Podcast appearances and mentions of john all

This Manager Minute episode spotlights how the Massachusetts Commission for the Blind and MassAbility are leveraging AI to improve service delivery. Host Carol Pankow discusses innovative AI applications with guests Lola Akinlapa, Nathan Skrocki, and John Oliveira. They explore an AI-assisted intake platform designed to streamline processes, enhance multilingual support, and enable faster access to services. The conversation also highlights AI-powered tools like policy lookup systems and data visualization platforms like Tableau. Emphasizing accessibility and transparency, the episode showcases AI's potential to alleviate administrative bottlenecks, support staff, and empower consumers while preserving the human touch in service delivery.   Listen Here   Full Transcript:   {Music} John: We were looking for items that might be helpful to our staff. As many of our veteran counselors move on to retirement, it became imperative that we find a way that the newer counselors could find access to information quickly.   Lola: We're not looking to reduce workforce. We're not looking to reduce your day to day operations, right. We're looking to streamline and to make the consumer's journey at MassAbility more accessible to them.   Nate: What we're doing is just enhancing and streamlining the process to better understand and strengthen their policy knowledge, to make their jobs a little bit easier.   Intro Voice: Manager Minute brought to you by the VRTAC for Quality Management, Conversations powered by VR, one manager at a time, one minute at a time. Here is your host Carol Pankow.   Carol: Well, welcome to the manager minute. Today joining me in the studio is Lola Akinlapa, director of strategic initiatives in Massachusetts. Nathan Skrocki, Policy director at the Massachusetts Commission for the blind. And John Oliveira, Commissioner for the Mass Commission for the blind. So how goes it, Lola?   Lola: Oh, everything is good. Thank you for having me, Carol. I think this is a really great forum to kind of spread the word on what we've been doing at the state of Massachusetts.   Carol: Excellent. How about you, Nate? How are you doing today?   Nate: Happy new year. Doing well. Glad to be here. Thank you.   Carol: Excellent. And last but not least, John, how is it? How are things? You got a new role.   John: Everything is great. A very cold day today, but we'll get through it. Uh, it's close to zero wind chill. So very cold day here.   Carol: Ah, it's like you guys are in Minnesota...   John: Yeah, I think so.   Carol:  Joining Jeff and I...   John: I think so.   Carol: Yeah. We were three below today. It was fabulous. Well I'm super excited about our topic. So artificial intelligence, although it's really not a new concept, it's gained significant attention in the recent years and the field of AI research was officially established during a workshop at Dartmouth College in 1956, where researchers optimistically predicted that human level intelligence machines would be achieved within a generation. However, it became clear the challenge was really greater than anticipated. But today, you know, we have AI everywhere seamlessly integrated into our life. You know, we've got Siri and Alexa. I rely on them all the time to your biometric scanning at the airports and the list goes on. And I had the good fortune to find out that Massachusetts is really standing out as a state that has embraced the broad implementation of AI and incorporating it extensively across various aspects of daily life and governance. So I want to dig in and learn some more from you guys. So I'd like to start out because our listeners like to get a little insight into all of you. If you could tell us about yourself and your role. And for our my two friends from the Blind agency a little bit. How you got into VR? And Lola, I'm going to start with you first.   Lola: Thank you, Carol. So a little bit about myself, as you mentioned, Lola Akinlapa, I am Director of Strategic Initiatives at now, formerly what used to be the Mass Rehab Commission and now known as MassAbility. I came into the agency back in 2014. I actually started in research and development, doing a lot of the analytic work. I actually was voluntold, I would say, to assist in a new project that we were implementing. It was a statewide case management system for our different divisions at MassAbility. Through that process, I was able to kind of take a step back to say, well, what do we need at this agency to push us toward the future?   Carol: Yeah, Lola, it is great being voluntold, because that leads to some of the best things when you're working on different things. So, Nate, how about you? How did you land at Mass Commission for the Blind?   Nate: I landed at MCB about eight years ago. At this point. I've been a manager within state government for many years and ended up at MCB. Hopefully this is where I'll be staying for many more years. I really like the mission of MCB and the work that we do as an agency to provide services to residents of Massachusetts.   Carol: Good stuff, good stuff. And John, you've switched roles, so I've known you for a while. But tell our listeners a little bit about yourself.   John: All right. Carol, I've been with the agency for, wow, 37 years.   Carol: Oh my gosh.   John: And started out in services and worked with the senior staff, senior consumers, and was in vocational rehab for a while, worked as director of staff development and training for a while. I headed up the assistive technology program for a while. I was deputy commissioner for something like 12 years, oversaw the programs, and I've been commissioner now for a year and a half.   Carol: Good for you. Well, sure good to see you again. So in the fall, I had the had the chance to attend an AI convening with Tony Wolf, who is the MassAbility Commissioner. And Tony was mentioning she kept talking about all these really cool things happening in Massachusetts. And I just I needed to learn more. So now, Lola, like, how is MassAbility moving in this AI space? And I know you're doing some things that are helping the consumer experience be quicker and easier. What's that look like?   Lola: Oh my God. It's been quite a journey to say the least. At our agency, we as many other agencies identified bottlenecks, identified issues with maybe the bureaucratic side of things where it takes longer to get someone from point A to point B. It was through, actually, our centralized intake unit where we discovered there's area for improvement here. And that area of improvement could be resolved through an assisted intake form. So at MassAbility, we're developing an AI assisted intake platform that's meant to support our staff at MassAbility, who are doing the intakes to allow them to have more leeway on doing what's more important to the work, which is getting our folks to the services they need. Through this intake form, we're actually removing the repetitive task. We're looking at some speech to text technology and then also some guided workflows. And we're also able to get multilingual support. And through the intake, it's meant to guide a lot of our consumers to feel a little bit more empowered to get from I'm stuck here, how do I get services that I need, whether I'm going to work or looking to live or transition into the community, instead of waiting months before someone can speak to you to get you through the process.   In this platform, we're actually able to allow our staff to have more time to be dedicated to more personalized interactions with our clients. So it's been a journey to kind of develop what that roadmap looks like. But we are super excited about this. We actually will be going live early this year through our MassAbility site, through our consumer portal, where it will be housed, and individuals will be able to go in, log in and fill out the form, and the form would guide them through the entire process without human interaction. And for us, I think it's really important to take a step back and really understand the purpose of this. Right. It's not to remove the individual from their work, right. It's to make some processes a little bit more streamlined, but then have our staff, our counselors, our case managers be able to focus on more of the human interaction. It's been quite a journey for us, to say the least.   Carol: So, Lola, are you working on that with your own state IT folk or who kind of is helping you mastermind all this?   Lola: So this is in collaboration with our IT folks at Executive Office of Technology. Also, we're working with a contractor who's been helping us build this platform out. They've been super great. It's been a very collaborative effort across the board. I would even have to throw in Microsoft because there's some work that they're assisting us doing, and it's been a team effort to get it to where it is today. And we're actually very proud of what we've done in such a short period of time.   Carol: Very cool, I like it. I know Lola, you had talked to me too, you were interested in doing something kind of in this data realm because I know data isn't cool always. But you were trying to do some stuff with Tableau and AI. So what does that look like?   Lola: Tableau. For folks that don't know, it's a visual data tool that we've been using at MassAbility for a little bit over four years now. The really cool thing about technology is as the years go on, the tools get better. Tableau was another way that we were using to kind of drive our data decision making at the agency. You know, things that are really core to the MassAbility beliefs in our missions. With Tableau, we're able to have a chatbot, and the chatbot would be utilized something similar like ChatGPT, where you could say, show me how many individuals are getting X services, or show me how many individuals are served in certain parts of the region. Right?   Carol: Yeah.   Lola: very cool things like that where you don't have to be a data analyst or a data science...   Carol: right.   Lola: to use Tableau. It kind of makes it more user friendly and at your fingertips. I think of it like on demand data. So that's something that we've been looking at that is in collaboration with an initiative that we have over at Northeastern. And we've submitted a proposal for that. So we haven't started, but we're looking forward to some of the cool and innovative things, because I think many state agencies will agree. Data is really, really interesting to look at, especially when you're looking to tell a story, when you're looking to improve just the overall outcomes of your agency, depending on what you're looking to achieve. So it's really been something great that we're looking forward to getting started. And then also on the back end, kind of showing and empowering our own staff as to what this data means, right? Because not everyone is a data scientist. Not everyone enjoys. It's a very dry subject, but I think this is a way to keep folks engaged in terms of what's really going on at the agency, and it kind of tells a story without having to truly understand the data to tell the story.   Carol: I love that. I think you'll find if you guys can make that all happen, there's going to be a lot of folks across the country that are going to be super interested in that piece because data has been so critical, especially as WIOA passed, and we're looking at so much more of the data and what really is happening for individuals with disabilities and getting into employment. And so I feel like sometimes we're data rich, but we're analysis poor. And people are like, I don't know what all this means. You get a little bit overwhelmed by the data. So I think that would be great for people to be able to do the old ChatGPT kind of thing and just ask a question and get the answer.   Lola: Absolutely.   Carol: I love that, that's very cool. So when you look at AI, there really has been considerable impact, too, for individuals who are blind and visually impaired. And Nathan and John, I mean, what are you guys seeing with the customers you serve? Just in general, when you think about AI and the work you're doing now?   John: Well, obviously in the assistive technology field, there's always been a lot of talk about incorporating AI to serve consumers. And over the past 4 or 5 years, many of the wearables have become very popular. And every year when you see these items, they get better and better. And that's benefiting a lot of our consumers tremendously. I'm sure that you've all heard about the meta glasses. Tremendous assistance for our consumers. You put on this pair of glasses, you can take pictures of the environment you're walking through. You can use it with description services such as Aira and Be My Eyes. And it works great for someone who doesn't know the area. For someone who's trying to do some work and needs to access print immediately, a great way to do this. Many other things are coming down the pipeline, but we were looking for items that might be helpful to our staff. As many of our veteran counselors move on to retirement, it became imperative that we find a way that the newer counselors could find access to information quickly. We do the trainings the usual way, but that takes quite a bit of time. And if you have questions and you want answers right away, we were looking for a solution and we came across this solution in Outlook Insight. I read about it somewhere, I called them, I spoke to an individual at the company and we agreed that we would meet at the NCSAB Conference. And I turned them on to Nate and his policy team. And he can give you more of the story about that journey going forward here.   Carol: So what do you know, Nate?   Nate: Thanks, John.   Carol: John is the idea guy and he's like, Nate, go do the thing.   Nate: And it works out great. So what we did was we connected with Outlook Insight, and we wanted a tool that would allow kind of a quick reference lookup for our case managers. So it could be that they have questions themselves and the policy or procedures. And making sure a case is executed properly or consumer may have a question and they want a quick reference for that. So what we did with Outlook Insight is develop a tool that takes all of our internal policies and all of the other policies that govern us, and kind of housed it all in one place and very similar to ChatGPT or some of these other AIs out there. You can ask it a question and it will provide a response. And when it provides a response, we have the ability to really take a look at where it's coming from. So it will include all the resources that it's pulling from with the response. So it will cite the documentation. So it might be some direction from RSA or some of our internal policies or another piece of policy that is out there, another piece of guidance that is out there. And it will cite that particular piece of policy where it's coming from. You can click on it. When you click on it, it will bring that policy up and you can read further, but it will also provide that response. So if you ask it what form is needed at this step of a case procedure, it will bring up what form is needed. Bring up the form and you can go from there.   Carol: Nice. So where are you at in the process with this rolling out?   Nate: We have rolled it out to some staff. It's not officially rolled out yet as an agency. It's something we're still testing. But we did roll it out to some staff to test to really kind of understand what they're using it for. Another piece of it is we're allowed to add tiles to this particular system. We can create these buttons or tiles above the search bar that will have preloaded questions. So say a consumer is going to college and we you know we might have a button that has the question on it. What is college reimbursement for a student at MCB. You can click on that and we'll bring up all the information about what's appropriate for college reimbursement, how much that college investment can be, so on and so forth. We wanted to get an idea of what people were asking it. We wanted to get an idea of what they're using it for, so we can kind of load in those different tiles on the top as well. And as we go through certain cycles in case management, those will change over the year, in the future when we do roll this out. And we also just were curious on what people were looking up for quick reference. And people are using it. It is a very good tool. It's been helpful for us in the policy unit. We're not getting as many questions for people that are using it, because they're going to that first to see if they can look up the policies on their own and get a response on their own. We do caution people though, because it is AI, so sometimes it does not provide the full picture. I guess is the best way to put it. It might give a partial answer. We haven't seen where it's giving any wrong answers yet, but sometimes it doesn't fill in the whole picture. So that's why we include the policies with the response, because people can go in and search further within that policy if they need to formulate a decision a little bit better.   Carol: Yeah, you bring up a really good point. You always have to trust but verify, even ChatGPT you throw something in there. And I use it a lot because it's super helpful and it'll be going along. It's really great. It gives this response and then you have some kind of wacky line comes in there and you go, I don't really know where that came from, but that isn't right. So you can't just turn it all over to the bot. You still have to use your own kind of critical thinking skills and take a look to apply it.   Nate: For sure. The advantage that we have, as opposed to like an open source AI, is we control what goes in and out of where it's pulling from. So we're the ones putting the policies in. Or as Lola had mentioned before, if you want statistics or something like that, you can put it in a document with certain statistics and it can pull from that. But we control everything in there. So it's not pulling from this open source where it might recognize something as helpful, but it really isn't. It's everything in there. We've kind of vetted and we understand it's something that is needed by the agency.   Lola: Absolutely. And just to Nathan's point, open source, we're talking about like Google, you know, you can get millions of results back and very true at MassAibility. Similarly, we obviously have regulations that we're following with RSA. And there are things that we have to control just to make sure the language is correct. So we're putting in what needs to be said at the bot kind of just follows that logic. So that's kind of the nice thing where you can still have that control, even if it is kind of AI, but it's still guarded. It's not as loose as just an open source would be.   Carol: Yeah, absolutely. It's a great point, Lola. And I know for the both of you, you know you're doing things that are impacting the staff. So staff can definitely have a reaction to this. Sometimes positive, sometimes not. Like we're all super excited. I see your smiling faces like, yay, we're doing the thing. And then they're like, you know, people feel like back what I was saying in the beginning, like, we're going to replace everybody with robots or something. And so staff can get concerned. So I'm going to kick this to you first, Lola, what's been kind of the response from staff about the things that you guys are trying to do?   Lola: Well, I'm very fortunate to work at an agency where folks are very open minded. Change is a little different, but we're very open minded at MassAbility. I think it's all about the messaging and the purpose on why we're doing certain things right. For sure. There are people that are going to have, you know, pros and cons about it, but I think how we message it is we're not looking to reduce workforce...   Carol: right.   Lola: We're not looking to reduce your day to day operations, right? We're looking to streamline and to make the consumer's Consumers journey at MassAbility more accessible to them. The option that we have right now and how we've messaged it to staff is it's an option, right? We're not removing the human aspect of it, but it's an option for individuals who are in certain circumstances that need to get something done a little bit faster, right? It takes a little bit longer to talk to individuals, but if it's something that they feel like, you know, I'm just going in and I'm looking for a job, I know everything I need to have. This is another outlet that they can use where the system itself is like, I'm not a person, but I can guide you like an individual, right? At the end of it, you will be meeting with a person. You will have that personalized experience, that interaction, but mostly for the admin and the data entry, right? We can repurpose that. We can shift that burden to some of the tools that we have available to us, like the AI assisted intake form. So that's really the messaging behind it, right? The messaging is not to impact staff. It's not to scare staff.   Carol: Right.   Lola: But it's more to help think of allowing people to have different options to come into the agency that aren't so impactful or don't feel like a bottleneck.   Carol: Yeah, I love that. I love that point. How about you guys, Nate or John? Have you seen any initial responses from staff, maybe different than you thought or how has it been going?   Nate: I think for us it's a little bit different too, because we're providing human services, so we're not replacing that in any way with an AI tool. We're not going to be replacing us, going out and sitting with a consumer and meeting them where they're at and providing the services that they need to be successful. What we're doing is really just enhancing and, like Lola said, streamlining the process to better understand and strengthen their policy knowledge to make their jobs a little bit easier. We haven't really explored any type of AI that would help with case management work or anything like that, and it's really tough because like I said, in the human service field and in Lola can probably also agree with this. Every consumer is so different. We're meeting with them a lot of times in person, especially at our agency, and providing the services that they need. A lot of it's hands on services, something that we're not going to be able to do with AI. What we're really looking at is how do we enhance their ability to provide and streamline services and make the experience better for the consumers and for our workers. And that's what we've done with this first policy tool. And I think it's been successful. I don't know if you have anything to add there, John.   John: Yeah, we're supporting the staff at this point. So it's not that we're trying to take staff out of the process. We're making it easier for you to do your job and for you to answer questions that you may have about the process of moving the client through the system, or even questions that a consumer may ask you, and you can explain to them. And if you're missing any of that data, you can pull it up on your laptop. And that tool is always with you. You can ask it at that point, or you can refer to other resources we have on that machine. So you could certainly help them get the information they need faster and help yourself process the information they've given you faster.   Carol: Well, having done technical assistance for years with state agencies, and I see the hundreds of pages in all your policy manuals and all this craziness, I'm sure staff will greatly appreciate anything that streamlines some of that work that they have to do, and all the things they have to retain. And you've got your policy and your procedure and your desk and your 14 other directions. It's a lot. I mean, it's a lot to keep track of, as well as just paying attention to the individual that's sitting before you. And so I think anything you can do to streamline that is great. I'm wondering if you all have other ideas. I know Lola, when I talked to you before, you are full of lots of thoughts. Do you have any next steps for accessibility that you're thinking about?   Lola: I have a couple of next steps right now. I have to rein myself in. We're for sure right now really focused on getting our automated intake form out. We're at the tail end of testing and everything has been looking great on the up and up. So we've been really trying to get our messaging around what that looks like, especially to our constituents that are looking for services. So folks just understand the purpose, the why and how we're trying to make this a little bit better. I'm hoping eventually one day I can take this to phase two where the eligibility pieces may come into play, but we're not there yet. Right. We're taking baby steps.   Carol: Yeah.   Lola: I'm really excited we've gotten this far. I know Nathan and I have had conversations a few months back about looking at something similar to what they're doing with the policy, because we have our own policies, right, that are kind of everywhere. They need to be updated and staff need to reference them or individuals are looking for them. So I think definitely what MCB has been doing has been in the back of our minds a little bit. But like we said, we're taking baby steps and hopefully we can get there. But I think across the board, these are all great initiatives.   Carol: Yeah, absolutely. How about you Nate and John are you guys looking at, you thinking a 2.0 on anything or some other areas you'd like to dabble in with AI?   Nate: I think it's rolling this out first and kind of once we get this completely rolled out to staff and kind of understand how well it's working, I think we can take those next steps. We're always keeping our finger on the pulse of technology and how it's advancing, and if it can assist us in any way, and we'll continue to do that. I think an interesting, it kind of fits in with AI is, you know, one of the biggest barriers for our consumers is transportation. And as far as AI goes, one of the big conversations in that community is automated cars and those type of things. And we have in the past provided some input about automation. And when they're creating those type of things for transportation, how to think about how it would benefit people with disabilities and those type of things. It's a long way off, but it's something interesting and something I personally get asked about a lot when I'm out speaking in different areas is, where is that? You know how close that is?   Carol: Yeah.   Nate: That's nothing we'll ever do as an agency. We're never going to be providing, you know, services. But we have provided some just some input in the past on that. But as far as like case management and service to consumers and those type of things, like Lola says, eligibility is something that's very interesting. If there's something that can help with that, it's for different programs within our agency. You know, when you're coming to MCB, we're a little bit different than MassAbility. By law, you have to be registered with us if you reach the threshold of legal blindness in Massachusetts. So you're registered with us. It's the law. But depending on what services you're receiving and what programs you're in and those type of things and maybe something interesting to look at in the future.   Carol: Yeah, definitely. Blind agencies have a lot of moving parts and pieces. So how about any advice you all might have for states that are starting to think about this? Because states are in all different, you know, places and people are kind of, their administrations. Some are very proactive, some are not. Do you have any advice, as you've been working through these projects that might help other people that are starting to dabble? Lola, I'll kick that to you first.   Lola: Yeah, I think that's all dependent just on where you are as a state agency, right? It's taken us a while to come to the realization, like, maybe there's something more we can do to kind of help the process that we're in. And it just so happened some of the things that we've identified as pain points, it looks like AI and technology would really help alleviate. And I'm not going to say remove because we're always going to have issues, but it would help alleviate some of those pain points. I think one of the things that would be insightful for folks to know, and just because the disability community loves the community, it's just when it comes to technology, we have to be very careful, right? We need to be mindful of some of the biases that come along with that. We need to make sure that the accessibility is actually accessible. It's usable, right? To Nathan's point, we serve various consumers ranging from different types of disability. And I think sometimes that gets lost in the conversation because we're so much let's get it to the next level and let's make it work for us and automate it. And I think we forget to take a step back and remember who we're doing it for, right? We're doing it for the folks that maybe don't have mobility, the folks that can't always read or have low vision, or the deaf or hard of hearing individuals. We really try to make this form all about the people. So I think as agencies are probably trying to embark on technology, those are some of the things that they might want to keep in mind. And it depends just where you are in the process. Just it was great timing for us, and I'm sure Nathan would agree. It was probably great timing for his agency to start some of the discovery process around how we can utilize AI.   Carol: Good advice. John, do you have anything you want to add?   John: Yeah. When you're going down this road, be prepared that you understand the process that your state has, because there's many other departments that come in and want to take a look at what you're doing and ask for a lot of different documentation. And so that all has to be done before any product can be deployed. And depending how bureaucratic the state is, it can be different. A large state might have a whole bunch of departments Moving in and wanting to take a look in a smaller state may not be as complicated or as cumbersome process as it can be. So just be aware. Once you understand the idea and you think of a potential product, make sure that you've understood all the steps you have to do at the state level to be able to deploy that product and not have it pulled when you're halfway through, or you've spent money on development so that it gets scrapped in the development stage. So just be very aware of how to get that process through the state.   Carol: Yeah, that's  very good advice. Nate you get the last word on this.   Nate: Patience. For a lot of reasons and pointing at both what Lola and Commissioner Olivera talked about here. You got to have patience to go through the process. But you also have to have patience to make sure that it is accessible. Here at MCB, we obviously have a myriad of different folks using it and with different abilities and ways that they approach the system. We got to make sure it works for all those different ways. And that wasn't easy either, but more so for the process. It's a long process. We're still in the middle of that process, but it's worth it. I do want to say that have the patience, but it is definitely worth it. AI is extraordinarily able to just provide a way to save time. You know, a question that may come up to us where we research a question, decide on what the answer is, reach back out to a worker, give them the answer and they go to a consumer. Give them the answer. It could be days. This is seconds. The time that it saves. And maybe even if you, depending on how it's deployed, the cost it could save in the long run. It's extraordinary and worth the time put in.   Carol: I love that you would mention that. There used to be something that I compared every year that came out from RSA, and I'd compare to the previous year, and so I'd always look at, you know, I'd do this side by side, kind of mark up what all change, what language changed. And it used to take me hours, you know, just to look through the document. Now I send it through a tool and literally in a minute it highlights everything that changed from one year to the next. I'm like, boom, done. You have it. People always are asking us questions as a TA provider, and I'm like able to immediately tell them what change they're like. How'd you do that analysis so fast? Well, I used my friend, you know, an AI tool that was able to do it. It really is an amazing Time saver. So how can our listeners find you guys? Could you leave us with like, an email address or something? Lola, would you mind saying your email address for the listeners in case somebody wants to reach out to what you're doing there?   Lola: Yeah, absolutely. I can be reached at Oluwafunke.Akinlapa@mass.gov. The spelling is o l u w a f u n k e dot a k I n l a p a at mass.gov.   Carol: Oh that's great. And then Nate or  John, do you both want to give your email or who's the contact there.   Nate: It's Nathan.w. Skrocki@mass.gov and I'll spell that out. It's n a t h a n dot w dot s k r o c k I at mass.gov.   Carol: Oh, that is awesome you guys! I really am looking forward to seeing your stuff roll out. You need to give me an update. I am super happy about this. In fact, we were having an AI conversation the other day on our GW team and I said, hey, I'm doing a podcast this week and they're like, you got to give us the names of the people, because some folks are working on something, they like, they're gathering up information from across the country. So I said I'd be happy to share. So thanks so much. And please do keep in touch. I wish you the very best with your projects.   Lola: Awesome. Thank you Carol.   John: Thank you Carol.   Nate: Thanks.   {Music} Outro Voice: Conversations powered by VR, one manager at a time, one minute at a time, brought to you by the VR TAC for Quality Management. Catch all of our podcast episodes by subscribing on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening!

