what do you think about that?Bill: I think feel is very overrated in our line of work. I can get you to feel something but it's not — you can do a concentration curl, tricep kickback, or donkey kicks with a cuff, and you'll feel something because you're not — you're making the muscle about to cramp, but that's not necessarily a positive. As far as activating the glutes go, if they don't feel it on the leg press, I would go to the abductor machine. Mike: I mean okay, whether it's feel it's overrated, that's the thing that as a trainer, I really want the client to actually really make the connection with the muscle part.Bill: Well yeah, you have to steer it though. For instance, if you put somebody on the abductor machine and they feel the sides of their glutes burn, in that case, the feel matches what you're trying to do. If you have somebody doing these glute bridging exercises where their shoulders are on a chair and their hips are on the ground, knees are bent, and they're kind of just driving their hips up. You feel that but it's irrelevant, you're feeling it because you're trying to get the glutes to contract at the end of where — away from their strongest point. You're not taxing the glutes, you're getting a feeling, but it's not really challenging the strength of the glutes. So I think what happens with a lot of the approaches like you're describing, where they have half a dozen exercises to wake up the glutes, or engage them or whatever the phrase is.Mike: Activate, yeah.Bill:  There's kind of a continuity there, so it should be more of a progression rather than all of these exercises are valid. If you've got a hip abductor machine, the progression is there already.Mike: The thing is, it's also a big emphasis, it's going back to TPI and golf and stuff, is the mobility factor. So I think that's the — the strength is there often times, but there's a mobility issue every once in a while, and I think that is — if something is, like for example if you're very, very tight and if your glutes are supposed to go first, so says TPI through their [Inaudible: 00:42:57] sequence, but because you're so tight that it's going together, and therefore it's causing a whole mess of other things which might make your club hit the ground first, and then tension in the arms, tension in the back, and all sorts of things. I'm thinking maybe there are other points, maybe the mobility thing has to be addressed in relation to a golf swing, more so than are the glutes actually working or not.Bill: Well the answer is it all could be. So getting back to a broader point, the way we train people takes half an hour, twice a week maybe. That leaves plenty of time for this person to do mobility work or flexibility work, if they have a specific activity that they think they need the work in.Mike: Or golf practice.Bill:  Well that's what I'm saying, even if it's golf and even if — if you're training for strength once or twice a week, that leaves a lot of time that you can do some of these mobility things, if the person needs them. That type of program, NASM has a very elaborate personal trainer program, but they tend to equally weight every possible — some people work at a desk and they're not — their posture is fine. Maybe they just intuitively stretch during the day, so I think a lot of those programs try to give you a recipe for every possible eventuality, and then there's a continuum within that recipe. First we're going to do one leg bridges, then we're going to do two leg bridges, now we're going to do two leg bridges on a ball, now we're going to do leg bridges with an extra weight, now we're going to do two leg bridges with an elastic band. Some of those things are just progressions, there's no magic to any one of those exercises, but I think that's on a case by case basis. If the person says I'm having trouble doing the swing the way the instructor is teaching me, then you can pick it apart, but the answer is not necessarily weight training.Mike: The limitation could be weakness but it could be a mobility thing, it could be a whole bunch of things, it could be just that their mechanics are off.Bill: And it could just be that it's a bad sport for them. The other thing with postural issues, is if you get them when a person's young, you might be able to correct them. You get a person 60, 70, it may have settled into the actual joints. The joints have may have changed shape.Adam: We've got people with kyphosis all the time. We're going to not reverse that kyphosis. You have these women, I find it a lot with tall women. They grow up taller than everyone else in their class and they're shy so they end up being kyphotic because they're shy to stand up tall. You can prevent further degeneration and further kyphosis.Bill: Maybe at 20 or 25, if you catch that, maybe they can train out of it, but if you get it when it's already locked in, all you can do is not do more damage.Adam: So a lot of people feel and argue that machines are great if you want to just do really high intensity, get really deep and go to failure, but if you want to really learn how to use your body in  space, then free weights and body weight movements need to be incorporated, and both are important. Going to failure with machines in a safe manner, that might be cammed properly, but that in and of itself is not enough. That a lot of people for full fitness or conditioning if you will, you need to use free weights or body weight movements —Mike: Some people even think that machines are bad and only body weights should be done.Adam: Do you have an opinion about if one is better than the other, or they both serve different purposes and they're both important, or if you just use either one of them correctly, you're good.Bill: Let's talk about the idea that free weights are more functional than machines. I personally think it's what you do with your body that makes it functional or not, and by functional, that's —Adam: Let's talk about that, let's talk about functional training.Bill:  I'm half mocking that phrase.Adam: So before you even go into the question I just asked, maybe we can talk about this idea, because people are throwing around the expression functional training nowadays. So Crossfit is apparently functional training, so what exactly was functional training and what has it become?Bill: I don't know what they're talking about, because frankly if I've got to move a tire from point A to point B, I'm rolling it, I'm not flipping it. Adam: That would be more functional, wouldn't it.Bill: If I have to lift something, if I have a child or a bag of groceries that I have to lift, I'm not going to lift a kettle bell or dumbbell awkwardly to prepare for that awkward lift. In other words, I would rather train my muscles safely and then if I have to do something awkward, hopefully I'm strong enough to get through it, to withstand it. My thought was, when I started in 1982 or so, 84, 83, somewhere in the early 80s I started to train, most of us at the time were very influenced by the muscle magazines. So it was either muscle magazines, or the [Inaudible: 00:48:24] one set to failure type training, but the people that we were training in the early 80s, especially in Manhattan, they weren't body builders and they weren't necessarily athletes. So to train business people and celebrities and actors etc, like you would train an athlete seemed like a bad idea. Plus how many times did I hear, oh I don't want to get big, or I'm not going out for the Olympics. Okay fine, but then getting to what Mike said before, if someone has a hunched over shoulder or whatever, now you're tailoring the training to what the person is in front of you, to what is relevant to their life. 20 inch arms didn't fascinate them, why are you training them to get 20 inch arms? Maybe a trimmer waist was more their priority, so to my eye, functional training and personal training, back in the 80s, was synonymous. Somewhere since the 80s, functional training turned into this anti machine approach and functional training for sport was [Inaudible: 00:49:32] by a guy named Mike Boyle. His main point in there is, and I'm paraphrasing so if I get it wrong, don't blame him, but his point was as an athlete, you don't necessarily need to bench heavy or squat heavy or deadlift heavy, although it might be helpful, but you do need the muscles that hold your joints together to be in better shape. So all of his exercises were designed around rotator cuff, around the muscles around the spine, the muscles around the hips, the muscles around the ankles. So in his eye it was functional for sport, he was training people, doing exercises, so they would hold their posture together so that that wouldn't cause a problem on the field. That material was pretty good, went a little overboard I think in some ways, but generally it was pretty good, but then it kind of got bastardized as it got caught into the commercial fitness industry, and it just became an excuse for sequencing like a lunge with a curl with a row with a pushup, to another lunge, to a squat. It just became sort of a random collection of movements, justified as being functional, functional for what? At least Boyle was functional for sport, his point was to cut injuries down in sport. Where is the function in stringing together, again, a curl, to a press, to a pushup, to a squat, back to the curl, like one rep of each, those are more like stunts or feats of strength than they are, to me, exercise, Adam: So when you're talking about the muscles around the spine or the rotator cuffs, they're commonly known as stabilizer muscles, and when we talk about free weights versus machines, a lot of times we'll say something like, well if you want to work your stabilizer muscles, you need to use free weights, because that's how you work the stabilizer muscles. What would you say to that?Bill: I would say that if they're stabilizing while they're using the free weights, then they're using the stabilizer muscles, right?Adam: And if they're stabilizing while using a machine?Bill:  They're using their stabilizer muscles.Adam: Could you work out those stabilizer muscles of the shoulder on a machine chest press, the same way you can use strength in stabilizer muscles of the shoulder on a free weight bench press?Bill:  Yes, it's what your body is doing that counts, not the tool. So if someone is on a free weight…Mike: Is it the same though, is it doing it the same way? So you can do it both ways, but is it the same?Bill: If you want to — skill is very specific, so if you want to barbell bench press, you have to barbell bench press.Adam: Is there an advantage to your stabilizer muscles to do it with a free weight bench press, as opposed to a machine?Bill: I don't see it, other than to help the ability to free weight bench press, but if that's not why the person is training, if the person is just training for the health benefits of exercise to use it broadly, I don't think it matters — if you're on a machine chest press and you're keeping your shoulder blades down and back, and you're not buckling your elbows, you're voluntarily controlling the range of the motion. I don't see how that stabilization is different than if you're on a barbell bench press, and you have to do it the same way. Adam: You're balancing, because both arms have to work independently in a way.Bill:  To me that just makes it risky, that doesn't add a benefit.Mike: What about in contrast to lets say, a pushup. A bodyweight pushup, obviously there's a lot more going on because you're holding into a plank position which incorporates so many more muscles of your entire body, but like Adam and I were talking the other day about the feeling — if you're not used to doing pushups regularly, which Adam is all about machines and stuff like that, I do a little bit of everything, but slow protocol. It's different, one of our clients is unbelievably strong on all of the machines, we're talking like top 10% in weight on everything. Hip abduction, leg press, chest press, pull downs, everything, and this guy could barely do 8 limited range of motion squats with his body weight, and he struggles with slow pushups, like doing 5 or 6 pushups. 5 seconds down, 5 seconds up, to 90 degrees at the elbow, he's not even going past — my point is that he's working exponentially harder despite that he's only dealing with his body weight, then he is on the machines, in all categories.Bill:  So here's the thing though. Unless that's a thing with them, that I have to be able to do 100 pushups or whatever, what's the difference?Mike: The difference is —Adam: The question is why though. Why could he lift 400, 500 pounds on Medex chest press, he could hardly do a few pushups, and should he be doing pushups now because have we discovered some kind of weakness? That he needs to work on pushups?Bill: Yes, but it's not in his pecs and his shoulders.Mike: I'm going to agree, exactly.Bill:  The weakness is probably in his trunk, I don't know what the guy is built like. The weakness is in his trunk because in a pushup, you're suspending yourself between your toes and your arms.Adam: So somebody should probably be doing ab work and lower back extensions?Bill: No he should be doing pushups. He should be practicing pushups, but practicing them in a way that's right. Not doing the pushup and hyper extending his back, doing a pushup with his butt in the air. Do a perfect pushup and then if your form breaks, stop, recover. Do another perfect pushup, because we're getting back into things that are very, very specific. So for instance, if you tell me that he was strong on every machine, and he comes back every week and he's constantly pulling things in his back, then I would say yes, you have to address it.Mike: This is my observations that are more or less about — I think it's something to do with his coordination, and he's not comfortable in his own body. For example, his hips turn out significantly, like he can't put his feet parallel on the leg press for example. So if I ever have him do a limited range of motion lunge, his feet go into very awkward positions. I can tell he struggles with balance, he's an aspiring golfer as well. His coordination is — his swing is really, I hope he never listens to this, it's horrible. Adam: We're not giving his name out.Bill: Here's the thing now. You as a trainer have to decide, am I going to reconfigure what he's doing, at the risk of making him feel very incompetent and get him very discouraged, or do I just want to, instead of doing a machine chest press, say we'll work on pushups. Do you just want to introduce some of these new things that he's not good at, dribble it out to him a little bit at a time so it gives him like a new challenge for him, or is that going to demoralize him?Mike: He's not demoralized at all, that is not even on the table. I understand what you're saying, I think there are other people who would look at it that way. I think he looks at it as a new challenge, I think he knows — like we've discussed this very, very openly. He definitely — it feels like he doesn't have control over his body in a way. Despite his strength, I feel that — my instincts as a trainer, I want to see this guy be able to feel like he's strong doing something that is a little bit more — incorporates his body more in space than just being on a machine. If I'm measuring his strength based on what he can do by pressing forward or pulling back or squatting down, he's passed the test with As and great form. He does all the other exercises with pretty good form, but he's struggling with them. He has to work a lot harder in order to do it, and to be it's an interesting thing to see someone who lifts very heavy weights on the chest press and can barely do 4 slow pushups.Bill: Let's look at the pushups from a different angle. Take someone who could do pushups, who can do pushups adequately, strictly and all. Have another adult sit on their butt, all of a sudden those perfect pushups, even though probably raw strength could bench press an extra person, say, you can't do it, because someone who is thicker in the hips, has more weight around the hips, represented by the person sitting on their back, their dimensions are such that their hips are always going to be weighing them down. So that person's core — like a person with broader hips, in order to do a pushup, their core has to be much stronger than somebody with very narrow hips, because they have less weight in the middle of their body. So some of these things are a function of proportion.Adam: You can't train for it, in other words you can't improve it.Mike: Women in general have their center of gravity in their hips, and that's why pushups are very, very hard.Adam: I have an extremely strong individual, a perfect example of what you're talking about right now. I know people that are extremely, extremely strong, but some of these very, very strong individuals can do a lot of weight on a pullover machine, they can do a lot of weight on a pulldown machine, but as soon as you put them on the chin-up bar, they can't do it. Does that mean they're not strong, does that mean that they can't do chin-ups, that they should be working on chin-ups because we discovered a weakness? No, there's people for example who might have shitty tendon insertions, like you said about body weight and center of gravity, if they have really thick lower body. I notice that people who have really big, thick lower bodies, really strong people — or if they have really long arms, the leverage is different. So it begs the question, lets start doing chin-ups, yeah but you'll never proportionally get better at chin-ups, given your proportions, given your tendon insertions, given your length of your arms. So maybe Mike, this person is just not built to do push-ups and you're essentially just giving him another chest and body exercise that is not necessarily going to improve or help anything, because it's a proportional thing, it's a leverage thing. It's not a strength thing, especially if you're telling me he's so strong and everything else.Bill: The only way you'll know is to try.Mike: Well that's the thing, and that's what I've been doing. We just started it, maybe in the last month, and frankly both of us are excited by it. He's been here for