In a series of 10 interviews, John Cottrell, shares his 10 tips to a happier life (link in the description if you want to hear all 10 now) John often referred to as the "Breakthrough Guy," is a coach dedicated to empowering ambitious CEOs and professionals. He is known for his transformative approach in helping individuals overcome personal and professional barriers. John's methodology includes a series of steps designed to release emotional burdens, challenge limiting beliefs, and optimise personal and professional performance. His coaching program promises significant improvements, from increased profits to enhanced work-life balance and personal fulfillment. John recently appeared on the Watkin sofa, where he shared his "10 Rules to a Happy Life," a segment from his series of interviews aimed at providing actionable insights for achieving a more contented and successful life. If you can't wait for the next podcast of John - All 10 chats can seen in this YouTube Playlist https://youtu.be/bxcMxkO67Zg?si=TLzR5hpYSX3vvdZt John is a friend of mine and has helped me tremendously over the years. I created these videos as thank you to him to making life better and hopefully his teachings will help you?

In a series of 10 interviews, John Cottrell, shares his 10 tips to a happier life (link in the description if you want to hear all 10 now) John often referred to as the "Breakthrough Guy," is a coach dedicated to empowering ambitious CEOs and professionals. He is known for his transformative approach in helping individuals overcome personal and professional barriers. John's methodology includes a series of steps designed to release emotional burdens, challenge limiting beliefs, and optimise personal and professional performance. His coaching program promises significant improvements, from increased profits to enhanced work-life balance and personal fulfillment. John recently appeared on the Watkin sofa, where he shared his "10 Rules to a Happy Life," a segment from his series of interviews aimed at providing actionable insights for achieving a more contented and successful life. If you can't wait for the next podcast of John - All 10 chats can seen in this YouTube Playlist https://youtu.be/bxcMxkO67Zg?si=TLzR5hpYSX3vvdZt John is a friend of mine and has helped me tremendously over the years. I created these videos as thank you to him to making life better and hopefully his teachings will help you?

In a series of 10 interviews, John Cottrell, shares his 10 tips to a happier life (link in the description if you want to hear all 10 now) John often referred to as the "Breakthrough Guy," is a coach dedicated to empowering ambitious CEOs and professionals. He is known for his transformative approach in helping individuals overcome personal and professional barriers. John's methodology includes a series of steps designed to release emotional burdens, challenge limiting beliefs, and optimise personal and professional performance. His coaching program promises significant improvements, from increased profits to enhanced work-life balance and personal fulfillment. John recently appeared on the Watkin sofa, where he shared his "10 Rules to a Happy Life," a segment from his series of interviews aimed at providing actionable insights for achieving a more contented and successful life. If you can't wait for the next podcast of John - All 10 chats can seen in this YouTube Playlist https://youtu.be/bxcMxkO67Zg?si=TLzR5hpYSX3vvdZt John is a friend of mine and has helped me tremendously over the years. I created these videos as thank you to him to making life better and hopefully his teachings will help you?

In a series of 10 interviews, John Cottrell, shares his 10 tips to a happier life (link in the description if you want to hear all 10 now) John often referred to as the "Breakthrough Guy," is a coach dedicated to empowering ambitious CEOs and professionals. He is known for his transformative approach in helping individuals overcome personal and professional barriers. John's methodology includes a series of steps designed to release emotional burdens, challenge limiting beliefs, and optimise personal and professional performance. His coaching program promises significant improvements, from increased profits to enhanced work-life balance and personal fulfillment. John recently appeared on the Watkin sofa, where he shared his "10 Rules to a Happy Life," a segment from his series of interviews aimed at providing actionable insights for achieving a more contented and successful life. If you can't wait for the next podcast of John - All 10 chats can seen in this YouTube Playlist https://youtu.be/bxcMxkO67Zg?si=TLzR5hpYSX3vvdZt John is a friend of mine and has helped me tremendously over the years. I created these videos as thank you to him to making life better and hopefully his teachings will help you?

In a series of 10 interviews, John Cottrell, shares his 10 tips to a happier life (link in the description if you want to hear all 10 now) John often referred to as the "Breakthrough Guy," is a coach dedicated to empowering ambitious CEOs and professionals. He is known for his transformative approach in helping individuals overcome personal and professional barriers. John's methodology includes a series of steps designed to release emotional burdens, challenge limiting beliefs, and optimise personal and professional performance. His coaching program promises significant improvements, from increased profits to enhanced work-life balance and personal fulfillment. John recently appeared on the Watkin sofa, where he shared his "10 Rules to a Happy Life," a segment from his series of interviews aimed at providing actionable insights for achieving a more contented and successful life. If you can't wait for the next podcast of John - All 10 chats can seen in this YouTube Playlist https://youtu.be/bxcMxkO67Zg?si=TLzR5hpYSX3vvdZt John is a friend of mine and has helped me tremendously over the years. I created these videos as thank you to him to making life better and hopefully his teachings will help you?

JLP Mon 9-2-24 Female Monday! "Labor Day." Hr 1 Last BQ, new BQ. Priest slaps baby! Calls… Gf's mom spiked stepdad's drink! Supers… TIMOTHY: Doormat with 2nd wife? // Hr 2 Calls: TIMOTHY taking woman back?! … JOHN: Men think like women! … Supers… JAKE: human "love"? // Hr 3 TIMOTHY afraid of love, wants a woman. STORIES: Breonna Taylor. Ticked gal: Illegal homes. MANDY vs JOE on their "marriage." // Last Biblical Question: Do you want to be different? New BQ: Do you know the truth? What is it? TIMESTAMPS (0:00:00) HOUR 1 Happy Communist Day (0:03:44) Stuck in space… Female Monday (0:06:42) Last BQ: Do you want to be different? Yes, but leave it blank. (0:10:41) Priest slaps baby during baptism … Later: Breonna Taylor (0:18:24) DEVIN, Canada, 1st: Define God? BLM ladies. (0:21:20) MATTHEW, GA, 1st: If we say we don't sin… (0:24:55) GABRIEL, CA, 1st: GF's mother spiked stepdad's drink (0:31:34) Announcements (0:35:33) Supers: Wait and See. Imagination is not seeing. (0:41:15) Supers: Woman needs a man to get to God? (0:48:25) TIMOTHY, VA, 1st: 2nd wife. "Love." Doormat? HOLD (0:55:00) NEWS… HOUR 2 (1:04:02) TIMOTHY: Take woman back? Daughter sees he's weak! Beta! (1:07:32) TIMOTHY: 1st wife left me for best friend. Sons 16, 18. (1:09:22) TIMOTHY: In your weakness, don't let her back, and grow. (1:11:22) TIMOTHY: Forgive parents. No feeling to strength, only weakness. (1:16:52) AARON, MD: Bill Lockwood, role of women. BQ: Truth is God. (1:20:22) CONOR, MI… Bible thumper? Nice call (1:25:16) JOHN, NC: Go into details forgiving? Thinking like a woman! (1:31:12) Music, Announcements (1:33:20) JOHN: All men think like women! JLP: Truth doesn't change! (1:37:19) TERRI, OR, BQ: Truth manifested through me …? (1:43:37) Supers… BQ, Church, Assignment: Feel the thoughts (1:48:16) JAKE, CO, 1st: Human love is hate; Over a woman? HOLD (1:55:00) NEWS… HOUR 3 (2:03:25) JAKE: Afraid of love… Not praying. Forgive. (2:13:07) Breonna Taylor's boyfriend got her killed! (2:23:39) Ticked woman: Illegal home loans! (2:27:25) MANDY, MD, 1st: Husband, mother-in-law problems. HOLD (2:31:37) Announcements: PunchieTV (2:34:52) MANDY: DV arrest! Won't submit with MIL involved! He trusts her! (2:40:24) MANDY: JOE in jeep, explains his side (2:48:01) MANDY vs JOE arguing… (2:50:15) MANDY, JOE: This marriage is over. Hell. Two devils fighting (2:55:15) Supers (2:56:31) Closing: Stop fighting! Lay your weapons down. Mandy and Joe!