a few years, and he is also I think starving to do something a little new. I think that's a piece of the puzzle as well, because even if you're coming once a week and you get results, it gets a little stale, and that's why I've tried to make an effort of making all the exercises we're doing congruent. Joint friendly, very limited range of motion, and the thing is, he's embracing the challenge, and he's feeling it too. I know the deal with soreness and stuff like that, new stimulus.Bill: In that case, the feeling counts, right? It doesn't always mean something good, it doesn't always mean something bad.Mike: Right, it is a little bit of a marketing thing. Adam: It's a motivator. It's nothing to be ashamed of for motivation. If pushups is motivating this guy, then do pushups, they're a great exercise regardless.Bill: Getting back to your general question about whether free weights lends itself to stabilizing the core better or not, if that's what the person is doing on the exercise, then it is. If the person is doing the pushup and is very tight, yes, he's exercising his core. If the person is doing the pushup and it's sloppy, one shoulder is rising up, one elbow to the side, it doesn't matter that it's a pushup —Adam: He's still not doing it right and he's still not working his core.Bill: Right, so it's really how the person is using their body that determines whether they're training their core appropriately, not the source of the resistance.Adam: I'm sorry, I've done compound rows with free weights in all kinds of ways over the years, and now I'm doing compound row with a retrofitted Medex machine, with a CAM that really represents pretty good CAM design and I challenge anyone to think that they're not working everything they need to work on that machine, because you've still got to keep your shoulders down. You've still got to keep your chest up, you still have to not hunch over your shoulders when you're lowering a weight. I mean there's a lot of things you've got to do right on a compound machine, just like if you're using free weights. I don't personally, I've never noticed that much of a benefit, and how do you measure that benefit anyway? How would you be able to prove that free weights is helping in one way that a machine is not, how do you actually prove something like that? I hear it all the time, you need to do it because you need to be able to —Mike: There's one measuring thing actually, but Bill —Bill: I was going to say, a lot of claims of exercise, a lot of the chain of thought goes like this. You make the claim, the result, and there's this big black box in the middle that — there's no  explanation of why doing this leads to this. Mike: If you made the claim and the result turns out, then yes it's correlated and therefore —Bill: I was going to say getting to Crossfit and bootcamp type things, and even following along with a DVD program, whatever brand name you choose. The problem I have with that from a joint friendly perspective is you have too many moving parts for you to be managing your posture and taking care of your joints. Especially if you're trying to keep up with the kettle bell class. I imagine it's possible that you can do certain kettle bell exercises to protect your lower back and protect your shoulders. It's possible, but what the user has to decide is how likely is it? So I know for me personally, I can be as meticulous as I want with a kettle bell or with a barbell deadlift, and at some point, I'm going to hurt myself. Not from being over ambitious, not from sloppy form, something is going to go wrong. Somebody else might look at those two exercises and say no, I'm very confident I can get this. You pay your money, you take your chance.Mike: As a measuring tool, sometimes you never know if one is better or worse but sometimes — every once in a while, even when we have clients come into our gym and you have been doing everything very carefully with them, very, very modest weight, and sometimes people say, you know Mike, I've never had any knee problems and my knees are bothering me a little bit. I think it's the leg press that's been doing it, ever since we started doing that, I'm feeling like a little bit of a tweak in my knee, I'm feeling it when I go up stairs. Something like that, and then one of the first things I'll do is like when did it start, interview them, try to draw some lines or some hypotheses as to what's going on. Obviously there might be some wear and tear in their life, almost definitely was, and maybe something about their alignment on the leg press is not right. Maybe they're right, maybe they're completely wrong, but one of the things I'll do first is say okay, we still want to work your legs. We still want to work your quads, your hamstrings, your glutes, let's try doing some limited range of motions squats against the wall or with the TRX or something like that, and then like hey, how are your knees feeling over the past couple weeks? Actually you know, much much better, ever since we stopped doing the leg press.Bill: Sometimes some movements just don't agree with some joints.Adam: There's a [Inaudible: 01:05:32] tricep machine that I used to use, and it was like kind of like —Bill: The one up here? Yeah.Adam: You karate chop right, and your elbows are stabilized on the pad, you karate chop down. It was an old, [Inaudible: 01:05:45] machine, and I got these sharp pains on my elbows. Nobody else that I trained on that machine ever had that sharp pain in their elbows, but it bothered the hell out of my elbows. So I would do other tricep extensions and they weren't ever a problem, so does that make that a bad exercise? For me it did.Bill: For you it did, but if you notice, certain machine designs have disappeared. There's a reason why those machine designs disappeared, so there's a reason why, I think in the Nitro line, I know what machine you're talking about. They used to call it multi tricep, right, okay, and your upper arms were held basically parallel, and you had to kind of karate chop down.Adam: It wasn't accounting for the carrying angle.Bill: I'll get to that. So your elbows were slightly above your shoulders, and you had to move your elbows into a parallel. Later designs, they moved it out here. They gave them independent axises, that's not an accident. A certain amount of ligament binding happens, and then —Adam: So my ligaments just were not coping with that very well.Bill: That's right. So for instance, exactly what joint angle your ligaments bind at is individual, but if you're going in this direction, there is a point where the shoulder ligaments bind and you have to do this. Well that machine forced us in the bound position, so when movement has to happen, it can't happen at the shoulder because you're pinned in the seat. It was happening in your elbow. It might not be the same with everybody, but that is how the model works.Adam: So getting back to your client on the leg press, like for instance — you can play with different positions too.Mike: Well the thing is, I'm trying to decipher some of — trying to find where the issues may be. A lot of times I think that the client probably just — maybe there's some alignment issues, IT bands are tight or something like that, or maybe there's a weak — there can be a lot of different little things, but the machines are perfect and symmetrical, but you aren't. You're trying to put your body that's not through a pattern, a movement pattern that has to be fixed in this plane, when your body kind of wants to go a little to the right, a little to the left, or something like that. It just wants to do that even though you're still extending and flexing. In my mind and

Fisher opens the show following up on last week's appearance by Susan Snyder who "planted her family flag" with a personal website devoted to her family that has attracted numerous other descendants, including Fisher himself. Both Fisher and Susan were delighted to receive an email from a Cincinnati listener who ties into three ancestral couples shared by both Fisher and Susan. David Allen Lambert, Chief Genealogist for the New England Historic Genealogical Society and AmericanAncestors.org then talks about his experience at the Federation of Genealogical Societies Conference. He also shares news of the discovery of newly developed negatives of a World War I pilot killed in action in 1918. Where did the negatives come from and what do they show? David will tell you. David then jumps to the recent recognition of another aged World War II pilot who was known for more than just his military prowess. Wait until you hear what it is! Then there's word that BBC Scotland is looking for you if you had Scottish ancestors in Nova Scotia. David has all the particulars. David's Tip this week concerns a new app that allows you to snap a pic and have it go out as an old fashioned post card! He'll also have another great free guest user database from NEHGS. Next, Fisher talks to genealogical speaker, researcher, and writer Loretta Evans about "circumstantial evidence" in genealogy. How is it defined exactly and how can it help you "nail down" the line you're researching. Loretta has some great insight and advice. Fisher then visits with Bill Habermann of Tacoma, Washington. Bill has "adopted" over 1,600 people... all dead... in an overgrown local cemetery, and he's doing all he can to let you know who they are. What got Bill started on this and what has the response been? You'll love the story. Then Tom Perry from TMCPlace.com returns to talk preservation. Tom answers a listener question from South Carolina about using a national digitizing firm because no one provides the service locally. As usual, Tom has some great thoughts on protecting your most important family history assets. That's all this week on Extreme Genes, America's Family History Show!   Transcript of Episode 156 Segment 1 Episode 156 (00:30) Fisher: And welcome to Extreme Genes! This is America’s Family History Show. My name is Fisher. I am the Radio Roots Sleuth, on the program where we shake your family tree, and watch the nuts fall out. Nice to have you along today. We’ve got some great guests. First of all coming up in about eight or nine minutes we’re going to talk to Loretta Evans. And Loretta talks about the use of “circumstantial evidence” when you’re trying to put together your family tree. How do you know that it’s really good enough? What can you use it for? She’s going to have that for you coming up a little bit later on. After that, we’re going to talk to Bill Habermann he is up in the Seattle, Tacoma area, and he has adopted 1,600 people. All dead. In a cemetery! And you can do the same kind of thing. He’ll tell you what he’s doing and how he’s helping people all around the country, in fact around the world, find some of their missing relatives in the Washington State area. But right now, let me get on to Boston and my good friend David Allen Lambert. He is the Chief Genealogist for the New England Historic Genealogical Society and AmericanAncestors.org, fresh back from the Federation of Genealogical Societies conference in Springfield, Illinois. How are you David? David: I’m doing good. It’s nice to be back on the ground in Beantown. Fisher: I’ll bet. And you had a good time there? David: We had a great time. And I want to let people know who go to conferences, no matter where it is, don’t be ashamed of wearing a lot of ribbons on your badge. Fisher: Really? Yours is practically like a loin cloth when you’re out there. [Laughs] David: Well I like to say maybe a shawl. [Laughs] Fisher: [Laughs] David: I had thirty-two ribbons on it and when I went to the Federation of Genealogical Societies gala’s 40th anniversary dinner, they had trivia and they also had a scavenger hunt. Fisher: Um hmm. David: 150 points for the longest badge put us over the top! Fisher: [Laughs] David: Myself and Mary Tedesco from Genealogical Roadshow, one of our friends and guests, all won over a thousand dollars in memberships and conference registrations and meals, we’re very, very happy. Fisher: Wow! David: So, laughing my way to the bank for the longest name badge at the Federation of Genealogical Societies and I’d do it again. Fisher: [Laughs] Unbelievable. I’ve got to tell you a story. Last week we had Susan Snyder on the show and she is the lady that set up a website and we talked about it, we did the whole segment about planting your family flag basically out there for people to find you and provide you with materials, and she’s had Bible pages sent to her and things relating to her direct ancestors. Things folks sold her or gave to her. She found me because we’re related. Well we had her on the show, and then the next day she gets a nice email from a guy, a listener in Cincinnati, Ohio, who said, “Hey, we’re related to!” and so now she’s exchanging information with him and I just love the way the show brings people together. David: It’s amazing. Just last week I got a person who has an oil painting of my third great grandfather’s sister born in 1772, and he was not really sure if his family will want it. So I told him I would give her a good home. Fisher: Yeah [Laughs] great! Wow. Hopefully you get that and when you do, send us the picture. We’d all love to see it. David: Hopefully it will be in my home some day. But I don’t want to wish him to meet his maker any time soon of course. [Laughs] Fisher: Of course. Hey what do you have for us today in our Family Histoire news, David? David: Well, the exciting story that I want to start off with is actually about photographs taken a hundred years ago by Captain William Chambers of the 49th Squadron in Kent, England. He was a recognisance photographer in World War I and was shot down in 1918 at the ripe old age of twenty-one. His camera and negatives eventually were passed on to his nephew who recent had them developed. It’s amazing! There are pictures of airplanes and pilots and people that have long since passed. But it gives us another fresh view on history from World War I a century later. Fisher: That’s incredible. What a great story. David: It really is. And I want to propose a toast to the subject of this next story. Second Lieutenant Donald Stinson now aged 93, received four Bronze Stars for his service in World War II, involving bringing guns and men and flying them to the front lines in Japan during the war. But one of the things he did, which is a light hearted note, he is responsible for bringing beer. Fisher: What? [Laughs] David: Twenty thousand cases of beer to thirsty soldiers in multiple “packiruns” if you will, to Australia and New Guinea. And I think that anyone who is a veteran could probably drink to that. Fisher: Wow, that’s great! Congratulations to him. That’s like the second week in a row we’ve had a story of a World War II vet in their 90s just getting their medals now. What is going on? David: It’s about time. It really is. Well I’ll tell you, going back a little ways to the days of immigration and to the east coast, Nova Scotia, which means New Scotland was settled by many people from the Highlands. In 1773 a vessel called “The Hector” brought 189 highlanders that disembarked and were changed in Nova Scotia forever. Now, BBC in Scotland is looking for the descendants. So if your ancestor came to Nova Scotia from Scotland perhaps on the Hector in 1773, there are passenger lists that exist, contact BBC in Scotland. Just check Extreme Genes.com. Our Facebook page will have more details for you. Fisher: That’s very cool. So the people from old Scotland are looking for the descendants of the people in New Scotland, Nova Scotia, to call back home. David: To old Scotland. Fisher: Yeah. David: New Scotland, old Scotland, it gets confusing. But BBC Scotland is obviously doing a little piece on it, so put your kilt on and go and contact them. Fisher: [Laughs] David: One of the things that I really enjoy is a good tip from a listener, and one of our listeners and someone who’s been on the show is the Photo Detective Maureen Taylor. Fisher: Yes. David: While I was in Springfield, she told me about a new type of app that she uses from the app store. There’s a variety of choices to choose from but it basically allows you to send a postcard. Take a picture with your smart phone, this company, for very cheap money, will print and mail mailable postcards for you for your relatives. So the old photo postcards you might have in your family archives, you can create new ones. Fisher: How cool is that! David: It really is. So that brings me to the NEHGS guest user database of the week which harkens back to Scotland again. We now have Scotland marriages 1561 to 1910 and Scotland births and baptisms from 1564 to 1950, in conjunction with our partnership with FamilySearch.org. Well that’s all I have for this week back here in Beantown. Talk to you soon my friend! Fisher: All right, great to talk to you again as always David. We’ll talk to you again next week. This segment of our show has been brought to you from MyHeritage.com. And coming up next, we’re going to talk to a woman named Loretta Evans. And Loretta is an instructor, she’s a researcher, and she’s got some thoughts on “circumstantial evidence.” Now, we hear people talk about it in the courtroom... does circumstantial evidence really prove a case? Well, in genealogy it actually can. And she’ll give you some examples of that and give you some other thoughts coming up in three minutes on Extreme Genes, America’s Family History Show. Segment 2 Episode 156 (11:10) Host: Scott Fisher with guest Loretta Evans Fisher: One of my favorite shows growing up was Perry Mason. And, Perry would get into heated battle in the courtroom with the prosecutor, Hamilton Burger. “Ham Burger” was what he was called. And they’d say, “Well, Mr Mason, that’s just circumstantial evidence!” And that’s what we’re going to talk about today. When it comes to developing your family history and your family tree, how does circumstantial evidence work in there and does it really matter? Is circumstantial evidence really evidence? It is Fisher. This is Extreme Genes, America’s Family History Show and ExtremeGenes.com. And my guest today is Loretta Evans, and Loretta specializes in researching the midwestern United States, and she speaks all over