In a series of 10 interviews, John Cottrell, shares his 10 tips to a happier life (link in the description if you want to hear all 10 now) John often referred to as the "Breakthrough Guy," is a coach dedicated to empowering ambitious CEOs and professionals. He is known for his transformative approach in helping individuals overcome personal and professional barriers. John's methodology includes a series of steps designed to release emotional burdens, challenge limiting beliefs, and optimise personal and professional performance. His coaching program promises significant improvements, from increased profits to enhanced work-life balance and personal fulfillment. John recently appeared on the Watkin sofa, where he shared his "10 Rules to a Happy Life," a segment from his series of interviews aimed at providing actionable insights for achieving a more contented and successful life. If you can't wait for the next podcast of John - All 10 chats can seen in this YouTube Playlist https://youtu.be/bxcMxkO67Zg?si=TLzR5hpYSX3vvdZt John is a friend of mine and has helped me tremendously over the years. I created these videos as thank you to him to making life better and hopefully his teachings will help you?

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with playwright and screenwriter Jeffrey Hatcher on Columbo, Sherlock Holmes, favorite mysteries and more!LINKSA Free Film Book for You: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12Another Free Film Book: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/Jeffrey Hatcher Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.hatcher.3/The Good Liar (Trailer): https://youtu.be/ljKzFGpPHhwMr. Holmes (Trailer): https://youtu.be/0G1lIBgk4PAStage Beauty (Trailer): https://youtu.be/-uc6xEBfdD0Columbo Clips from “Ashes to Ashes”Clip One: https://youtu.be/OCKECiaFsMQClip Two: https://youtu.be/BbO9SDz9FEcClip Three: https://youtu.be/GlNDAVAwMCIEli Marks Website: https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/Albert's Bridge Books Website: https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcastTRANSCRIPTJohn: Can you remember your very first mystery, a movie, book, TV show, play, a mystery that really captured your imagination? Jeffrey: You know, I was thinking about this, and what came to mind was a Disney movie called Emile and the Detectives from 1964. So, I would have been six or seven years old. It's based on a series of German books by Eric Kastner about a young man named Emile and his group of friends who think of themselves as detectives. So, I remember that—I know that might've been the first film. And obviously it's not a play because, you know, little kids don't tend to go to stage thrillers or mysteries and, “Daddy, please take me to Sleuth.But there was a show called Burke's Law that I really loved. Gene Barry played Captain Amos Burke of the Homicide Division in Los Angeles, and he was very rich. That was the bit. The bit was that Captain Burke drove around in a gorgeous Rolls Royce Silver Ghost, and he had a chauffeur. And every mystery was structured classically as a whodunit.In fact, I think every title of every episode was “Who Killed Cock Robin?” “Who Killed Johnny Friendly?” that kind of thing. And they would have a cast of well-known Hollywood actors, so they were all of equal status. Because I always think that's one of the easiest ways to guess the killer is if it's like: Unknown Guy, Unknown Guy, Derek Jacobi, Unknown Guy, Unknown Guy. It's always going to be Derek Jacobi. John: Yeah, it's true. I remember that show. He was really cool. Jim: Well, now I'm going to have to look that up.Jeffrey: It had a great score, and he would gather all of the suspects, you know, at the end of the thing. I think my favorite was when he caught Paul Lynde as a murderer. And, of course, Paul Lynde, you know, kept it very low key when he was dragged off. He did his Alice Ghostly impersonation as he was taken away.John: They did have very similar vocal patterns, those two.Jeffrey: Yep. They're kind of the exact same person. Jim: I never saw them together. John: You might have on Bewitched. Jim: You're probably right.Jeffrey: Well, I might be wrong about this, either Alice Ghostly or Charlotte Ray went to school with Paul Lynde. And Charlotte Ray has that same sound too. You know, kind of warbly thing. Yes. I think they all went to Northwestern in the late 40s and early 50s. So maybe that was a way that they taught actors back then. John: They learned it all from Marion Horne, who had the very same warble in her voice. So, as you got a little older, were there other mysteries that you were attracted to?Jeffrey: Yeah. Luckily, my parents were very liberal about letting me see things that other people probably shouldn't have. I remember late in elementary school, fifth grade or so, I was reading Casino Royale. And one of the teachers said, “Well, you know, most kids, we wouldn't want to have read this, but it's okay if you do.”And I thought, what's that? And I'm so not dangerous; other kids are, well they would be affected oddly by James Bond? But yeah, I, I love spy stuff. You know, The Man from Uncle and The Wild Wild West, all those kind of things. I love James Bond. And very quickly I started reading the major mysteries. I think probably the first big book that I remember, the first novel, was The Hound of the Baskervilles. That's probably an entrance point for a lot of kids. So that's what comes in mind immediately. Jim: I certainly revisit that on—if not yearly basis, at least every few years I will reread The Hound of the Baskervilles. Love that story. That's good. Do you have, Jeffrey, favorite mystery fiction writers?Jeffrey: Oh, sure. But none of them are, you know, bizarre Japanese, Santa Domingo kind of writers that people always pull out of their back pockets to prove how cool they are. I mean, they're the usual suspects. Conan Doyle and Christie and Chandler and Hammett, you know, all of those. John Dickson Carr, all the locked room mysteries, that kind of thing. I can't say that I go very far off in one direction or another to pick up somebody who's completely bizarre. But if you go all the way back, I love reading Wilkie Collins.I've adapted at least one Wilkie Collins, and they read beautifully. You know, terrifically put together, and they've got a lot of blood and thunder to them. I think he called them sensation novels as opposed to mysteries, but they always have some mystery element. And he was, you know, a close friend of Charles Dickens and Dickens said that there were some things that Collins taught him about construction. In those days, they would write their novels in installments for magazines. So, you know, the desire or the need, frankly, to create a cliffhanger at the end of every episode or every chapter seems to have been born then from a capitalist instinct. John: Jeff, I know you studied acting. What inspired the move into playwriting?Jeffrey: I don't think I was a very good actor. I was the kind of actor who always played older, middle aged or older characters in college and high school, like Judge Brack in Hedda Gabler, those kind of people. My dream back in those days was to play Dr. Dysart in Equus and Andrew Wyke in Sleuth. So, I mean, that was my target. And then I moved to New York, and I auditioned for things and casting directors would say, “Well, you know, we actually do have 50 year old actors in New York and we don't need to put white gunk in their hair or anything like that. So, why don't you play your own age, 22 or 23?” And I was not very good at playing 22 or 23. But I'd always done some writing, and a friend of mine, Graham Slayton, who was out at the Playwrights Center here, and we'd gone to college together. He encouraged me to write a play, you know, write one act, and then write a full length. So, I always say this, I think most people go into the theater to be an actor, you know, probably 98%, and then bit by bit, we, you know, we peel off. We either leave the profession completely or we become directors, designers, writers, what have you. So, I don't think it's unnatural what I did. It's very rare to be like a Tom Stoppard who never wanted to act. It's a lot more normal to find the Harold Pinter who, you know, acted a lot in regional theaters in England before he wrote The Caretaker.Jim: Fascinating. Can we talk about Columbo?Jeffrey: Oh, yes, please. Jim: This is where I am so tickled pink for this conversation, because I was a huge and am a huge Peter Falk Columbo fan. I went back and watched the episode Ashes To Ashes, with Patrick McGowan that you created. Tell us how that came about. Jeffrey: I too was a huge fan of Columbo in the 70s. I remember for most of its run, it was on Sunday nights. It was part of that murder mystery wheel with things like Hec Ramsey and McCloud, right? But Columbo was the best of those, obviously. Everything, from the structure—the inverted mystery—to thw guest star of the week. Sometimes it was somebody very big and exciting, like Donald Pleasence or Ruth Gordon, but often it was slightly TV stars on the skids.John: Jack Cassidy, Jim: I was just going to say Jack Cassidy.Jeffrey: But at any rate, yeah, I loved it. I loved it. I remembered in high school, a friend and I doing a parody of Columbo where he played Columbo and I played the murderer of the week. And so many years later, when they rebooted the show in the nineties, my father died and I spent a lot of time at the funeral home with the funeral director. And having nothing to say to the funeral director one day, I said, “Have you got the good stories?”And he told me all these great stories about, you know, bodies that weren't really in the casket and what you can't cremate, et cetera. So, I suddenly had this idea of a Hollywood funeral director to the stars. And, via my agent, I knew Dan Luria, the actor. He's a close friend or was a close friend of Peter's. And so, he was able to take this one-page idea and show it to Peter. And then, one day, I get a phone call and it's, “Uh, hello Jeff, this is Peter Falk calling. I want to talk to you about your idea.” And they flew me out there. It was great fun, because Falk really ran the show. He was the executive producer at that point. He always kind of ran the show. I think he only wrote one episode, the one with Faye Dunaway, but he liked the idea.I spent a lot of time with him, I'd go to his house where he would do his drawings back in the studio and all that. But what he said he liked about it was he liked a new setting, they always liked a murderer and a setting that was special, with clues that are connected to, say, the murderer's profession. So, the Donald Pleasant one about the wine connoisseur and all the clues are about wine. Or the Dick Van Dyke one, where he's a photographer and most of the clues are about photography. So, he really liked that. And he said, “You gotta have that first clue and you gotta have the pop at the end.”So, and we worked on the treatment and then I wrote the screenplay. And then he asked McGoohan if he would do it, and McGoohan said, “Well, if I can direct it too.” And, you know, I've adored McGoohan from, you know, Secret Agent and The Prisoner. I mean, I'd say The Prisoner is like one of my favorite television shows ever. So, the idea that the two of them were going to work together on that script was just, you know, it was incredible. John: Were you able to be there during production at all? Jeffrey: No, I went out there about four times to write, because it took like a year or so. It was a kind of laborious process with ABC and all that, but I didn't go out during the shooting.Occasionally, this was, you know, the days of faxes, I'd get a phone call: “Can you redo something here?” And then I'd fax it out. So, I never met McGoohan. I would only fax with him. But they built this whole Hollywood crematorium thing on the set. And Falk was saying at one point, “I'm getting pushback from Universal that we've got to do all this stuff. We've got to build everything.” And I was saying, “Well, you know, 60 percent of the script takes place there. If you're going to try to find a funeral home like it, you're going to have all that hassle.” And eventually they made the point that, yeah, to build this is going to cost less than searching around Hollywood for the right crematorium, And it had a great cast, you know, it had Richard Libertini and Sally Kellerman, and Rue McClanahan was our murder victim.Jim: I'll tell you every scene that Peter Falk and Mr. McGoohan had together. They looked to me as an actor, like they were having a blast being on together. Jeffrey: They really loved each other. They first met when McGoohan did that episode, By Dawn's Early Light, where he played the head of the military school. It's a terrific episode. It was a great performance. And although their acting styles are completely different, You know, Falk much more, you know, fifties, methody, shambolic. And McGoohan very, you know, his voice cracking, you know, and very affected and brittle. But they really loved each other and they liked to throw each other curveballs.There are things in the, in the show that are ad libs that they throw. There's one bit, I think it's hilarious. It's when Columbo tells the murderer that basically knows he did it, but he doesn't have a way to nail him. And, McGoohan is saying, “So then I suppose you have no case, do you?” And Falk says, “Ah, no, sir, I don't.” And he walks right off camera, you know, like down a hallway. And McGoohan stares off and says, “Have you gone?” And none of that was scripted. Peter just walks off set. And if you watch the episode, they had to dub in McGoohan saying, “Have you gone,” because the crew was laughing at the fact that Peter just strolled away. So McGoohan adlibs that and then they had to cover it later to make sure the sound wasn't screwed up. Jim: Fantastic. John: Kudos to you for that script, because every piece is there. Every clue is there. Everything pays off. It's just it is so tight, and it has that pop at the end that he wanted. It's really an excellent, excellent mystery.Jim: And a terrific closing line. Terrific closing line. Jeffrey: Yeah, that I did right. That was not an ad lib. Jim: It's a fantastic moment. And he, Peter Falk, looks just almost right at the camera and delivers that line as if it's, Hey, check this line out. It was great. Enjoyed every minute of it. Can we, um, can I ask some questions about Sherlock Holmes now?Jeffrey: Oh, yes. Jim: So, I enjoyed immensely Holmes and Watson that I saw a couple summers ago at Park Square. I was completely riveted and had no, absolutely no idea how it was going to pay off or who was who or what. And when it became clear, it was so much fun for me as an audience member. So I know that you have done a number of Holmes adaptations.There's Larry Millet, a St. Paul writer here and I know you adapted him, but as far as I can tell this one, pillar to post was all you. This wasn't an adaptation. You created this out of whole cloth. Am I right on that? Jeffrey: Yes. The, the idea came from doing the Larry Millet one, actually, because Steve Hendrickson was playing Holmes. And on opening night—the day of opening night—he had an aortic aneurysm, which they had to repair. And so, he wasn't able to do the show. And Peter Moore, the director, he went in and played Holmes for a couple of performances. And then I played Holmes for like three performances until Steve could get back. But in the interim, we've sat around saying, “All right, who can we get to play the role for like a week?” And we thought about all of the usual suspects, by which I mean, tall, ascetic looking actors. And everybody was booked, everybody was busy. Nobody could do it. So that's why Peter did it, and then I did it.But it struck me in thinking about casting Holmes, that there are a bunch of actors that you would say, you are a Holmes type. You are Sherlock Holmes. And it suddenly struck me, okay, back in the day, if Holmes were real, if he died—if he'd gone over to the falls of Reichenbach—people probably showed up and say, “Well, I'm Sherlock Holmes.”So, I thought, well, let's take that idea of casting Holmes to its logical conclusion: That a couple of people would come forward and say, “I'm Sherlock Holmes,” and then we'd wrap it together into another mystery. And we're sitting around—Bob Davis was playing Watson. And I said, “So, maybe, they're all in a hospital and Watson has to come to figure out which is which. And Bob said, “Oh, of course, Watson's gonna know which one is Holmes.”And that's what immediately gave me the idea for the twist at the end, why Watson wouldn't know which one was Holmes. So, I'm very grateful whenever an idea comes quickly like that, but it depends on Steve getting sick usually. Jim: Well, I thoroughly enjoyed it. If it's ever staged again anywhere, I will go. There was so much lovely about that show, just in terms of it being a mystery. And I'm a huge Sherlock Holmes fan. I don't want to give too much away in case people are seeing this at some point, but when it starts to be revealed—when Pierce's character starts talking about the reviews that he got in, in the West End—I I almost wet myself with laughter. It was so perfectly delivered and well written. I had just a great time at the theater that night. Jeffrey: It's one of those things where, well, you know how it is. You get an idea for something, and you pray to God that nobody else has done it. And I couldn't think of anybody having done this bit. I mean, some people have joked and said, it's kind of To Tell the Truth, isn't it? Because you have three people who come on and say, “I'm Sherlock Holmes.” “I'm Sherlock Holmes.” “I'm Sherlock Holmes.” Now surely somebody has done this before, but Nobody had. Jim: Well, it's wonderful. John: It's all in the timing. So, what is the, what's the hardest part about adapting Holmes to this stage?Jeffrey: Well, I suppose from a purist point of view‑by which I mean people like the Baker Street Irregulars and other organizations like that, the Norwegian Explorers here in Minnesota‑is can you fit your own‑they always call them pastiches, even if they're not comic‑can you fit your own Holmes pastiche into the canon?People spend a lot of time working out exactly where Holmes and Watson were on any given day between 1878 and 1930. So, one of the nice things about Holmes and Watson was, okay, so we're going to make it take place during the three-year interregnum when Holmes is pretending to be dead. And it works if you fit Holmes and Watson in between The Final Problem and The Adventure of the Empty House, it works. And that's hard to do. I would say, I mean, I really love Larry Millett's book and all that, but I'm sure it doesn't fit, so to speak. But that's up to you to care. If you're not a purist, you can fiddle around any old way you like. But I think it's kind of great to, to, to have the, the BSI types, the Baker Street Irregular types say, “Yes, this clicked into place.”Jim: So that's the most difficult thing. What's the easiest part?Jeffrey: Well, I think it's frankly the language, the dialogue. Somebody pointed out that Holmes is the most dramatically depicted character in history. More than Robin Hood, more than Jesus Christ. There are more actor versions of Holmes than any other fictional character.We've been surrounded by Holmes speak. Either if we've read the books or seen the movies or seen any of the plays for over 140 years. Right. So, in a way, if you're like me, you kind of absorb that language by osmosis. So, for some reason, it's very easy for me to click into the way I think Holmes talks. That very cerebral, very fast, sometimes complicated syntax. That I find probably the easiest part. Working out the plots, you want them to be Holmesian. You don't want them to be plots from, you know, don't want the case to be solved in a way that Sam Spade would, or Philip Marlowe would. And that takes a little bit of work. But for whatever reason, it's the actor in you, it's saying, all right, if you have to ad lib or improv your