the place, and she’s written articles for all the big family history magazines. And Loretta’s in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Nice to have you on the show, Loretta! Loretta: Thank you. I’m glad to be here. Fisher: You know, I’m excited about this idea of helping people understand that circumstantial evidence really is evidence, and in some cases is very, very strong evidence. So let’s just start with some simple examples of what circumstantial evidence is that we may typically use all the time, right? Loretta: Right. For example, if you have a census record, and you have someone’s age, it isn’t proof of the year they were born. It gives you an approximate year they were born. Fisher: That’s right. Loretta: But it’s sort of depends on who gave the information out. If it was the mother, and this is the child, they’re pretty sure about the age of their children. But if it was a neighbor or a grandparent, they may be a few years off. Or if somebody had a reason to lie, a lot of women lied about their age in censuses, so you can’t. Fisher: I am so glad you said that! Because it’s not something that I can easily say, Loretta! [Laughs] But it is true. For some reason, more with women than anybody else, I’m just sorry, it’s just the way it is. They get younger as they get older! Have you picked up on that? Loretta: I have. In fact, somebody told me, but it may or may not be true, that someone had done a study of British censuses and they found that the average British woman aged about seven years between the ten year census records! Fisher: [Laughs] Loretta: And you know, in a sense if you want someone’s more accurate age, find them when they’re very young or very old. Fisher: Yeah, that’s right. Loretta: And they’re more likely to be honest about it. Fisher: Yeah. [Laughs] Absolutely! Well that’s a great example of circumstantial evidence. Give us some examples though, of course, of direct evidence. Just for the sake of comparison. Loretta: Okay. For direct evidence, on a death certificate, usually the person’s name, their gender, the date they died, the place they died, those are all directly given by the doctor in charge or the person who is giving the information. You can be very comfortable about those pieces of information. Fisher: Right, as long as the people really knew what they were talking about. Loretta: Correct. But for example, the birth date on a death certificate is a little bit suspect. Fisher: Right. Loretta: If it’s a baby that dies and the mother gives the information, yeah, I’d be very comfortable with that. But I had a great grandfather who died in Cleveland, Ohio in about 1900, and I’m thinking he was living in a boarding house because they got his name wrong, they got his birth place wrong, they got his age wrong. It took us a long time to convince the city of Cleveland that he really was the same person. Fisher: [Laughs] Loretta: And that we could put a headstone on his grave. Fisher: And so what you’re saying is, for a death, a death certificate is direct evidence. But a death certificate is circumstantial as far as their birth is concerned? Loretta: That’s true. Or their parents names or their parents’ birth places, they’re wonderful clues. Fisher: Yes. Loretta: And so, if you are a researcher, you take those clues and then you try to find other documents that can prove or disprove that piece of information. And then you can be more comfortable whether it’s accurate or not. I think any evidence in genealogy is accurate until the next piece of information comes along that might prove or disprove it. Fisher: Right. Loretta: Somebody said it was like washing dishes. You’re all done, and then somebody walks in with another dirty glass. Fisher: [Laughs] Wow. That’s not very attractive at all. Loretta: [Laughs] I’m sorry. That image is, you know, you think you’re done, and then somebody gives you additional information that might even call into question what you think is accurate. Fisher: Sure. Loretta: I had two brothers. One born in 1944 and one born in 1950, and they both died at birth. And they were both born on July 12th. And in our family that was this kind of a “tender mercy.” “Oh, they had the same birth date.” And when the cemetery records came online, my older brother Ralph was listed as having been born on July 11th. Fisher: Oh boy. Loretta: And it was in the family Bible. There were no birth or death certificates because they were stillborn. They’re on the headstone. They carved it on the stone. Fisher: [Laughs] Right. Loretta: They forgot it being July 12th. And my mother didn’t really care, and my brother didn’t care, but it drove me crazy. And, I finally got my mother’s hospital records because some mortuary records didn’t exist anymore, and she was in her 90s and she just sighed and signed the permission slip. “Yes, you can release my hospital records from 1944.” Fisher: [Laughs] Loretta: Anyway, I got it from a place in California that had taken all of the records and they were sold there. Anyway, the hospital actually was in Utah. But he was born on July 11th. The headstone is wrong, our family Bible is wrong. Although they were born close to the same day it wasn’t exactly the same day. Fisher: Yeah. I’ve seen this before. We have a family Bible that gives the death date of my great, great grandfather, and even the obituary said December 26th 1875. But the death record said December 27th. And it appears that what happened was that he died at home, late in the evening on the 26th, but the doctor probably didn’t show up till after midnight, because the death time was put down as 12:30 in the morning. Or, they just didn’t recognize that it was a new day, at the point that he’d passed. Loretta: You know, that kind of thing happens. My uncle was born near midnight at home, and nobody looked at the clock until after he was born, but he could have been born before midnight. Nobody ever really knows. They chose one of the days and put it on the birth certificate. Fisher: Here’s another sample of a circumstantial situation that came up. I tracked down a third great grandmother, and I was very fortunate that somebody had actually been able to come up with a family Bible that put her in the family. And, it was from this very same area, so I was pretty confident. But still, how could I know for sure that she was the only person of that name from that area? And so, circumstantial evidence often involves eliminating other possibilities. I think you’d agree. Loretta: Oh, very definitely. You not only have to try to find evidence proving what you have, but you’ve got to look for are there any other possibilities that this could be, and can you prove or disprove those other possibilities. Fisher: And one of the things that’s really helpful now with circumstantial evidence, and when you have a case like this... DNA. And I was very fortunate that suddenly I found a person matching me in DNA who descended from the brother of the person I thought it to be, from a grandfather of the person I thought it to be, and a great grandfather of the person I thought it to be. Which I felt was very good confirming evidence of this otherwise circumstantial case. Loretta: That is excellent. Yeah. Fisher: So you put these things all together and then you get the confirmation, several times hopefully, from DNA. And then you can put together your case and you know, “Hey, wait a minute, I’ve got something here I can be confident in.” And that’s maybe at the point where you can publish it or put it online and share it with other people. I don’t know how you feel about it, Loretta. I like to put things together first of all on my own, keep it to myself, until I’m really, really confident in what I’ve got before I really share it. Because, as we know, once something goes public, if you’re wrong, it will take on a life of its own and live for years and years and years. And it’s really difficult ever to get rid of it. Loretta: Oh, that is definitely true. There are two major places where people put pedigrees. FamilySearch.org, another is Ancestry. The difference is that Ancestry keeps each person’s pedigree separate. Fisher: Yep. Loretta: Where FamilySearch combines everything. And your cousin could come along and change things in a while. So yes, you do want to be pretty comfortable with what you’re putting out there before you submit it. Because you could take two people who live in the same area, who have similar names and make them into one person, and make it very, very difficult in years to come for somebody to separate those two individuals. Fisher: Yeah, that’s the problem. So, that’s why it’s really important to work the negative side. Try to disprove that it’s the person as well as trying to prove it. And maybe get a little DNA help as well. And at the end, your circumstantial evidence can really prove your case. Loretta: One example we had about somebody walking in with another dirty glass... Fisher: [Laughs] Loretta: ...where we had a photograph that was of this woman who had died in Winter Quarters, Iowa. And, my husband and I visited a distant cousin one evening and she had another copy of