way of Sherlock Holmes this afternoon, you know, you'd be able to do it, right? I mean, he really has permeated our culture, no matter who the actor is.Jim: Speaking of great actors that have played Sherlock Holmes, you adapted a movie that Ian McKellen played, and I just watched it recently in preparation for this interview.Having not seen it before, I was riveted by it. His performance is terrific and heartbreaking at the same time. Can we talk about that? How did you come to that project? And just give us everything.Jeffrey: Well, it's based on a book called A Slight Trick of the Mind by Mitch Cullen, and it's about a very old Sherlock Holmes in Surrey, tending to his bees, as people in Holmesland know that he retired to do. And it involves a couple of cases, one in Japan and one about 20 years earlier in his life that he's trying to remember. And it also has to do with his relationship with his housekeeper and the housekeeper's son. The book was given to me by Anne Carey, the producer, and I worked on it probably off and on for about five years.A lot of time was spent talking about casting, because you had to have somebody play very old. I remember I went to meet with Ralph Fiennes once because we thought, well, Ralph Fiennes could play him at his own age,‑then probably his forties‑and with makeup in the nineties.And Ralph said‑Ralph was in another film that I'd done‑and he said, “Oh, I don't wear all that makeup. That's just far too much.” And I said, “Well, you did in Harry Potter and The English Patient, you kind of looked like a melted candle.” And he said, “Yes, and I don't want to do that again.” So, we always had a very short list of actors, probably like six actors in the whole world And McKellen was one of them and we waited for him to become available And yeah, he was terrific. I'll tell you one funny story: One day, he had a lot of prosthetics, not a lot, but enough. He wanted to build up his cheekbones and his nose a bit. He wanted a bit, he thought his own nose was a bit too potatoish. So, he wanted a more Roman nose. So, he was taking a nap one day between takes. And they brought him in, said, “Ian, it's time for you to do the, this scene,” and he'd been sleeping, I guess, on one side, and his fake cheek and his nose had moved up his face. But he hadn't looked in the mirror, and he didn't know. So he came on and said, “Very well, I'm all ready to go.” And it was like Quasimodo.It's like 5:52 and they're supposed to stop shooting at six. And there was a mad panic of, Fix Ian's face! Get that cheekbone back where it's supposed to be! Knock that nose into place! A six o'clock, we go into overtime!” But it was very funny that he hadn't noticed it. You kind of think you'd feel if your own nose or cheekbone had been crushed, but of course it was a makeup. So, he didn't feel anything. Jim: This is just the, uh, the actor fan boy in me. I'm an enormous fan of his work straight across the board. Did you have much interaction with him and what kind of fella is he just in general?Jeffrey: He's a hoot. Bill Condon, the director, said, “Ian is kind of methody. So, when you see him on set, he'll be very decorous, you know, he'll be kind of like Sherlock Holmes.” And it was true, he goes, “Oh, Jeffrey Hatcher, it's very good to meet you.” And he was kind of slow talking, all that. Ian was like 72 then, so he wasn't that old. But then when it was all over, they were doing all those--remember those ice Dumps, where people dump a tub of ice on you? You have these challenges? A the end of shooting, they had this challenge, and Ian comes out in short shorts, and a bunch of ballet dancers surrounds him. And he's like, “Alright, everyone, let's do the ice challenge.” And, he turned into this bright dancer. He's kind of a gay poster boy, you know, ever since he was one of the most famous coming out of the last 20 some years. So, you know, he was suddenly bright and splashy and, you know, all that old stuff dropped away. He has all of his headgear at his house and his townhouse. He had a party for us at the end of shooting. And so, there's a Gandalf's weird hat and there's Magneto's helmet, you know, along with top hats and things like that. And they're all kind of lined up there. And then people in the crew would say, can I take a picture of you as Gandalf? “Well, why, of course,” and he does all that stuff. So no, he's wonderful. Jim: You do a very good impression as well. That was great. Now, how did you come to the project, The Good Liar, which again, I watched in preparation for this and was mesmerized by the whole thing, especially the mystery part of it, the ending, it was brilliant.How did you come to that project?Jeffrey: Well, again, it was a book and Warner Brothers had the rights to it. And because Bill and I had worked on Mr. Holmes--Bill Condon--Bill was attached to direct. And so I went in to talk about how to adapt it.This is kind of odd. It's again based in McKellen. In the meeting room at Warner Brothers, there was a life size version of Ian as Gandalf done in Legos. So, it was always, it'll be Ian McKellen and somebody in The Good Liar. Ian as the con man. And that one kind of moved very quickly, because something changed in Bill Condon's schedule. Then they asked Helen Mirren, and she said yes very quickly.And it's a very interesting book, but it had to be condensed rather a lot. There's a lot of flashbacks and going back and forth in time. And we all decided that the main story had to be about this one con that had a weird connection to the past. So, a lot of that kind of adaptation work is deciding what not to include, so you can't really be completely faithful to a book that way. But I do take the point with certain books. When my son was young, he'd go to a Harry Potter movie, and he'd get all pissed off. Pissed off because he'd say Dobby the Elf did a lot more in the book.But if it's a book that's not quite so well-known—The Good Liar isn't a terribly well-known book, nor was A Slight Trick of the Mind--you're able to have a lot more room to play. Jim: It's a very twisty story. Now that you're talking about the book, I'll probably have to go get the book and read it just for comparison. But what I saw on the screen, how did you keep it--because it was very clear at the end--it hits you like a freight train when it all sort of unravels and you start seeing all of these things. How did you keep that so clear for an audience? Because I'll admit, I'm not a huge mystery guy, and I'm not the brightest human, and yet I was able to follow that story completely.Jeffrey: Well, again, I think it's mostly about cutting things, I'm sure. And there are various versions of the script where there are a lot of other details. There's probably too much of one thing or another. And then of course, you know, you get in the editing room and you lose a couple of scenes too. These kinds of things are very tricky. I'm not sure that we were entirely successful in doing it, because you say, which is more important, surprise or suspense? Hitchcock used to have that line about, suspense is knowing there's a bomb under the table. And you watch the characters gather at the table. As opposed to simply having a bomb blow up and you didn't know about it.So, we often went back and forth about Should we reveal that the Helen Mirren character knows that Ian's character is doing something bad? Or do we try to keep it a secret until the end? But do you risk the audience getting ahead of you? I don't mind if the audience is slightly ahead. You know, it's that feeling you get in the theater where there's a reveal and you hear a couple of people say, “Oh, I knew it and they guessed it may be a minute before. But you don't want to get to the point where the audience is, you know, 20 minutes or a half an hour ahead of you.Jim: I certainly was not, I was not in any way. It unfolded perfectly for me in terms of it being a mystery and how it paid off. And Helen Mirren was brilliant. In fact, for a long time during it, I thought they were dueling con men, the way it was set up in the beginning where they were both entering their information and altering facts about themselves.I thought, “Oh, well, they're both con men and, and now we're going to see who is the better con man in the end.” And so. when it paid off. In a way different sort of way, it was terrific for me. Absolutely. Jeffrey: Well, and I thank you. But in a way, they were both con men. Jim: Yes, yes. But she wasn't a professional con man.Jeffrey: She wasn't just out to steal the money from him. She was out for something else. She was out for vengeance. Jim: Yes. Very good. Very, if you haven't seen it, The Good Liar folks, don't wait. I got it on Amazon prime and so can you.Jeffrey: I watched them do a scene, I was over there for about five days during the shooting.And watching the two of them work together was just unbelievable. The textures, the tones, the little lifts of the eyebrow, the shading on one word versus another. Just wonderful, wonderful stuff. Jim: Yeah. I will say I am a huge Marvel Cinematic Universe fan along with my son. We came to those together and I'm a big fan of that sort of movie. So I was delighted by this, because it was such a taut story. And I was involved in every second of what was going on and couldn't quite tell who the good guys were and who the bad guys were and how is this going to work and who's working with who?And it was great. And in my head, I was comparing my love for that sort of big blow it up with rayguns story to this very cerebral, internal. And I loved it, I guess is what I'm saying. And, I am, I think, as close to middle America as you're going to find in terms of a moviegoer. And I thought it was just dynamite. Jeffrey: It was very successful during the pandemic--so many things were when people were streaming--but it was weirdly successful when it hit Amazon or Netflix or whatever it was. And, I think you don't have to be British to understand two elderly people trying to find a relationship. And then it turns out that they both have reasons to hate and kill each other. But nonetheless, there is still a relationship there. So, I pictured a lot of lonely people watching The Good Liar and saying, “Yeah, I'd hang out with Ian McKellen, even if he did steal all my money.” John: Well, speaking of movies, I am occasionally handed notes here while we're live on the air from my wife. And she wants you to just say something about the adaptation you did of your play, Stage Beauty, and what that process was like and how, how that process went.Jeffrey: That was terrific because, primarily Richard Eyre--the director who used to run the National Theater and all that--because he's a theater man and the play's about theater. I love working with Bill Condon and I've loved working with Lassa Hallstrom and other people, but Richard was the first person to direct a film of any of my stuff. And he would call me up and say, “Well, we're thinking of offering it to Claire Danes.” or we're thinking…And usually you just hear later, Oh, somebody else got this role. But the relationship was more like a theater director and a playwright. I was there on set for rehearsals and all that.Which I haven't in the others. No, it was a wonderful experience, but I think primarily because the, the culture of theater saturated the process of making it and the process of rehearsing it and—again--his level of respect. It's different in Hollywood, everybody's very polite, they know they can fire you and you know, they can fire you and they're going to have somebody else write the dialogue if you're not going to do it, or if you don't do it well enough. In the theater, we just don't do that. It's a different world, a different culture, different kind of contracts too. But Richard really made that wonderful. And again, the cast that he put together: Billy Crudup and Claire and Rupert Everett and Edward Fox and Richard Griffiths. I remember one day when I was about to fly home, I told Richard Griffiths what a fan Evan-- my son, Evan--was of him in the Harry Potter movie. And he made his wife drive an hour to come to Shepperton with a photograph of him as Mr. Dursley that he could autograph for my son. John: Well, speaking of stage and adaptations, before we go into our lightning round here, you did two recent adaptations of existing thrillers--not necessarily mysteries, but thrillers--one of which Hitchcock made into a movie, which are Dial M for Murder and Wait Until Dark. And I'm just wondering what was that process for you? Why changes need to be made? And what kind of changes did you make?Jeffrey: Well, in both cases, I think you could argue that no, changes don't need to be made. They're wildly successful plays by Frederick Knott, and they've been successful for, you know, alternately 70 or 60 years.But in both cases, I got a call from a director or an artistic director saying, “We'd like to do it, but we'd like to change this or that.” And I'm a huge fan of Frederick Knott. He put things together beautifully. The intricacies of Dial M for Murder, you don't want to screw around with. And there are things in Wait Until Dark having to do just with the way he describes the set, you don't want to change anything or else the rather famous ending won't work. But in both cases, the women are probably not the most well drawn characters that he ever came up with. And Wait Until Dark, oddly, they're in a Greenwich Village apartment, but it always feels like they're really in Westchester or in Terre Haute, Indiana. It doesn't feel like you're in Greenwich Village in the 60s, especially not in the movie version with Audrey Hepburn. So, the director, Matt Shackman, said, why don't we throw it back into the 40s and see if we can have fun with that. And so it played out: The whole war and noir setting allowed me to play around with who the main character was. And I know this is a cliche to say, well, you know, can we find more agency for female characters in old plays or old films? But in a sense, it's true, because if you're going to ask an actress to play blind for two hours a night for a couple of months, it can't just be, I'm a blind victim. And I got lucky and killed the guy. You've got a somewhat better dialogue and maybe some other twists and turns. nSo that's what we did with Wait Until Dark. And then at The Old Globe, Barry Edelstein said, “well, you did Wait Until Dark. What about Dial? And I said, “Well, I don't think we can update it, because nothing will work. You know, the phones, the keys. And he said, “No, I'll keep it, keep it in the fifties. But what else could you What else could you do with the lover?”And he suggested--so I credit Barry on this--why don't you turn the lover played by Robert Cummings in the movie into a woman and make it a lesbian relationship? And that really opened all sorts of doors. It made the relationship scarier, something that you really want to keep a secret, 1953. And I was luckily able to find a couple of other plot twists that didn't interfere with any of Knott's original plot.So, in both cases, I think it's like you go into a watch. And the watch works great, but you want the watch to have a different appearance and a different feel when you put it on and tick a little differently. John: We've kept you for a way long time. So, let's do this as a speed round. And I know that these questions are the sorts that will change from day to day for some people, but I thought each of us could talk about our favorite mysteries in four different mediums. So, Jeff, your favorite mystery novel”Jeffrey: And Then There Were None. That's an easy one for me. John: That is. Jim, do you have one?Jim: Yeah, yeah, I don't read a lot of mysteries. I really enjoyed a Stephen King book called Mr. Mercedes, which was a cat and mouse game, and I enjoyed that quite a bit. That's only top of mind because I finished it recently.John: That counts. Jim: Does it? John: Yeah. That'll count. Jim: You're going to find that I am so middle America in my answers. John: That's okay. Mine is--I'm going to cheat a little bit and do a short story--which the original Don't Look Now that Daphne du Murier wrote, because as a mystery, it ties itself up. Like I said earlier, I like stuff that ties up right at the end. And it literally is in the last two or three sentences of that short story where everything falls into place. Jeff, your favorite mystery play? I can be one of yours if you want. Jeffrey: It's a battle between Sleuth or Dial M for Murder. Maybe Sleuth because I always wanted to be in it, but it's probably Dial M. But it's also followed up very quickly by Death Trap, which is a great comedy-mystery-thriller. It's kind of a post-modern, Meta play, but it's a play about the play you're watching. John: Excellent choices. My choice is Sleuth. You did have a chance to be in Sleuth because when I directed it, you're the first person I asked. But your schedule wouldn't let you do it. But you would have been a fantastic Andrew Wyke. I'm sorry our timing didn't work on that. Jeffrey: And you got a terrific Andrew in Julian Bailey, but if you wanted to do it again, I'm available. John: Jim, you hear that? Jim: I did hear that. Yes, I did hear that. John: Jim, do you have a favorite mystery play?Jim: You know, it's gonna sound like I'm sucking up, but I don't see a lot of mystery plays. There was a version of Gaslight that I saw with Jim Stoll as the lead. And he was terrific.But I so thoroughly enjoyed Holmes and Watson and would love the opportunity to see that a second time. I saw it so late in the run and it was so sold out that there was no coming back at that point to see it again. But I would love to see it a second time and think to myself, well, now that you know what you know, is it all there? Because my belief is it is all there. John: Yeah. Okay. Jeff, your favorite TV mystery?Jeffrey: Oh, Columbo. That's easy. Columbo.John: I'm gonna go with Poker Face, just because the pace on Poker Face is so much faster than Columbo, even though it's clearly based on Columbo. Jim, a favorite TV mystery?Jim: The Rockford Files, hands down. John: Fair enough. Fair enough. All right. Last question all around. Jeff, your favorite mystery movie? Jeffrey: Laura. Jim: Ah, good one. John: I'm going to go with The Last of Sheila. If you haven't seen The Last of Sheila, it's a terrific mystery directed by Herbert Ross, written by Stephen Sondheim and Anthony Perkins. Fun little Stephen Sondheim trivia. The character of Andrew Wyke and his house were based on Stephen Sondheim. Jeffrey: Sondheim's townhouse has been for sale recently. I don't know if somebody bought it, but for a cool seven point something million, you're going to get it. John: All right. Let's maybe pool our money. Jim, your favorite mystery movie.Jim: I'm walking into the lion's den here with this one. Jeffrey, I hope this is okay, but I really enjoyed the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies. And I revisit the second one in that series on a fairly regular basis, The Game of Shadows. I thought I enjoyed that a lot. Your thoughts on those movies quickly? Jeffrey: My only feeling about those is that I felt they were trying a little too hard not to do some of the traditional stuff. I got it, you know, like no deer stalker, that kind of thing. But I thought it was just trying a tad too hard to be You know, everybody's very good at Kung Fu, that kind of thing.Jim: Yes. And it's Sherlock Holmes as a superhero, which, uh, appeals to me. Jeffrey: I know the producer of those, and I know Guy Ritchie a little bit. And, I know they're still trying to get out a third one. Jim: Well, I hope they do. I really hope they do. Cause I enjoyed that version of Sherlock Holmes quite a bit. I thought it was funny and all of the clues were there and it paid off in the end as a mystery, but fun all along the road.Jeffrey: And the main thing they got right was the Holmes and Watson relationship, which, you know, as anybody will tell you, you can get a lot of things wrong, but get that right and you're more than two thirds there.