the photograph. But it was a larger copy and somebody had copied the name of the photography studio as well as the image, and this picture was taken by Ottinger’s in Salt Lake City, Utah. Well, the woman couldn’t have died in Winter Quarters and had her picture taken in Ottinger’s in Salt Lake City because he wasn’t in business at that time. Fisher: Right. Loretta: And he was half a continent away. Fisher: Yeah! Loretta: And so, we concluded that it was the step grandmother rather than the grandmother that was in the picture. Fisher: Interesting. Well, there you go. Always making a few adjustments along the way, right? Loretta: Oh, absolutely. And, any genealogist who is afraid that somebody is going to disprove all the things they’ve worked so hard for isn’t really open enough to be a really good genealogist. Fisher: The experts are often wrong. And the best ones will go back and correct their own errors. Clean up their own mess and wash their own glasses, right? [Laughs] Loretta: [Laughs] There you go. Fisher: Hey, Loretta, delight to talk to you today. Loretta Evans, she’s in Idaho Falls, Idaho, talking about circumstantial evidence. Is it real? Is it good? Can you use it? The answer is yes! Thanks so much for coming on. Loretta: I’ve enjoyed it very much. Thank you. Fisher: And this segment has been brought to you by 23andMe.com DNA. And coming up next, we’ll talk to a Washington State man who has adopted 1,600 people. They’re all dead! They’re in a cemetery! He’s getting the word out about who they are, and you’re going to want to hear his story in five minutes. Segment 3 Episode 156 (24:50) Host: Scott Fisher with guest Bill Habermann Fisher: Welcome back to Extreme Genes, America's Family History Show and ExtremeGenes.com. It is Fisher here, the Radio Roots Sleuth, and part of my sleuthing has to do with tracking down people with interesting stories that I know might interest you. And this is a guy who I think is inspiring a lot of people around the country since his story broke recently in the Tacoma News Tribune. His name is Bill Habermann. And Bill, you work for a funeral company, yes? Bill: I do. Piper, Marley, Malinger and Oakwood are all tied together as one funeral home. Fisher: And yet, this all spills over into your hobby, as it turns out. You found a cemetery out in the middle of nowhere. I guess it's been grown over, and you've kind of adopted it. Tell us about this. Bill: Well, back in the 1880s when the Northern Pacific Railroad came out west and put a terminus here in Tacoma, they gave about 56 acres to the city for a cemetery. And back in those days, folks didn't want the cemeteries near the town, and so it ended up being out in the sticks, kind of. Well, then that cemetery became Old Tacoma Cemetery and was divided up into three parcels. One stayed as Old Tacoma Cemetery, or Tacoma Cemetery, somehow, and I haven't been able to find out how a portion of about eight acres became Oakwood Cemetery, and then off to the side of the two cemeteries. There are two acres that became the county's pauper cemetery. Fisher: And that kind of got overgrown and forgotten, apparently. Bill: Well, yes. And I gave tours of Oakwood several times, and people would ask me during the tour, "Well, what is that on the other side of the fence? I see a few headstones there, but it's pretty much just grass." And then I said, "Well, that's the county's cemetery which was closed in 1927, and there really aren't a lot of records around for it." Fisher: Now why is that? Bill: Well, I think back in the early days people just were not so record conscious as they are now. And either that or they wrote on a slip of paper and thought, "Well, I'll put it in the book sometime." And it didn't happen. Or the county said, "Well, it's up to the funeral homes to take care of the records because they're putting the bodies into the cemetery." They were each paid $4.50 per burial. So some of the cemetery records probably are just lost totally with the county, but I was fortunate enough to have the records for Piper Funeral Home which started here in 1908, and Malinger which started here in 1883. Fisher: They merged at one point. Bill: Well, they merged at one point, yeah. And then what I did, I just got curious and I looked up the folks who had some headstones and found some of them in our records and started putting that down. Somebody said, "Why don't you put this on FindAGrave because people might want to look up somebody." And I thought, "Oh, okay." And I started doing that and then going through all the ledgers here, I just came up with 1,600 folks that are... Fisher: Wow! 1600? Bill: Yeah. And that was at the time Karen did the article. Now I'm up to 1,626. Fisher: [Laughs] Of course. There's always progress. Now, would you find the names in the ledgers first? Or would you find the tombstones first and then try to track them down in the ledgers? Bill: Well, the initial 15 headstones or so, I looked for them in the ledgers, but then I just started with page one of the Piper book and looked through every page, a page at a time, and if I saw $4.50, that was a first give away that it was somebody that went into the pauper's cemetery. Fisher: Interesting. So it didn't mention the cemetery, it was the price that gave it away? Bill: Yeah, it's the price that always gets me to the page, right. Fisher: Oh, that's fascinating. So when did you start this project, and what has kept you going, and how often do you go there? Bill: Well, I started doing in on FindAGrave about six years ago. The people who own or are in control of the cemetery really don't want folks walking around in there, because several of the graves are sunk in pretty badly, because folks were put into wooden boxes and into concrete grave liners. So they tend to like to leave it looking a little rough, as it said in the newspaper article, so that everybody isn't cramming around in there looking for things. The headstones even are in such disarray sort of that I have not been able to figure out even the rows or the blocks or the plot numbers, like we have in our cemetery, to locate a specific person. And some of those folks might not even be anywhere near the headstone that's standing there. Fisher: Right. So the tombstone itself is the giveaway of who's in there, but you just don't know where the grave itself might be? Bill: Yes, right. Fisher: Wow. Bill: And some of them face east and west, and some of them face north and south, and some of them look like they could be in a row, but others have been marked just set kind of whacky. There are two Japanese headstones there that face no particular direction, you know, they're kind of out in the middle of nowhere. Those two fascinated me because periodically when I'd look over the fence I would see fresh flowers put on those two graves, and they're back from the early 1900s, and sometimes there would be small food offerings there also at those two graves. I haven't seen anything there for the last two years, but somebody was coming in there and still honoring their deceased family members. Fisher: That's amazing. Now, what have you learned about the people that are buried in there? Have you found some unusual or interesting stories about them? Bill: Yeah. There is one fellow that still kind of plagues me. His name is Taggart, and his story is sort of interesting in that he was a well known supposedly wealthy person here to Tacoma back in the early 1900s. And sad to say, his wife became insane and went to the hospital for the insane. While he, in the mean time, lost all his money, regained some money, lost it again, ended up living at the poor farm, and apparently he decided to try to commit suicide by cutting his throat with a straight razor. Well, the hospital saved him, but then ultimately shortly after, he died of pneumonia, which got a lot of people back in those days. Fisher: Sure. Bill: His headstone looks like a military headstone. I checked in the Civil War records and there are so many Patrick Taggards that I kind of lost track of did he really deserve a military headstone. But it's not carved in the way of any military headstones that I've ever found online. So he's kind of a curiosity for me. I really would like to get him a new headstone if he is military, but again, I almost run into a brick wall. Fisher: Sure. And that's the problem with common names, of course. So what about families? Have other families reached out to you from near and far to say, "Hey, you found my person I've been looking for!" Bill: Yes. I've gotten some thank you letters from folks, and on FindAGrave, they can correspond back and forth with me, and so they have thanked me and some folks have sent me information to add into my book. There's an infant that died I think age about three weeks, and the family didn't know whether the child was buried. They were so happy to find where the child was, and they sent me a copy of the baptism certificate for this infant. Although that's the only existing document there is, other than the fact that the child is somewhere in those two acres. Fisher: So, what about restoration of the cemetery? You're allowed in