In a series of 10 interviews, John Cottrell, shares his 10 tips to a happier life (link in the description if you want to hear all 10 now) John often referred to as the "Breakthrough Guy," is a coach dedicated to empowering ambitious CEOs and professionals. He is known for his transformative approach in helping individuals overcome personal and professional barriers. John's methodology includes a series of steps designed to release emotional burdens, challenge limiting beliefs, and optimise personal and professional performance. His coaching program promises significant improvements, from increased profits to enhanced work-life balance and personal fulfillment. John recently appeared on the Watkin sofa, where he shared his "10 Rules to a Happy Life," a segment from his series of interviews aimed at providing actionable insights for achieving a more contented and successful life. If you can't wait for the next podcast of John - All 10 chats can seen in this YouTube Playlist https://youtu.be/bxcMxkO67Zg?si=TLzR5hpYSX3vvdZt John is a friend of mine and has helped me tremendously over the years. I created these videos as thank you to him to making life better and hopefully his teachings will help you?

In a series of 10 interviews, John Cottrell, shares his 10 tips to a happier life (link in the description if you want to hear all 10 now) John often referred to as the "Breakthrough Guy," is a coach dedicated to empowering ambitious CEOs and professionals. He is known for his transformative approach in helping individuals overcome personal and professional barriers. John's methodology includes a series of steps designed to release emotional burdens, challenge limiting beliefs, and optimise personal and professional performance. His coaching program promises significant improvements, from increased profits to enhanced work-life balance and personal fulfillment. John recently appeared on the Watkin sofa, where he shared his "10 Rules to a Happy Life," a segment from his series of interviews aimed at providing actionable insights for achieving a more contented and successful life. If you can't wait for the next podcast of John - All 10 chats can seen in this YouTube Playlist https://youtu.be/bxcMxkO67Zg?si=TLzR5hpYSX3vvdZt John is a friend of mine and has helped me tremendously over the years. I created these videos as thank you to him to making life better and hopefully his teachings will help you?

In a series of 10 interviews, John Cottrell, shares his 10 tips to a happier life (link in the description if you want to hear all 10 now) John often referred to as the "Breakthrough Guy," is a coach dedicated to empowering ambitious CEOs and professionals. He is known for his transformative approach in helping individuals overcome personal and professional barriers. John's methodology includes a series of steps designed to release emotional burdens, challenge limiting beliefs, and optimise personal and professional performance. His coaching program promises significant improvements, from increased profits to enhanced work-life balance and personal fulfillment. John recently appeared on the Watkin sofa, where he shared his "10 Rules to a Happy Life," a segment from his series of interviews aimed at providing actionable insights for achieving a more contented and successful life. If you can't wait for the next podcast of John - All 10 chats can seen in this YouTube Playlist https://youtu.be/bxcMxkO67Zg?si=TLzR5hpYSX3vvdZt John is a friend of mine and has helped me tremendously over the years. I created these videos as thank you to him to making life better and hopefully his teachings will help you?

In a series of 10 interviews, John Cottrell, shares his 10 tips to a happier life (link in the description if you want to hear all 10 now) John often referred to as the "Breakthrough Guy," is a coach dedicated to empowering ambitious CEOs and professionals. He is known for his transformative approach in helping individuals overcome personal and professional barriers. John's methodology includes a series of steps designed to release emotional burdens, challenge limiting beliefs, and optimise personal and professional performance. His coaching program promises significant improvements, from increased profits to enhanced work-life balance and personal fulfillment. John recently appeared on the Watkin sofa, where he shared his "10 Rules to a Happy Life," a segment from his series of interviews aimed at providing actionable insights for achieving a more contented and successful life. If you can't wait for the next podcast of John - All 10 chats can seen in this YouTube Playlist https://youtu.be/bxcMxkO67Zg?si=TLzR5hpYSX3vvdZt John is a friend of mine and has helped me tremendously over the years. I created these videos as thank you to him to making life better and hopefully his teachings will help you?

3pm - Jake Skorheim in for John // All 5 on Missing Submersible Are Believed to Be Dead // The rise of extreme tourism // Is it even okay to keep visiting Titanic? Descendants of people who died on the ship say no… // Titan submersible maker OceanGate faced safety lawsuit in 2018: "Potential danger to passengers" // Bosses' New Task Is Figuring Out Who's High at Work // The only frog in the world that goes 'ribbit' is here in the Pacific NorthwestSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the In the Club Podcast by Club Colors, we chat with Stacy Cullotta, Marketing Supervisor at LGH North America. Today, she gives listeners an inside look into their brand's marketing, from going digital to integrating sales insights to determine their ICP, to providing top-notch customer service.Stacy discusses how trade shows become successful by fielding people who aren't afraid to be out there engaging others. She also discusses marketing trends she is noticing now, such as the uptick in video content and the noticeable need for sales to understand what marketing does and get that internal buy-in.As always, stick around for the Hot Iron with JMo where we learn the light side of Stacy! HIGHLIGHT QUOTESMake an effort to make sales understand what marketing does - Stacy: "I've seen in marketing so much change and so much growth. The way that our reps are now starting to understand that marketing is necessary... it's not always an easy thing to get them to understand, but once they get it and that lightbulb goes off, it's like see, I told you, it's all worthwhile."Align sales and marketing and the entire brand benefits - John: "All you folks out there in sales, you have to work with marketing, and when that circle happens, it is such a beautiful thing because now marketing is selling and sales is marketing. And both of them are driving towards the brand, creating revenue, recognition, loyalty, repeat customers, all that stuff."Connect with Stacy:LinkedInReach LGH North America:LinkedIn | Instagram | FacebookIf you enjoyed this episode of In the Club with Club Colors, please leave us a review on your favorite podcasting platform!

About This Episode Welcome to today's communication solution podcast. We love talking about motivational interviewing, and about improving outcomes for individuals, organizations, and the communities that they serve. We have an interesting topic to talk about today: Open Ended Questions and the quality and complexity of what's being talked about.  About This Episode Open ended questions vs close ended questionsHow do you ask open-ended questions?Reflective listening and empathyMotivations and the quality of curiosityLearning curvesMindsetPerspectivesConnections and valuesReal life examples of differences in questionsSkill buildingAnd so much more! To Watch Our Video Podcast - Join MI PLUS Join MI PLUS+ Transcript of Show - View Below The Communication Solution - Open Ended Question Tammy: Hello, and welcome to the communication solution podcast today. We've got Casey Jackson on the line, John Gilbert, and I'm Tammy here at IFIOC. We love to talk communication. We love to talk motivational interviewing, and we love talking about improving outcomes for individuals, organizations, and the communities that they serve. Welcome to the conversation. John: All right. Welcome back everyone. We have interesting topic to talk about today. At least for me, maybe not for everyone, but we'll see how it goes. I know that Tammy, you had particularly wanted to talk about this topic and subject because you were thinking of a situation that just starting at the basics we can talk about. But then I was like, well, we can go deep into this with multiple layers. So, I'm looking to hopefully do that with you Casey and Daniel. Today and just see how far we can get in a shorter podcast we have today. So, Tammy, what was the original kind of thinking you had for this topic? What is it, you were thinking? Tammy: The original topic was open ended questions, 101. And the reason why is because I think some people get stuck into. A lack of curiosity sometimes because we don't really know what to talk about. And then there's a difference between open ended questions versus close ended questions. You closed ended questions are. Yes, no, you expect a certain specific answer. Open questions, allow for the person to openly share their thoughts and ideas. Opinions could go so many different ways. The more that we can create open ended questions, the more we can hear people's thoughts, ideas, beliefs, all that type of stuff. So that's kind of where my mind was at when I was like, let's do open ended questions. Casey: Well, what's so funny to me is. I feel myself having a natural bias and a natural writing reflex this topic which I shouldn't it's so weird. And I think because so many people I've heard so much more lately that people are talking about, well, yeah, I went to a motivational interviewing training and it's like, how you ask open ended questions? It's like, oh my gosh, we're drifting so far away from empathy and accurate, reflective listening, but. I know it's my bias because I know I over correct on leaning so heavy into teaching people. What is high, accurate empathy? And the reality is that smart, strategic, evocative eliciting open ended questions are critical.  Skill set to master in motivational interviewing. And I know I overcorrect towards teaching reflective listen. And so, so I'm getting over my bias and listening to that, cause it's just like, oh, I don't want people to think that it's open-ended questions, you can't do motivational without really smart, strategic open-ended questions. Tammy: Yes. It's part of the equation. And I think that's a really good point, Casey, because reflective listening is critical to motivational interviewing, but there are those times where you need to elicit and draw out from people. Their thoughts, ideas or beliefs too. Casey: Well, it, just, when you say that, I even think of the MICA, you know, the motivation incompetency assessment.