there and you're saying others are not, is there any interest in that on behalf of the owners or on the part of the owners to do this? Bill: I don't think so because it probably would be very costly, first of all, to mould the place and keep the grass looking nice, because here in summer everything turns yellow and dries up. The cemetery that they do own, Old Tacoma, is watered all the time with underground sprinklers, and they have their own wells, but I'm sure that they are not interested in spending probably thousands and thousands of dollars to make the cemetery look presentable. Fisher: You would think that people would have to adopt it, I guess, the descendants of those who are in there, if that was ever going to happen, right? Bill: Yeah. And because it's privately owned by Tacoma Cemetery, I don't think that they could even work that. It kind of would be a real conundrum. Fisher: Sure. He's Bill Habermann. He's a funeral director in Tacoma, Washington, and he has adopted his own cemetery up there and is getting the information he's finding up on FindAGrave. Bill, thank you so much for doing this! And I'm sure you're inspiring others who might want to take on the same kind of project wherever they are. Bill: I hope so. And thanks for the call! Fisher: Hey, this segment of our show has been brought to you by LegacyTree.com. And coming up next, we'll talk preservation with Tom Perry from TMCPlace.com. It's time to be getting ready for the holidays. He's got more great advice, coming up for you in three minutes on Extreme Genes, America's Family History Show. Segment 4 Episode 156 (37:10) Host: Scott Fisher with guest Tom Perry Fisher: And welcome back to Extreme Genes, America’s Family History Show and ExtremeGenes.com. It Is Fisher here, your Radio Roots Sleuth with my good friend Tom Perry from TMCPlace.com. He is our Preservation Authority. And Tom, good to have you back. Tom: Good to be here. Fisher: And we do have an email here from Richard Halter, and I believe it’s pronounced Sharon, South Carolina. And he said, “Fisher and Tom, I saw this ad on Facebook and my mind immediately jumped to all I’ve learned from your shows.” Now, he sent us a link to another digitizing firm that’s national. And he said, “My first thought was that they’re not going to do everything that Tom says to look for when getting your products digitized. And the same time though, I live in an area where there isn’t anything available other than big box stores which I don’t even like. Would you recommend something like this store as an option for someone who just wants to get the media digitized? I can do pictures and I’ve played with audio as well as slides and negatives and I’m getting better. I can also take video and convert it from DVD, CD and all this, as long as I can get it to the PC to work on. I’m not a professional to say the least, but I do the best I can and I’m getting better as I go. I’m a very big proponent of getting all of these memories digitized and I’d like to give people some options for things I cannot complete yet. Your loyal listener, Richard.” Tom: That’s a great email that you’ve sent us. You know, there’s a lot of things in here that are really great. I love how you want to get all your stuff digitized. You’re trying to do as much as you can which we really advocate, and then some of the things of course you can’t do. Now this place that you mentioned, I can’t really say whether they’re good or bad because I’ve asked listeners in the past, if you have good experiences with places whether they’re local or national let us know. If you have bad experiences locally or national, let us know also so that we can warn people or encourage people to go to these places. This is one that I’ve never received any information on. I’ve checked out the website, it seems legit and everything looks nice, beautiful website. They’re about the middle to high end which sometimes is good, sometimes it’s bad. Because most of the time when you see these real cheap things, you’re getting what you pay for, and it’s not very good. So they have a fair price, the price is a little higher than what we charge on our online store. But if it’s closer to you and you feel more comfortable doing it, what I would do is, always start with the smallest package kind of as a test drive and see if you’re happy with what they do. And then of course send in all your other stuff and if you’re happy let us know. Fisher: Sure. Right. And testing is a key thing. And I would imagine, aren’t there ratings involved with this somewhere online that he could check out? Tom: You know, there really should be, and I’ve thought about this before getting out there and doing some experiments with some of these different places and actually go in and give them multi-star ratings. So that’s something we’re looking at maybe in 2017, we might actually come out with a rating system. But we really need our listeners to let us know where they’ve had good experiences and bad experiences. And let us know places that they’ve used so that we can maybe start doing a rating system. I really encourage you use local places as much as you want. Use national places if you find out they’re good. You can go to shop.TMCPlace.com and get our prices. And usually if people are close to what our prices are they’re probably legit because they’re doing the right thing. If they’re way below, I say stay away. It’s not worth it. I’ve run into so much product places like that. Fisher: That’s the thing. This is not the kind of thing you really want to price shop on so much. I mean, if it’s too cheap to be true, it’s probably too cheap to be true, Tom. Tom: That is so true! [Laughs] Fisher: [Laughs] Tom: Yeah, you need to be careful. One thing that I really advocate that I think is really, really important which we have never gone into because I don’t like it. A lot of transfer places, they use high speed. So instead of like a VHS tape taking two hours to transfer, they can transfer it in 15 to 20 minutes because they’re doing it high speed which reduces your fidelity. Fisher: Of course. Tom: You know if it didn’t do that everybody would be doing it. We would do it. We could drop our prices way down. However, we wouldn’t be giving our clients the quality that they want. You know, if you’re in a situation where money is really, really tight and it’s that or nothing. It’s still scary, because I have people who come in to me and say, “Hey, we sent it to this place online that’s really cheap. We didn’t get our stuff back. Or it came back really bad. They told us our tape is bad.” And then we had to go and “undo” what the other people did. Fisher: All right. Well, what do we have coming up in the next segment here, Tom? Tom: We’re going to talk about some scanning parties we’re planning. Fisher: All right, we’ll get to that in about three minutes. This segment has been brought to you by Forever.com. And if you have a question for Tom Perry you can always write to him at AskTom@TMCPlace.com and you might get to hear your question answered on the air. From Extreme Genes, America’s Family History Show. Segment 5 Episode 156 (44:20) Host: Scott Fisher with guest Tom Perry Fisher: And we are back, final segment of Extreme Genes, America's Family History Show and ExtremeGenes.com, Preservation Time with Tom Perry from TMCPlace.com. Tom, you were just talking about a scanning party you've got coming up. And let's just explain to people first of all what a scanning party is. Tom: Okay. It’s a lot of fun. It’s not a MRI or CRT or anything like that. Fisher: [Laughs] Right. Tom: What we do is, we scan your photographs. So this is where anybody can bring in one of those sterilight 16 quart shoeboxes with the lid on. Fisher: Yeah. [Laughs] Tom: And you can pack it with your 3x3 up to 8x10 non-damaged, non-mounted, loose photos, and we can scan the whole box for you for twenty five bucks. Fisher: Wow! Tom: So it's an absolute killer deal. Fisher: And fast too, right? Tom: Oh yeah! Oh yeah! It's really fast! It’s amazing! But that's why they can't be mounted or anything like that. They need to be all organized. If you have multiple sizes, just organize your sizes together. And bring your own thumb drive. And there's no additional charge. If you want, we have 16GB flash drives for only ten bucks. Fisher: Now where are you going to be doing this? Tom: The first one we are doing is November 11th and 12th in Midway, Utah. That's kind of up in the mountains, a beautiful ski resort area. Fisher: Wow! That's going to be great. Okay, so you have a location there. Tom: Right. Fisher: So people who would be in the Utah area would go where in Midway? Tom: It’s going to be at the Homestead Resort. It’s all part of the FamilyHistoryExpos.com convention that they're having, those two days which we talked about, about a month ago. So if you want to sign up for the convention, you can come in and do that. You can come in for the scanning party. It’s going to be a lot of fun. Remember, it needs to be up to 8x10 and it’s got to be in sterilight box with the lid on. No great big posters. We won't be able to do anything like that at this