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with Dawn Brodey and Brian Forrest, talking about the various film versions of “Frankenstein” and “Dracula.”Dawn gave me 4.5 films to revisit: The 1931 version of Frankenstein, Frankenweenie (the feature and the short), Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and Young Frankenstein.Meanwhile, Brian assigned me the original Nosferatu, the 1931 Dracula, Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, Horror of Dracula, Dracula in Istanbul and Bram Stoker's Dracula. LINKSDawn's podcast (HILF): http://dawnbrodey.com/ - showsBrian's Blog and Vlog, Toothpickings: https://toothpickings.medium.com/ A Free Film Book for You: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12Another Free Film Book: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6Frankenstein (1931) Trailer: https://youtu.be/BN8K-4osNb0Frankenweenie Trailer: https://youtu.be/29vIJQohUWEMary Shelley's Frankenstein (Trailer): https://youtu.be/GFaY7r73BIsYoung Frankenstein (Trailer): https://youtu.be/mOPTriLG5cUNosferatu (Complete Film): https://youtu.be/dCT1YUtNOA8Dracula (1931) Trailer: https://youtu.be/VoaMw91MC9kAbbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein (Trailer): https://youtu.be/j6l8auIACycHorror of Dracula (Trailer): https://youtu.be/ZTbY0BgIRMkBram Stoker's Dracula (Trailer): https://youtu.be/fgFPIh5mvNcDracula In Istanbul: https://youtu.be/G7tAWcm3EX0Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/Eli Marks Website: https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/Albert's Bridge Books Website: https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcastDawn and Brian TRANSCRIPT John: [00:00:00] Before we dive into the assignment you gave me—which was to watch stuff I hadn't seen and also rewatch stuff I had seen to get a better idea of who's done a good job of adapting these books—let's just jump in and talk a little bit about your area of expertise and why you have it. So, I'm going to start with you, Brian. I was very surprised after working with you a while to find out that you had a whole vampire subset in your life. Brian: A problem, you can call it a problem. It's fine. John: Okay. What is the problem and where did it come from? Brian: I was just vaguely interested in vampires for a while. When I was in my screenwriting days, someone had encouraged me to do a feature length comedy about vampires, and that led me to do a lot of reading. And then I just kind of put it aside for a while. And then I was, I had just finished a documentary for Committee Films and they said, do you have any other pitches? And I thought, and I said, you know, there's still people who believe in vampires even today, that could be really interesting. And I put together a pitch package. Then, the guy in charge of development said, [00:01:00]this is what we need to be doing. And then it stalled out. Nothing ever happened with it. And I said, what the hell. I could do this on my own. I could fly around and interview these people. And I did, I spent a couple years interviewing academics and some writers. And along the way, I started finding all these very intriguing moments in the history of either vampire lore or fiction or even just people who consider themselves vampires today. And all these things would connect to each other. It was a lattice work of vampires going back hundreds of years. It didn't fit the documentary, unfortunately, but I found it way too interesting. And I said, I need some kind of outlet for this. And so I started writing about it on Tooth Pickings. And that eventually put me in touch with people who were more scholarly, and it opened up a lot more conversations. And now I can't get out. I'm trapped. John: Well, the first sign is recognizing there's a problem. [00:02:00] Okay. Now, Dawn, you had a different entryway into Frankenstein. Dawn: Yeah, well, I was a theater major and a history minor at the University of Minnesota. Go Gophers. And, this was in the late nineties, early two thousands, when there were still a lot of jobs for people who had degrees and things like this. Or at least there was a theory that this was a reasonable thing to get educated in. And then I graduated in 2001, which was months after 9/11, when all those jobs went away. And so, I had this education so specific and what was I gonna do? And gratefully the Twin Cities is a great place for finding that kind of stuff. And one of my very first jobs out of college was at the Bakkan museum. So, the Bakkan museum was founded by Earl Bakkan, who is the inventor of the battery-operated pacemaker. And he has always, since childhood, been obsessed with the Frankenstein movie that came out in 1931. And he attributes [00:03:00]his great scientific invention and many others to a science fiction in general. And to the spark of the idea that comes from sources like this. So, when he opened the museum, he insisted that there'd be a grand Frankenstein exhibit. And that means going back to the book, and that meant going back to the author, Mary Shelley, who wrote the novel Frankenstein, she started writing it when she was 16.And so, I was hired because—boom, look at me—my degree is suddenly colliding, right? So, I was hired by the Bakkan museum to create a one-woman show about the life of Mary Shelley, where I would play Mary Shelley and would perform it within the museum and elsewhere. And through the course of that research, I read the novel for the second time, but then I read it for my third, fourth, fifth onwards and upwards. Because the show was about 45 minutes long, I referenced, you know, the novel, the books, the popular culture, the science behind it. And the deep dive just never stopped. And so long after I was required to do the research and the show was done and up, I just kept reading. [00:04:00] And it gave me the opportunity to meet experts in this field and the peripheral field, as I would sort of travel with this show and be an ambassador for the museum and stuff like that. And, yeah, it still curls my toes. John: All right, so with that background. I'm going to just be honest right here and say, I've read Dracula once, I've read Frankenstein once. So that's where I'm coming from, and both a while ago. I remember Frankenstein was a little tougher to get through. Dracula had a bit more of an adventure feel to it, but something I don't think has really been captured particularly well in all the movies. But they both have lasted and lasted and lasted.Why do you think those books are still, those ideas are still as popular today? Dawn: I will say that I think Frankenstein, it depends on what you mean by the idea. Because on the surface, just the idea of bringing the dead to life, is, I mean, the Walking Dead franchise is right now one of the most popular franchises. I mean, I think we are really pivot on this idea. And I remember saying to a friend once that the part in [00:05:00]Revelation where the dead rise is like the only part of the Bible that I don't question. It's like, oh, the dead will get up. You know, we always just seem to be real sure that at some damned point, they're getting up. And so I think that that is part of why that it sticks in our brains. But then the story around Frankenstein—especially as it was written in 1818—has so many universal and timeless themes, like ambition and what is right and wrong. And the question that Jurassic Park posed in 1995 and continues to—1993 around there—and continues to pose, which is: just because science is capable of doing something, should it do something? And how do we define progress? Surely the very idea of being able to beat death and not die seems to be kind of the ultimate goal. And here is someone saying, okay, so let's just say, yeah. We beat death and everyone goes, oh shit, that'd be terrible. [00:06:00] You know? And then also, I always love the idea of the creature, the monster, Frankenstein's creature himself, who has a lot of characteristics with which people have identified throughout history. Some people say, for example, that Mary Shelley's whole purpose for writing Frankenstein was a question of: didn't God do this to us, make us these ugly creatures that are imperfect and bumbling around and horrifying? And then once he realized that we weren't perfect, he fled from us in fear or fled. He just keeps going and every generation has a new media that tells the story a little bit better, a little bit different, and yeah, there we are. John: I will say that for me, the most memorable part of the book was the section where the monster is the narrator and is learning. And I think with the exception of Kenneth Branagh's film, it it's something that isn't really touched on that much. There's a little bit in Bride of Frankenstein, of him going around and learning stuff. But the sort of moral questions that he [00:07:00] raises as he's learning—what it is to be human—are very interesting in the book. And I wish they were in more of the movies, but they're not. So, Brian on Dracula, again, we have dead coming to life. Why do we love that so much? Brian: Well, it's one of the questions that made me want to make a film about it myself: why has the vampire been so fascinating for hundreds of years? Why does it keep coming back? You know, it ebbs and flows in popularity, but it never leaves. And it keeps seeming to have Renaissance after Renaissance. Dracula specifically, I think one of the interesting things about that novel is how many different lenses you can look at it through and not be wrong.People have looked at it through the lens of, is this thing an imperialist story? Is it an anti-imperialist story? Is it a feminist story? Is it an anti-feminist story? And you can find support for any of those views reading Dracula. And I think that some of it might be accidental; there's times where Dracula is catching up to whatever the cultural zeitgeist [00:08:00] is right now. And we look at Dracula and we say, oh, he was thinking about this back then. Or maybe Bram Stoker was just very confused and he had a lot of different ideas. John: All right, let's explore that a little deeper. You each gave me an assignment of some movies to watch or to re-watch that you felt were worth talking about, in relation to your subject of Frankenstein or Dracula. I'm going to start with Frankenweenie, just because I had not seen it. And in going through it, I was reminded—of course, as one would be—of watching Frankenweenie, I was reminded of Love, Actually. Because I came to the realization after years of Love, Actually being around that it—Love, Actually—is not a romantic comedy. It is all romantic comedies, all put into one movie. And Frankenweenie is all horror films. Condensed, beautifully and cleverly into one very tasty souffle. [Frankenweenie Soundbite] John: I stopped at a certain point making note of the references to other horror films. Just because there are so many of them. But the idea that it references everything from Bride of Frankenstein to Gremlins. They do a rat transformation that's right out of American Werewolf in London. The fact that they have a science teacher played by Martin Landau doing the voice he did as Bela [00:10:00] Lugosi in Ed Wood. I mean, it's a really good story that they just layered and layered and layered and layered. What was it about that movie that so captivated you? Dawn: Well, so much of what you just said. And also it seems to me the epitome of the accessibility of the story of Frankenstein. The idea that if anyone can think of any moment in which if I could bring someone back to life. But what I love about it too, is that the novel Frankenstein that is not Victor Frankenstein's motivation. It generally tends to be the motivation of almost every character, including the Kenneth Branagh character--at some point, he, when Elizabeth dies, his wife dies for the second time, he says, yes, I'm going to try to bring her back. But it is so not the motivation of the scientist in the book. It is just ambition. He just wants to do something no one else has done. And lots of people die around him and he really never, ever says to himself at any point in the novel, I wish I could bring them back, I'm going to bring them back. That's never, that's never part of it. He just wants to be impressive. And so, I love [00:11:00] that it starts with that pure motivation of wanting to bring the dead to life; just wanting to bring your dog back, so that it's so accessible for everyone watching it. Who wouldn't wanna try this? But then, even in that scene with the teacher, when he shows the frog. And he's demonstrating that if you touch a dead frog with electricity, its legs shoot up, which give the kid the first idea of bringing his dog back. Which is like a deep cut in, in the sense that that's nothing -- Mary Shelley herself and her friends were watching experiments exactly like that before she wrote the book: galvanism and animal magnetism were these really popular public demonstrations happening in London and elsewhere where they would do just that. But because electricity itself was so new, I mean, it blew people's hair back you know, that these dead frogs were flopping around. It was the craziest thing. And a lot of them were thinking to themselves, surely it is only a matter of time before we can, we're gonna have our dead walking around all the time. So, it was so circulating and so forward. [00:12:00] So it's not just movie references and it's not just Frankenstein references. That movie really includes source deep source references for how Frankenstein came to be. And I just love it. John: Which brings me to Frankenstein, the 1931 version, in which Colin Clive has a similar point of view to what you were talking about from the book. He just wants, you know, he wants to be God. [Frankenstein soundbite] John: What I was most impressed with about that movie or a couple things was: it starts, it's like, boom. We're in it. First scene. There there's no preamble. There's no going to college. There's no talking about it, right? It's like, they're starting in the middle of act two. And I think a lot of what we think of when it comes to Frankenstein comes from that movie, [00:13:00] that the stuff that James Whale and his cinematographer came up with and the way they made things look, and that's sort of what people think of when they think of Frankenstein. Now, as you look back on that movie, what are your thoughts on the, what we'll call the original Frankenstein? Dawn: Yeah. Well, I love it. You'll find with me and Frankenstein that I'm not a purist. Like I love everything. Like I have no boundaries. I think this is great. One of the things that 1931 movie did was answer—because it had to, anytime you take a novel and make it a movie, you take a literary medium and make it a visual medium, there's obviously going to be things that you just have to interpret that the author left for you to make for yourself individual. And in this instance, that individual is the cinematographer. So, we're gonna get their take on this. And one of the real ambiguous things that Mary Shelley leaves for you in the novel is the spark of life. What is the spark of life? She does not in any [00:14:00]detail describe lightning or static or any of the recognizable or, or future developments of how electricity would've been. Brian: I was shocked when I first read that book and saw how little space was devoted to that, that lab scene. It's blink of an eye and it's over. Dawn: “I gathered the instruments of life around me that I may infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my.” Period. I just, what I love is what I love about film in general is that they went, oh, spark being all right, girl, it's a dark and stormy night and you know, and there's chains and there's bubblers and there's a thing. And the sky opens. I mean, God bless you, like way to just take that thought. Make it vivid, make it, build a set, make us believe it. And it's so, so pervasive that in Frankenweinie, you know, which of course is about Frankensein. [00:15:00] Like that is one that they do: he's got the white robe that ties in the back and the gloves. And in Young Frankenstein, it's the, you know, that lab scene. And so I love that. And the other thing that they had to do was describe the look of the creature, make the creature—Frankenstein's monster himself—look so like something. Because she, similarly in the novel, says that he is taller than a regular man, has dark hair and yellow watery eyes. That's all we know about what the Frankenstein looks like. And so, in 1931, Boris Karloff with the bolts. And it's black and white, remember, we don't think his skin is green. That he turned green at some point is kind of exciting, but of course he was just gray, but just dead flesh, you know, rotten, dead walking flesh is what's frightening. And, I just thought that the movie did that so well, John: I think the makeup was kind of a green/gray, and that when color photos came out of it, that's why someone went, oh, [00:16:00] it's green, but it wasn't green. Brian: I thought I saw a museum piece of, you know, an actual makeup bit that Jack Pierce did and I thought it was greenish. Dawn: Yeah. Greenish/gray. I think, yeah, the rots, just kind of trying to capture the sort of rotten flesh. Brian: It's just like the bride's hair was red. Dawn: That's right. That's right. My day job here in Los Angeles is as a street improviser at Universal Studios, Hollywood. And two of their most treasured characters of course are Frankenstein and Dracula. So, while most people might separate them, John, they are usually arm and arm where I work every day. And the bride has recently come back to the theme park as a walking character, and they gave her red hair. We don't mess around. John: That's excellent. But you mentioned Dracula, let's jump into the 1931 Dracula. There's a connection point between the two that I want to mention, which is the amazing Dwight Frye, who is Fritz, I believe in Frankenstein. And I'm not the first one to mention his naturalistic [00:17:00] acting kind of putting him above everybody else in that movie. Famously, when he's running up the stairs, stopping to pull his socks up at one point. He's just really, really good in that. And then you see him in Dracula as the, essentially the Harker character. I think he was called Harker -- Brian: Yeah. Well, he's Renfield in Dracula. They merged those two characters. I thought it was a smart move for a first attempt at the film. Yeah. And Dwight Frye, he's in a lot of other Universal horrors, too. Dwight Frye often doesn't get the credit. He somehow was not the leading man he should have been. John: I don't know why that is. He turns up again as an assistant in Bride of Frankenstein. He's a towns person in Frankenstein meets the Wolfman. And then he tragically died on a bus ride to an auto parts job that he took because he wasn't getting any acting work, which was too bad. A really, really good actor. Brian: There is another intersection besides the fact that they were both produced by Junior. Lugosi was put into the [00:18:00] short, the trial film they shot for Frankenstein. I can't call it a short film, because it was never intended for release. But they shot a cinematic test reel and they had Lugosi play the monster, but he was under a sheet the whole time. I think he may have been able to pull the sheet off. It's a lost film. We don't know for sure. We just have kind of the recollections of a few crew people. John: I've never heard of that. I would love to see that. Brian: I would too. I think a lot of people would really love to see it, but it was as much a kind of a testing ground for Lugosi— whether they wanted him to be the monster—as it was for some of the techniques, the things they wanted to try in the film. And what I understand is the producer saw the test reel and they said, yes, we love this look, this is the look we want you to give us. And then it's whatever version of Lugosi not getting that part you want to believe: whether Lugosi turned it down or the producers didn't like him or something. But he ended up not taking that part. John: But he is of course always known as Dracula. So, what are your thoughts on their adaptation? Which [00:19:00]again is not the first adaptation but is the kind of first official? Brian: Yeah. The first to bear the name Dracula, although, well, I'll back up a second. Because some releases of Nosferatu called it Dracula. He would be named as Dracula in the subtitles, you know, because that's an easy thing to do in silent film, you can just swap that out however you want to. But yes, it's the first authorized official film adaptation. John: Well, let's back up to Nosferatu, just for a second. Am I wrong in remembering that the Bram Stoker estate—Mrs. Stoker—sued Nosferatu and asked that all prints be destroyed? And they were except one print remained somewhere? Brian: Close. That is the popular story that she sued Prana Films. She won the lawsuit. All films were set to be destroyed. Now there's a guy named Locke Heiss and a few others who've been doing some research on this. And they will tell you that there's no proof that a single print was ever destroyed. It's a more fun story to say that, you know, this one was snuck away and now we have the film. But there was no real enforcement mechanism for having all the theaters [00:20:00]destroy the film. Who was going to go around and check and see if they actually destroyed this film or not? Nobody, right? So maybe some people destroyed it. Maybe Prana Films destroyed their remaining copies. But the exhibitors kept all of theirs and there's different versions and different cuts that have been found. So, we know that some of these reels went out in different formats or with different subtitles or even different edits. And some of them have made their way back to us. John: There's some really iconic striking imagery in that movie. That haunts me still. Brian: What I always tell people is see the film with a good live accompaniment, because that still makes it hold up as a scary film. If you see a good orchestra playing something really intense when Orlok comes through that door. It feels scary. You can feel yourself being teleported back to 1922 and being one of those audience people seeing that and being struck by it. John: What do you think it would be like to have [00:21:00] seen that or Dawn to have seen the original Frankenstein? I can't really imagine, given all that we've seen in our lives. If you put yourself back into 1931, and Boris Karloff walks backwards into the lab. I would just love to know what that felt like the first time. Dawn: You know, what is so great is I was fortunate enough to know Earl Bakkan who saw the movie in the theater in Columbia Heights, Minnesota when he was 10 years old.And he went, he had to sneak in. People would run outta this, out of the theater, screaming. I mean, when they would do the close up of Frankenstein's Monster's face, you know, women would faint. And of course that was publicized and much circulated, but it was also true. People were freaking out. And for Earl Bakkan—this young kid—the fear was overwhelming, as you said. And also in this theater, I was lucky enough, I did my show in that theater for Earl and his friends on his 81st birthday. So, I got to hear a [00:22:00] lot of these stories. And they played the organ in the front of the curtain. Brian: Is this the Heights theater? Dawn: Yes, the Heights. Brian: Oh, that's an amazing space. Dawn: So, they played the organ in there and it was like, oh my God. And it was so overwhelming. So, I'm glad you asked that question because I was really fortunate to have a moment to be able to sort of immerse myself in that question: What would it have been like to be in this theater? And it was moving and it was scary, man. And yeah, to your point, Brian, the music and the score. I mean, it was overwhelming. Also, I think there's something that we still benefit from today, which is when people tell you going in this might be way too much for you, this might scare you to death. So just be super, super careful. And your heart's already, you know… John: And it does have that warning right at the beginning. Dawn: Yeah. Versus now when people sit you down, they're like, I'm not gonna be scared by this black and white movie from 1931. And then you find yourself shuffling out of the bathroom at top speed in the middle of the night. And you're like, well, look at that. It got me. Brian: That reminds me, there [00:23:00] was a deleted scene from the 1931 Dracula that was a holdover from the stage play. Van Helsing comes out and he breaks the fourth wall and he speaks directly to the audience. And he says something to the effect of—I'm very much paraphrasing—about how we hope you haven't been too frightened by what you've seen tonight, but just remember these things are real. And then black out. And they cut that because they were afraid that they were really going to freak out their audience. Dawn: It's like a war of the world's thing, man. It's oh, that's so great. I love that. [Dracula Soundbite] John: So, Brian, what is your assessment of the 1931 version? As a movie itself and as an adaptation of Stoker's work? Brian: The things they had to do to try to adapt it to film, which they borrowed a lot of that from the stage play. They used the stage play as their guide point, and I think they made the best choices they could have been expected to make. You know, there's a lot of things that get lost and that's unfortunate, but I think they did a decent job. I don't find the 1931 version scary. I like Bela Lugosi. I think he's a great Dracula. I think he set the standard. With the possible [00:25:00]exception of the scene where the brides are stalking Harker slash Renfield, I don't think the imagery is particularly frightening. The Spanish version, I think does a little bit better job. And you know the story with the Spanish version and the English version? Dawn: We actually talk about it on the back lot tour of Universal Studios. Because they shot on the same sets in some cases. Brian: Yeah. My understanding is that Dracula shot during the day, Spanish Dracula would shoot at night. So, they got to benefit maybe a little bit by seeing, okay, how is this gonna be shot? How did Todd Browning do it? Okay. We're gonna do it a little bit differently. It's a little bit of a cheat to say they move the camera. They do move the camera a lot more in the Spanish version, but the performances are a little bit different. I'm going to, I can't get her name out. The actress who plays the ingenue in the Spanish Dracula, I'm not going to try it, but you can see her kind of getting more and more crazed as time goes on and her head is more infected by Dracula. You see these push-ins that you don't see in the English version. There's blocking [00:26:00] that's different. I put together a short course where I was just talking about how they blocked the staircases scene. The welcome to my house, the walking through spider web. And how it's blocked very differently in the two versions. And what does that say? What are these two directors communicating differently to us? In one, Harker slash Renfield is next to Dracula. In one, he's trailing behind him. In one, we cut away from the spider web before he goes through. And in the other one, we see him wrestle with it. That's not really what you asked, John. Sorry, I got off on a tear there. John: I agree with you on all points on the differences between the two films. Although I do think that all the Transylvania stuff in the English version is terrific: With the coach and the brides. The Spanish version, the biggest problem I have is that their Dracula looks ridiculous. Brian: He's not Bela Lugosi. You're right. John: He looks like Steve Carell doing Dracula and there is no moment, literally no moment [00:27:00] where he is scary, whereas Lugosi is able to pull that off. Brian: There's a lot of people who have observed that the Spanish Dracula would be a superior film were it not for Bela Lugosi being such an amazing Dracula in the English version. John: He really, really nailed it. Brian: And since he learned his lines phonetically, he could have done the Spanish Dracula. Just write it out for him phonetically, because he didn't speak English very well. John: If we could just go back, you know, cause a lot of things in history we could change, but if we could just be at that meeting and go, Hey, why not have Bela do it? Okay. So then let's jump ahead, still in Dracula form, to Horror of Dracula. From 1958. With Christopher Lee as Dracula and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. [Soundbite from Horror of Dracula] Brian: For some people, Lee is the ultimate Dracula, and I think that's a generational thing. I think he's great. He's got the stage presence and I love Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. I don't like the film as a whole. It feels like I'm watching a play with a camera set back. It doesn't work for me the way it works for other people. That is personal taste. Don't come after me. John: It does, however, have one of the greatest, ‘Hey, we're gonna kill Dracula' scenes ever, with Peter Cushing running down the table and jumping up and pulling down the drapes and the sun. Brian: Oh, right. Interesting. Because in Dracula, the book, the sun is not deadly, remotely really. But that's [00:29:00]the influence of Nosferatu being pasted onto the Dracula cannon, that the sunlight is deadly to Dracula. Dawn: I remember having this fight very enthusiastically in the nineties when Bram Stoker's/Winona Ryder's Dracula came out and I was already sort of a literary nerd. And they were like, hey, they have a scene with him walking around during the day. And I was like, yeah, nerds. That's right. That's cuz vampires can walk around during the day.I was very already, like, you don't know anything, go back to history. Brian: And there's a seventies version where he's out on a cloudy day, but he is not hurt either. There suggestions in the book that he's more powerful at night. Dawn: He's a creature of the night. I always understood he had to wear sunglasses. He was sort of like a wolf. Like they show him as a wolf during the day; it can happen, but it's not great. Brian: I like the way they did it in the Gary Oldman version. He's suited up. He's got the sunglasses on. There's not a whole lot of skin exposed. But he's not [00:30:00] going to turn into smoke. John: Well, okay. Let's talk about that version and Kenneth Branagh's version of Frankenstein. Dawn: Ug. John: I'm not going to spoil anything here, when I say it doesn't sound like Dawn cared it. Dawn: You open this, you opened this can of worms. John, sit down for a second. Listen. He calls it: Mary Shelly's fucking Frankenstein. I inserted the fucking. I'm sorry, I wasn't supposed to say that. He calls it. He calls it. How dare you, Kenneth, Brannagh, call this Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. So that was A-number one. But I went into it all excited: It's Kenneth Brannagh. Love him. He calls it Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and he starts with the ship captain out at sea, just like the book. And so I pull up my little, you know, security blanket and I'm like, oh, Kenneth Brannagh, do this to me, buddy. Do it to me buddy. Show me Mary Shelley Frankenstein as a movie. [00:31:00] And then he just fucks it up, John. And he doesn't actually do that at all. It's a total lie. He screws up every monologue. He makes up motivations and then heightens them. And it's dad. The acting is capital B, capital A, capital D across the board. Everybody sucks in this movie. It looks bad. The direction is bad, and it has nothing to do. He tries to bring Elizabeth back to life. This is a huge departure from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Brannagh, that's all I have to say for now. John: All right, I was fooled by the fact that he started at, at the north pole. Dawn: That's because he's tricking us, John. That's because it's the whole movie is a lie. John: Okay with that same mindset, what do we think of Bram Stoker's Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola? Dawn: I love that one. Brian: I'm afraid that I don't have, I can't match Dawn's intensity in either respect. Um, except I thought Robert DeNiro [00:32:00] was really good in Frankenstein. Dawn: But that's no, he's not. you're wrong. Your opinion is valid and wrong. Yeah, I'm kidding for listeners who don't know me. I am, I am kidding. Of course. Everybody's opinion is valid except for that one. Yeah. The movie, everything about that movie is bad. John: He is, I think, miscast. Dawn: And Helen Bonan Carter is one of the finest actresses of not just our generation, but of all time. And she sucks in this movie. John: Right. So. Bram Stoker's Dracula. Brian: Bram Stoker's Dracula. [Soundbite: Bram Stoker's Dracula] Brian: Also produced by Branagh. And I assume that is the connection, why they both start with the author's name. I always call it Coppola's Dracula because it gets too confusing to make that distinction. I thought it was a decent movie, but it didn't feel like Dracula. It felt like someone who had heard of Dracula and wrote a good script based on what they had heard. So many divergences that bothered me, although I think it's aged better than it felt the first time. I remember seeing it when it first came out in the nineties and not thinking much of it. And I think audiences agreed with me and it seems like it's been kinder, that audiences have been kinder to it as it's gotten older. John: Okay. Dawn, you love it. Dawn: I loved it. I loved it. It, you know what though? That was one of [00:34:00] those movies that unlike, unlike Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, I can't look at with like an adult critical eye because I, what year did it come out? Was it like 90, 92? I'm like middle school getting into high school and like Winona Ryder was everything. Vampires are everything. I mean, Gary Oldman is the, is a great actor and it's so sexy, very sexy. The sex is Primo. And so I remember loving it, very moving. I don't remember comparing it as certainly not as viciously to the novel because I read Dracula after I had seen the movie. And so there's always that inherent casting where Nina is always going to be Winona Ryder. But I do remember really loving the Gothic convention of the letter and that the movie did seem to utilize and to great effect how letter writing can build suspense and give us different perspectives in a, in a unique cinematic way. Brian: [00:35:00] The two or three biggest stakes that film puts in the ground are not to be found in the book. So there's no love story in the book. There's no Vlad in the book. John: Can I interject there? Isn't that basically, didn't they just rip that off of Dark Shadows, The idea of my long lost love is reincarnated in this woman. I must connect with her. Brian: That is a good question, John. I'm glad you asked that because I call it the doppelganger love interest. Right? We first see that, the first time I know of it happening, I'm sure there's an earlier precedent, is in The Mummy, but then Dark Shadows does it. But that's not where Stoker, I mean, that's not where Coppola and a screenwriter claimed to have gotten the idea. They claimed to have gotten it from Dan Curtis's Dracula in 74. John: Dan Curtis, who produced Dark Shadows, with Barnabas Collins, falling in love with his reincarnated love. Brian: But Dan Curtis's Dracula comes out two years after Blacula. That has a reincarnated love interest. John: Not only does the Blaclua [00:36:00] have a reincarnated love interest, but if I'm remembering movie correctly at the end, when she says I don't want to go with you. He goes, okay. And he's ready to go home. It's like, sorry to bother you. Brian: No, uh, in Blacula, he commits suicide John: Oh, that's it? Yeah. He walks out into the sun. Brian: He goes home in a different way. John: Yes. He's one of my favorite Draculas, the very stately William Marshall. Brian: Yeah, absolutely. That is a favorite of mine. John: Anyway, you were saying stakes in the ground from Coppola's Dracula. Brian: Well, the, the love story, the equating Dracula with Vlad the Impaler. And I felt like they did Lucy really bad in that movie. They had her turn into a wanton harlot, which is not in keeping with the book. Some things are okay, but they really said these are the building blocks of our story and that bugged me. But Anthony Hopkins I liked, so, all right. Dawn: Alright, but see, this [00:37:00] the itch that still that still makes me wanna scratch though: why say Bram Stoker's Dracula? Why say Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? I mean, because I think you heard the venom, obviously. If they took Mary Shelley's name off that thing, you can make Frankenweenie. And I will love, like, I love Frankenweenie. Do your Frankenstein homage all day, all the time. But when you call, when you say it's Bram Stoker's, I think that this is what has been frustrating historians like me and getting high school students Ds in English class ever since. Because it just creates the false perception that you've basically read the book. Right. Or that you, if you know the thing you know the book and it's just a cheap ploy. And I don't like it. Brian: I think, somebody correct me on this, that there, there had been a plan to do a reboot of the Universal monster franchise, and these two movies were supposed to be the reboot of it. [00:38:00] And then they would've then done HG Wells' Invisible Man. John: The Mummy killed it. They've tried to reboot it several times. And that was the first attempt. Brian: Yeah, I've heard that called the dark universe. They were trying to do their own MCU. Dawn: Yeah. Well, at Universal Studios, there is of course in, in LA, in general, there's the property wars, you know? What what's, who has what? And sometimes those get really blurred. Like why does Universal Studios have Harry Potter? When we can see Warner Brothers from the top of our wall/ And that's obviously, you know, those things happen. But when it comes to like the IP or intellectual property, those original monsters are so valuable and they always are at Halloween. And then it's like, sort of, how can we capitalize on this? And yeah. And it's cross generational. Brian: All they really own right now is the look right? They own Jack Pierce's makeup job from Frankenstein. Dawn: But I think that that's exactly the point; [00:39:00] the delusion of what is it that you own if you own, you know, Frankenstein, whatever. But yes, there was definitely an interest to sort of revamp all of the original Universal Monsters they call them and it's the Mummy, Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Invisible Man. John: It's everybody who shows up in Mad Monster Party. Dawn: Exactly. [Soundbite: Mad Monster Party] Dawn: But yeah, The Mummy, starring Tom Cruise, was a tremendous flop. And I think that sort of took the wind out of everybody's sails. John: Let me ask you this, Dawn. If Mel Brooks had titled his movie, Mary Shelley's Young Frankenstein, instead of Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein, would you have a problem with that? Dawn: Yeah, no, but no, I would not have had a problem, because that would've been irony and juxtaposition. Not just a straight lie. John: So that brings us to some comedies. Young Frankenstein and Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein, which I was very surprised and a little unnerved to [00:40:00] realize a few years back, Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein was made a mere 10 years before I was born. And I had always assumed it was way back then. And it's like, no, it wasn't all that way back then. It was pretty, pretty recently. Brian: That happened to me when I realized that Woodstock was only six years before my birth. And it always seemed like ancient history. John: Is that the common thing, Madame Historian? That people kind of forget how recent things were? Dawn: Oh yeah. Remember Roe V. Wade. Sorry, too soon. Brian: We're recording this on that day. Dawn: Yeah, absolutely. I think that it happens to everybody so much faster than you think it's going to. I remember looking around in the nineties feeling, well, surely the seventies was ancient history, you know, because they had That Seventies Show, which debuted as like a period piece. I am still very young and hip and happening and [00:41:00] they are in production for That Nineties Show right now. And I said to my husband, That Nineties Show. I was like, Jesus, I guess that's 20 years because I was in the nineties they did That Seventies Show. And he goes, no baby that's 30 years. And I was like, I'm sorry. I said, I'm sorry, what? He goes, the nineties was 30 years ago. And I just had to sit down and put my bunion corrector back on because these feet are killing me. John: All right. Well, let's just talk about these two comedies and then there's a couple other things I wanna quickly hit on. What are our thoughts on, let's start with Young Frankenstein? [Soundbite: Young Frankenstein] Dawn: I told you I'm not an idealist and we're not a purist about Frankenstein, but I am an enthusiast. So that is why I told you to watch Kenneth Branagh's movie, even though I hate it so much. And that is also why I love Young Frankenstein, because I think that it is often what brings people into the story. For many, many people, it introduces them to the creature. They may know literally nothing about Frankenstein except for Young Frankenstein. And that's actually fine with me because I'm a comedian myself. And I believe that parody is high honor. And often when you parody and satirize something, especially when you do it well, it's because you went to the heart of it. Because you got right in there into the nuggets and the creases of it. And there is something about Young [00:43:00] Frankenstein as ridiculous as it is that has some of that wildness and the hilarity and The Putting on the Ritz. I did find out from my Universal Studios movie history stuff, that that scene was very nearly cut out. Mel Brooks did not like it. And he just didn't like that they were doing it. And of course it's the one, I feel like I'm not the only one who still has to make sure that my beverage is not only out of my esophagus, but like aside, when they start doing it. [Soundbite: Young Frankenstein] Brian: And I understand they were about to throw away the sets from the 1931 Frankenstein when Mel Brooks or his production designer came up and said, Stop stop. We want to use these and they were able to get the original sets or at least the set pieces. John: I believe what it [00:44:00] was, was they got Kenneth Strickfaden's original machines. Ken Strickfaden created all that stuff for the 1931 version and had been used on and off, you know, through all the Frankenstein films. And it was all sitting in his garage and the production designer, Dale Hennessy went out to look at it because they were thinking they had to recreate it. And he said, I think it still works. And they plugged them in and they all still worked. Brian: Oh, wow. Dawn: Oh man. It's alive. John: Those are the original machines. Dawn: I didn't know that. That's fantastic. John: At the time when I was a young kid, I was one of the few kids in my neighborhood who knew the name Kenneth Strickfaden, which opened doors for me. Let me tell you when people find out, oh, you know of the guy who designed and built all those? Oh, yes. Oh, yes. I know all that. One of my favorite stories from Young Frankenstein is when they sold the script. I forget which studio had said yes. And as they were walking out of the meeting, Mel Brooks turned back and said, oh, by the way, it's gonna be in black and white, and kept going. And they followed him down the hall and said, no, it can't be in black and white. And he said, no, it's not gonna work unless it's in [00:45:00] black and white. And they said, well, we're not gonna do it. And they had a deal, they were ready to go. And he said, no, it's gonna stay black and white. And he called up Alan Ladd Jr. that night, who was a friend of his, and said, they won't do it. And he said, I'll do it. And so it ended up going, I think, to Fox, who was more than happy to, to spend the money on that. And even though Mel didn't like Putting on the Ritz, it's weird, because he has almost always had musical numbers in his films. Virtually every movie he's done, he's either written a song for it, or there's a song in it. So, it's weird to me. I've heard Gene Wilder on YouTube talk about no, no, he didn't want that scene at all, which is so odd because it seems so-- Brian: I never thought about that, but you're right. I'm going in my head through all the Mel Brooks films I can remember. And there is at least a short musical interlude in all of them that I can think of. John: But let's talk then about what's considered one of the best mixes of horror and comedy, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein [00:46:00] [Soundbite: Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein] Brian: As with comedies of that age, it, it starts off slow, but then it starts to get very funny as time goes on. And all the comedy is because of Abbot and Costello. They are the, [00:47:00] the chemistry they have on screen. I don't know how much of that was actually scripted and how much of it was just how they rolled with each other. But it works really well. Not much of the comedy is provided by the monsters or the supporting cast or even there's maybe a cute, a few sight gags. But wouldn't you say most of the comedy is just the dynamics between them? John: It is. The scary stuff is scary and it's balanced beautifully at the end where they're being chased through the castle. The monsters stayed pretty focused on being monsters and Abbot and Costello's reactions are what's funny. Dawn: If I may, as someone who has already admitted I haven't seen much of the movie, it's feels to me like it may be something like Shaun of the Dead, in the sense that you get genuinely scared if zombie movies scare, then you'll have that same adrenaline rush and the monsters stay scary. They don't have to get silly. Or be a part of the comedy for your two very opposing one's skinny, one's fat, you know, and the way that their friendship is both aligning and [00:48:00]coinciding is the humor. Brian: I believe there is one brief shot in there where you get to see Dracula, Frankenstein's monster and the Wolfman all in the same shot. And I think that might be the only time that ever happens in the Universal Franchise. During the lab scene, does that sound right John? John: I think you really only have Dracula and the Wolfman. I'll have to look it up because the monster is over on another table-- Brian: Isn't he underneath the blanket? John: Nope, that's Lou Costello, because it's his brain that they want. And so they're fighting over that table. And then just a little, I have nothing but stupid fun facts. There's a point in it, in that scene where the monster gets off the table and picks up someone and throws them through a window. And Glenn Strange, who was playing the monster at that point -- and who is one of my favorite portrayers of the monster, oddly enough -- had broken his ankle, I believe. And so Lon, Chaney, Jr. put the makeup on and did that one stunt for him, cuz he was there. Brian: He did that as Frankenstein's monster? John: Yes. Frankenstein. Brian: I didn't know that. Yes, I [00:49:00] did not know that. So he plays both of those roles in that movie? John: Yes. Let me just take a moment to defend Glenn Strange, who played the monster three times: House of Dracula, House of Frankenstein, and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. In House of Frankenstein, he is following up the film before that, which was Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, in which, in this very convoluted universe, Lugosi is playing the monster, even though he didn't wanna do it in 31. Because his brain in Ghost of Frankenstein had been put into the Monster's body. So, in Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, it is Lugosi as the Frankenstein monster. It is Lon Chaney Jr., who had played the monster in Ghost of Frankenstein, now back to playing Larry Talbot. So, it is Wolfman versus Frankenstein. And the premise of the script was he's got Ygor's brain and it's not connecting properly. He's gone blind. They shot that. They had tons of dialogue between the two characters of Larry Talbot pre-wolfman, and the monster, Bela Lugosi. And the executives thought it sounded silly. So they went in and they cut [00:50:00] out all of Lugosi's dialogue out of the movie. So now you have a blind monster stumbling around with his arms in front of him, but he doesn't talk. And if you look at the movie, you can see where he's supposed to be talking and they cut away quickly. And it's really convoluted. Glenn Strange who then has to play the monster next, looks at that and goes well, all right, I guess I'm still blind. I guess I'm still stumbling around with my arms in front of him. Which is the image most people have of the Frankenstein monster, which was never done by Boris in his three turns as the monster. So with, in that regard, I just think Glenn Strange did a great job of picking up what had come before him and making it work moving forward. Anyway, a couple other ones I wanna just hit on very quickly. Brian asked me to watch Dracula in Istanbul. Under the circumstances, a fairly straightforward retelling of the Dracula story. I would recommend it--it is on YouTube--for a couple of reasons. One, I believe it's the first time that Dracula has actual canine teeth. Brian: Yes. John: Which is important. But the other is there's the scene where he's talking to Harker about, I want [00:51:00] you to write three letters. And I want you to post date the letters. It's so convoluted, because he goes into explaining how the Turkish post office system works in such a way that the letters aren't gonna get there. It's just this long scene of explaining why he needs to write these three letters, and poor Harker's doing his best to keep up with that. That was the only reason I recommend it. Brian: That movie is based on a book called Kazıklı Voyvoda, which means The Warrior Prince and it was written in, I wanna say the 1920s or thirties, I wanna say thirties. It's the first book to equate Dracula and Vlad the Impaler, which I've come back to a couple times now, but that's significant because it was a Turkish book and the Turks got that right away. They immediately saw the name Dracula like, oh, we know who we're talking about. We're talking about that a-hole. It was not until the seventies, both the [00:52:00] fifties and the seventies, that Western critics and scholars started to equate the two. And then later when other scholars said, no, there, there's not really a connection there, but it's a fun story. And it's part of cannon now, so we can all play around with it. John: But that wasn't what Bram Stoker was thinking of? Is that what you're saying? Brian: No. No, he, he wasn't, he wasn't making Dracula into Vlad the Impaler. He got the name from Vlad the Impaler surely, but not the deeds. He wasn't supposed to be Vlad the Impaler brought back to life. John: All right. I'm going to ask you both to do one final thing and then we'll wrap it up for today. Although I could talk to you about monsters all day long, and the fact that I'd forgotten Dawn, that you were back on the Universal lot makes this even more perfect. If listeners are going to watch one Dracula movie and one Frankenstein movie, what do you recommend? Dawn, you go first. Dawn: They're only watching one, then it's gotta be the 1931 Frankenstein, with Boris. Karloff, of course. I think it has captured [00:53:00] the story of Frankenstein that keeps one toe sort of beautifully over the novel and the kind of original source material that I am so in love with, but also keeps the other foot firmly in a great film tradition. It is genuinely spooky and it holds so much of the imagery of any of the subsequent movies that you're only watching one, so that's the one you get. But if you do watch any more, you've got this fantastic foundation for what is this story and who is this creature? John: Got it. And Brian, for Dracula? Brian: I was tossing around in my head here, whether to recommend Nosferatu or the 1931 Dracula. And I think I'm going to have to agree with Dawn and say the 1931 for both of them, because it would help a viewer who was new to the monsters, understand where we got the archetypes we have. Now, why, when you type an emoji into your phone for Vampire, you get someone with a tuxedo in the slick back hair or, I think, is there a Frankenstein emoji? Dawn: There is, and he's green with bolts in his neck. [00:54:00] Brian: Yeah, it would. It will help you understand why we have that image permanently implanted in our heads, even though maybe that's not the source material. We now understand the origins of it. Dawn: And if I may too, there's, there's something about having the lore as founded in these movies is necessary, frankly, to almost understand what happens later. I mean, I get very frustrated in 2022, if there is a movie about vampires that takes any time at all to explain to me what a vampire is, unless you're breaking the rules of the vampire. For example, you know, like in Twilight the vampire sparkles, like a diamond when it's out in the sunshine and is the hottest thing ever. That's really great to know. I didn't know that about vampires. That wasn't necessarily true before, you know, but you don't need to take a lot of time. In fact, when you do read Dracula, one of the things for me that I found very frustrating was the suspense of what is it with this guy? They were like: He said we couldn't bring [00:55:00] garlic and they take all this time. And you're kind of as a modern reader being like, cuz he is a fucking vampire. Move on. Like we know this, we got this one. It's shorthand Brian: That's one snide thing I could say about the book is that there are times where Dracula's powers seem to be whatever his powers need to be to make this next scene creepy and move on to the next chapter. John: He was making it up as he went along. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