time. Fisher: All right, but you can do stuff that's small, very small. Tom: Oh yeah! We can go all the way down to 3x3 as long as they're in good condition. And if you have some pictures that are starting to fade and things like that, don't think, "Oh, I can't do these." No, this is a good time to do your faded ones, because we're going to stop them from fading anymore. We'll give you a digitized copy of all of them. And then whether you want to do it next week or next year or ten years from now, you'll have the high definition file that you can go in and do color correction. Or if you say, "Hey, this is over my head. I don't want to be involved in it." You can email it back to us and then we can do the color correction as well. Fisher: Now what kind of dpi are we talking about? Tom: It’s usually about 1200 dpi. Fisher: Oh that's good! Tom: Oh yeah! It’s a really high dpi. Fisher: It’s solid, yeah. So I've done this recently, of course, I've gone ahead, all of my old home movies and videos digitized. So I've got like 110 of them on disk. I don't even know what's on them all, because I didn't even know what was on the videos when I gave them to you in the first place. The joy of it, though, is I can take them one at a time, maybe one a week, right, and transfer it in some way and edit it down to just each individual thing. We'll, here's a birthday on this video, that's separate from the time we got to meet Joe DiMaggio over here or something like that. I mean, you can separate them all out. And so, with photographs, it would be much the same. You can digitize them all. And then when you get around to it, you're there. And what a great opportunity this is… Midway, Utah, November 11th? Tom: 11th and 12th, correct. Just go to FamilyHistoryExpos.com and you can sign up for the convention if you want to go to that as well. And just remember, like you just mentioned, it’s good to get this stuff done. And I've even had people tell me that they're going to go on a long trip, so they get videos, photos, all these things scanned, and then they sit in the back with the kids and put the DVD in, and they're sitting there writing notes. So when they're driving down the highway they can sit there and watch the thing, instead of watching Aladdin or something with their kids. They can say, "Oh, yeah, this is grandma." and talk to their kids. And make sure you have your iPhone or a tape recorder running, so when you're explaining all this stuff to your kids, you've got it down. And then later on you can make a slideshow with your narration for your great, great grandkids who will never know you, but they'll be able to hear your voice describing who these people are in the photos, who they are in the videos. It just makes it so nice. Fisher: Boy! What a great idea! And you know, trapping the kids, I love that! [Laughs] Tom: [Laughs] It’s great! We're going to be doing a whole bunch this next year in 2017 working with our Going Postal stores. So we're going to have a lot of fun in 2017. Fisher: All right, Tom. Thanks for dropping by. See you next week. Tom: We'll be there. Fisher: And this segment of the show has been brought to you by FamilySearch.org and RootsMagic.com. Hey, thanks again to our guest, Loretta Evans, for coming on and talking about "circumstantial evidence." Does it really add up? And to Bill Habermann from Washington State, talking about the cemetery he adopted and how you might be able to do something of the same. Hey, and don't forget, if you're going to become your family's family history expert, you need to sign up for our free newsletter, The Weekly Genie. Do it at ExtremeGenes.com or our Facebook page. Talk to you next week. And remember, as far as everyone knows, we're a nice, normal family!

Conversation: Bill: I got a new computer yesterday. Robert: You got a new computer? Bill: Yes, a new notebook computer. Robert: Why didn't you get a desktop computer? Bill: The notebook is light, and has a battery, so I can use it anywhere. I can use it on the train or the bus. Robert: Isn't the keyboard too small to use? Bill: It's compact, but I'll get used to it. Robert: I think large keyboards are easier to use than small ones. Also, desktop computers are more powerful than notebooks. Bill: That's true, but my notebook computer is powerful enough for me. Robert: Aren't notebooks more expensive than desktop computers? Bill: Yes, desktop computers are less expensive, usually, but notebook computers are portable. I can use my notebook in any room, and when I'm finished, I can put it away. You can't put a desktop computer away. Robert: That's true, but my desktop computer doesn't take too much space. It's an iMac. Bill: That's a cool computer. I bet my Windows notebook was cheaper than your iMac. Robert: You get what you pay for. Bill: Funny. Let's practice: A: I got a new pet yesterday. B: You got a new pet? A: Yes, a cat. B: Why didn't you get a dog? A: I got a new car yesterday. B: You got a new car? A: Yes, a compact car. B: Why didn't you get a sports car? A: I got a new iPod yesterday. B: You got a new iPod? A: Yes, I got an iPod Shuffle. B: Why didn't you get an iPod Nano? A: I went on a homestay last year. B: You went on a homestay? A: Yes, I went to Ireland. B: Why didn't you go to Australia? www.eltcalendar.com

This is a basic conversation about the weekend. First, you'll hear it at a normal speed, then at a slower speed. Next, you'll hear some practice drills. Finally, you'll hear the conversation again at a normal speed. Robert: Good morning, Bill. How are you today? Bill: Good morning, Robert. I'm all right. How are you? Robert: Pretty good. Did you have a nice weekend? Bill: Not bad. I went to the movies on Saturday night. Robert: Oh yeah? What did you see? Bill: I saw the new Harry Potter movie. Robert: Did you like it? Bill: Yes, it was excellent! Practice A: I went to the movies. B: Oh yeah? What did you see? A: I went to a new restaurant. B: Oh yeah? What did you eat? A: I went shopping. B: Oh yeah? What did you buy? A: I went for a drive. B: Oh yeah? Where did you go?

Bill: Do you want a cup of coffee? Robert: Yeah, sure. So, what have you been up to? Bill: Well, I've been really busy trying to finish this project on time. Robert: Are you having a hard time? Bill: Yes, but I haven't had enough time to really concentrate on it. Robert: I know what you mean. Bill: Not only that, but I've been feeling a little under the weather lately. Robert: Did you catch a cold? Bill: I don't know, I think I'm coming down with something. Robert: Maybe you should see a doctor. Bill: I think I'll go tomorrow. Robert: Good idea. Let's practice: A: So, what have you been up to? B: Well, I've been studying hard for exams. A: So, what have you been up to? B: I've been busy working every day. A: So, what have you been up to? B: Nothing. I've been really bored lately. A: So, what have you been up to? B: I got a new job. I've been trying get along with everybody at work. A: So, what have you been up to? B: I started guitar lessons. www.eltpodcast.com

Bill: How was your weekend? Robert: It was great. I went skiing. Bill: How was it? Robert: It was fun. Do you ski? Bill: Yes. Robert: You should come next time. Bill: That sounds good. How often do you go skiing? Robert: About once a month. Let's Practice A: I went to the movies. B: How often do you go to the movies? A: About twice a month. A: I baked a cake. B: How often do you bake cakes? A: About once every two months. A: I went running. B: How often do you go running? A: About three times a week. A: I had to work. B: How often do you work? A: Five days a week. A: I visited my parents. B: How often do you visit your parents? A: Once a year. Find more at www.eltpodcast.com

First, you'll hear this a basic conversation at a normal speed, then at a slower speed. Next, you'll hear some practice drills. Finally, you'll hear the conversation again at a normal speed. Robert: Hi Bill. What's happening? Bill: Not much. How about you, Robert? Robert: Well, actually, I want to go to the art museum this afternoon, but I don't know where it is. Do you know where it is? Bill: Which one? There are a few art museums in Fukuoka. Robert: I want to see the Napoleon exhibit. Have you heard about it? Bill: Ah, sure. That's the Fukuoka Municipal Art Museum. It's in Ohori Park. Robert: So, how do I get there? Bill: That's easy. Just take the subway to the Ohori Park station. Walk through the park, and it's there. You can't miss it! Robert: Do you mean that I have to walk to the other side of the park to get to the musem? Bill: Yes, that's right. It doesn't take long. About ten minutes or so. Robert: OK, I think I understand. Thanks. Bill: You're welcome. Let's Practice: A: I want to buy a suit, but I don't know where to shop. Do you know a good shop? B: Yes, I like to buy suits at Fukuyama. You should go there. A: I want to bake a cake, but I don't know how. Can you help me? B: Sorry, I don't know how. You should buy a cook book. A: I want to see a dentist, but I don't know who to see. Do you know a good dentist? B: Yes, my dentist is good. I'll give you his number. Find more at www.eltpodcast.com