We're Live. First of all, there's so,e big news regarding Entreprogrammers, it's currently a rebranding! So stay tuned to see a new face! The Content that social media has at the moment is extremely variant and different, to say the least. Publishing superior content will not only make you stand out from the crowd but it will improve your chances of success. The guys have a really interesting conversation regarding this with each different perception. Thought of the week John - “All it matters is to get that specific Lead”

What you'll learn in this episode: Why every art student should have business classes as part of their curriculum How the American mythology of the starving artist is more harmful than helpful Why it's important to expand a creative business beyond just making How polymer clay went from craft supply to respected artistic medium Tips for entering jewelry and art exhibitions  About John Rose and Corliss Rose 2Roses is a collaboration of t Corliss Rose and John Lemieux Rose. The studio, located in Southern California, is focused on producing one-of-a-kind and limited-edition adornment and objects d'art, and is well known for its use of a wide range of highly unorthodox materials. The studio output is eclectic by design and often blended with an irreverent sense of humor. 2Roses designs are sold in 42 countries worldwide and are exhibited in major art institutions in the US, Europe, and China. Photos Available on TheJewelryJourney.com Additional Resources: Website Etsy Transcript: For John and Corliss Rose, business and artistic expression don't have to be in conflict. Entering the art world through apprenticeships, they learned early on that with a little business sense, they didn't need to be starving artists. Now as the collaborators behind the design studio 2Roses (one of several creative businesses they share), John and Corliss produce one-of-a-kind art jewelry made of polymer clay, computer chips, and other odd material. They joined the Jewelry Journey Podcast to talk about their efforts to get business classes included in art school curriculum; why polymer clay jewelry has grown in popularity; and how they balance business with their artistic vision. Read the episode transcript here.    Sharon: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Jewelry Journey Podcast. This is a two-part Jewelry Journey Podcast. Please make sure you subscribe so you can hear part two as soon as it comes out later this week.    Today my guests are designers John and Corliss Rose of the eclectic design firm 2Roses, located in Southern California. They sell worldwide. 2Roses is an award-winning design firm recognized for their use of unusual materials. Today we'll hear more about their jewelry journey. Corliss and John, welcome to the program.   John: Thank you. It's a delight to be here. Thank you very much.   Sharon: So glad to have you.  Tell us about your jewelry journey. Were you designers first? How did that work?   John: Actually, we both started rather early in life. Corliss started as an apprentice in her father's floral store when she was 10, and I was apprenticed into design and graphic arts at age 12. We both came up in the old-school apprentice system and were working professionally by our early teen. It wasn't until later, in our late teens, that we both started professional or, I should say, a traditional academic trend. So, we've always been in the arts, both of us, very early.   Sharon: Were you both attracted to jewelry early as part of this? Where did that come in?   Corliss: We met at art school, and our backgrounds and our career focus on developing a creative career were almost identical, so we hit it off right from the get-go. For the first 10 years of our relationship, we focused on our own individual creative paths, but we kept intersecting with each other. Eventually we made the decision to work together full time collaboratively for a creative endeavor. Jewelry, at that moment in time, was the highlight of where we wanted to focus our energies.   Sharon: Is that when you met, when you were both part of the apprenticeship, or when you were in college? Where did you meet?   Corliss: We met in art school in Chicago.    John: Prior to that, we had quite a bit of time to develop different practices and careers. So, we met midway, I suppose, in our journey.   Sharon: When you say you were apprenticed, was the idea that you would learn how to be a designer, how to be a florist, and that's what you were going to do?    Corliss: At that time, I was being groomed to take over my father's business. I learned not only the design aspect, but at a very early age, I learned cost accounting. I was learning the business aspect of it. I was pretty much indoctrinated from the very beginning that you're going to be an artist, but you're not going to be a starving artist. You need to make a profit out of this so you can flourish. Later on in my career, I had one gallery owner tell me that the work was wonderful, but price it this way because it's one thing to make your bread; it's another thing to put butter on it. So, it was something that I had gotten all along.   Sharon: Wow! Most people don't get that so early, so that's great.   John: All of the apprenticeships I did, it was all about how this is a business first, and we do creative things like manufacturing a product. So by the time we hit formal arts school, when we first met, we very quickly realized that we had a mutual experience of understanding of the art world and our career path. That's what was a very strong attraction; that we both looked at this as a business career. This isn't about abstract ideas of, “Let's be creative,” and all the mythologies that artists are inculcated with. We didn't seem to have that kind of thinking.   Sharon: Were you ahead of your peers in that respect? Were you ahead of your peers because you recognized the business aspect?   John: Oh my god, yes. Yeah, it was really like that. By the time we hit college, most of our peers were just starting out. They were just starting to learn their career paths and trying to figure out what they were doing. We already had several businesses going. For us, the academic training was more of a cherry on the cake and polishing skills. By that time, we were working professionals and had been for quite some time.   Sharon: Wow! Tell us about the jewelry you make. We'll have pictures when we post the podcast, but it's so unusual.   Corliss: We've always been driven by exploration and experimentation with what we call odd media. This is what drew us to art jewelry in the early days. It was like the wild west. Anything went, and we just threw out all the rules of traditional jewelry. Fashion and adornment were being challenged at that time. It was almost like a golden age, where there was a lot of free-flowing ideas, a lot of collaboration with John and me, and a lot of fluid dialogue creatively between the both of us.    John: You asked about jewelry, and one of the things is we didn't start out as jewelers. Both of us came to it through a lot of other mediums. Myself, I started out as a painter, illustrator, furniture maker, gem cutter, sign maker, designer of one thing or another, machinery. Corliss went through all sorts of other endeavors herself.   Corliss: It was basically when we had been together for 10 years, plus doing all of these interesting things, that we made the decision, “Jewelry would be a great direction to go into.” And just to pull the curtain back a little bit and give a peak, I think one of the nicest things that happened to me at that time was that as an anniversary gift, I received lessons for metalsmithing. I learned how to solder, and that was the beginning of it. What I learned, I taught John. We experimented with a lot of different processes and a lot of different materials, and it just started to take off from there.   Sharon: When you say metalsmithing, I would think you would go in the traditional direction, whereas you took the metalsmithing and combined it with polymer clay, it seems, which people don't do. I'm looking at what your website has, and that's unusual. How did you reverse course in a sense?   Corliss: We were very much interested in color. At that time, we were following the traditional path of experimenting with color and its relationship to metals: patinas,P Prismacolor pencils, enamels and things like that. Polymer clay was such a versatile material. It could mimic just about anything. At the time, the product was being developed in Europe, where it was originally manufactured, and there was a small group of people using the product and doing some pretty innovative things with it. I latched onto that train very, very quickly and took myself through the learning curve of how to work with it, and I got involved with that particular community for quite a while to absorb everything I could, like a big, old sponge. To this day, it plays a very vital role in a lot of work we do. Because we have been metalsmiths and I teach, I have been able to actually teach the incorporation of some of the simpler metalsmithing techniques with polymer to people who have only worked with polymer and opened up that door to them. It's been very rewarding in that respect.   John: You made a good observation about that crossover because as Corliss mentions, it's really a two-way street. What we recognized after a while is that introducing polymer clay to the metal world was one side of the sword, and then it was basically introducing metals into the polymer world. Corliss has developed a whole range of courses, workshops, if you will, going in both directions, and that's become a business unto itself.   Sharon: You seem very entrepreneurial. You seem to go on and on.   Corliss: As John would say, there are many paths to the artist's income.   John: Yeah, entrepreneurialism is really baked into the DNA. I have to go back to the apprenticeships that we both did that gave us a foundation in—I always express it as art as a business and business as an art.   Corliss: It was a work ethic, too.   John: Yeah. So, we tend to always look at what the business opportunities are, how to make money doing this. That's always an issue for anybody in the arts, and that's also part of what we have advocated for for the last 40 years. I have worked with the California University system for decades trying to introduce a business curriculum into the arts, and it's taken 40 years to actually get that message across. It's only been in the last 10 years that we've started getting any kind of acceptance. We've developed many programs for various universities to teach the business side of art, and it's been an obstacle course to get that through. It runs counter—or at least it used to run much more counter to the academic approach to teaching arts, which focuses more on technique than actually earning a living.    Corliss: I've had quite a few experiences with individuals who were poised for graduation in the next six months or so. We would have conversations about, “I don't know what I'm going to do next. I'm going to graduate, but I don't know how to start a business. I was never taught how to make this a practice.” That's where everything started. It started by recognizing that there is a need for it within the education system. It led to developing more and more sophisticated ways of instructing people and getting them a little more prepared for what comes after graduation.   John: The thing we found, though, is that this is a uniquely American perspective. We've developed programs for Canada, for Mexico, South America, and they embraced them. To them it's a no-brainer. It's only America where we've encountered any resistance to it.   Sharon: Interesting. Why do you think that is?   John: I think a lot of it is the mythology of art. I want to be specific about this. We are focusing on metals programs and jewelry design programs for this kind of thing. When I was involved in SNAG, we got into this quite in-depth. One of the biggest impediments is that the instructor basically had never operated a business himself, so to them, they were being asked to teach something they had no experience in. Basically, they got their master's degree, and they went from being students to teachers. That's it. The idea that there was another world out there, they would say, “Yeah, that's great. That would be wonderful, but that's not something I have any experience with.”    Sharon: That's interesting, the idea that art should be pure and sell itself.    John: That's one of the mythologies, so Puritan. It's your labor, I guess. One of the things that occurs to me: many people in the arts define themselves by what they do with their hands, and we have never done that. We conceive the opportunities of who we are by what we do with our minds and how we harness our creativity and create opportunities for ourselves to express that creativity. Jewelry is just one of those things. We have a long history in developing businesses, which goes back to the apprenticeships. From our perspective, it's all creative endeavor.   Corliss: I was a pastry chef.   Sharon: Wow!    John: A television pastry chef, no less   Corliss: Yes.   John: And she basically made formulations for a lot of very famous restaurants and product lines that you would know of.   Corliss: Making the croissants for Marie Callender's. Looked up the recipe for that.   Sharon: Wow!    John: That's Marie right there.    Sharon: How did all this meld into jewelry? I know you through Art Jewelry Forum. I know you do art jewelry, but how did everything you're talking about meld, at one point, into art jewelry? I know you do a lot of other different things, but in terms of the product, let's say.   John: We were both active artists in various spheres. One of the things we were doing a lot was running mining and prospecting operations. We were accumulating massive amounts of gem material, and it came to the point where we had to make a decision of what the hell we were going to do with all this stuff. That's when we came upon jewelry. We could either sell the material wholesale, which we were doing, but really the profitability in jewelry is that we had to finish the faceted stone and polish the rough material. You get the material by the pound, but you sell it by the carat.   Corliss: It was lapidary skills that was the predecessor to this. We were making cabochons. John was faceting and we were also carving. We were carving a lot of natural materials, like bone and wood. The jewelry morphed from that, and it started selling. I was actually schlepping things in a big case, and we found that our work was being very well received. It grew and built from that. Soon enough, we were incorporating precious metal into our pieces.   John: We started doing more of what I would call conventional jewelry, and we had quite a success doing that. Early on, we got contracts with Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom and some larger chains, and very quickly we found out that doing that kind of work is not what we wanted to do.   Corliss: Yes, multiples.   John: Like doing 5,000 of something. You can make money, but the toll that takes on your body—I know a lot of people that do that, and all of them have wrist problems. It leads to health problems. So, that kind of jewelry was when we were getting started and taking off.    When we discovered art jewelry, we lost our minds. It was the wild west. It was all of our art training, all of the things we thought of ourselves as, what we wanted to do in terms of unfettered creativity and experimentation, pushing the boundaries and the edge. That's what was happening in art jewelry. So, we said, “Yeah, that's where we want to go. If we're going to do jewelry, that's the kind of stuff we're going to do.” That's basically how we backed into this world.   Corliss: That's how it opened us up to a lot of different materials. We were in the frame of mind of purposely going out and looking for materials in a lot of different places, everything from upcycling to computer boards and things of that sort, a whole variety of things. We had friends who would tease us and bring us little offerings we could use in the studio and comment, “You two can make something out of anything.” We took that as a wonderful compliment and put ourselves in a position to receive a lot of very interesting material we could use.   John: Well, we had good circumstances and still do because of all these other businesses we were involved with. We had connections within the military, NASA, foreign governments, lights and heavy manufacturing, the medical industry. We were getting access to this insane array of stuff and materials. I've got stuff from someone's space capsule, a jet fighter, fossils of every kind, medical devices you wouldn't normally get your hands on. All of this became fodder for “Let's make jewelry out of it.” One example: I have what we call the world's most expensive pair of earrings. One of my contacts ran a medical manufacturing business, and they spent something like $35 million developing these little—   Corliss: Chips.   John: Yeah, for CAT scanners, and they failed. They didn't work as intended. So we stocked six of these prototypes, which literally cost $35 million, and they were like, “Well, we can't use them. Here, make some jewelry out of them,” which we did. We made earrings out of them, and I love that particular piece. It has a story because they went from being extravagantly expensive to being completely worthless, and now they're a pair of earrings. Somebody put some sort of value on it, I guess.   Sharon: It sounds like people who know you just ship you boxes and bones and screws and whatever they have.   John: We receive regular offerings from friends, which is a delight; it really is. Over the years, we've developed a solid foundation of collectors. We get a steady stream of commissions, and it's very typical to hear, “I have this thing. Can it be—” I mean, we've gotten everything from antiquities—   Corliss: We have Roman coins and special pottery shards.   John: And crazy stuff that people say. “Here, use this as the starting point and make me something.” We actually got a guy's pacemaker one time. “I've had this inside of me for the last six years, and now I'm going to wear it on the outside.”    Sharon: That's an interesting idea.   John: It was quite an interesting piece. 

Opening poem: “Bedrooms and Battle scars.” Touchy subject and revelation: Buddy - The ownership of being a jackass. John - All parts of your story will be used.

Even if you have a solid financial plan in place, things can quickly get out of tune if you don't make adjustments from time to time. Let's talk about some of the areas where we often see people get out of tune in their financial plan. Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is a registered investment adviser. All statements and opinions expressed are based upon information considered reliable although it should not be relied upon as such. Any statements or opinions are subject to change without notice. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. Investment involve risk and, unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Information expressed does not take into account your specific situation or objectives and is not intended as recommendations appropriate for any individual. Listeners are encouraged to seek advice from a qualified tax, legal, or investment adviser to determine whether any information presented may be suitable for their specific situation. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Transcript of Today's Show: For a full transcript of today's show, visit the blog related to this episode at https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/podcast/ ----more---- Speaker 1: Hey, everybody. Welcome into another edition of the podcast. Thanks for hanging out with John and Nick and myself as we're going to talk about Retirement Planning Redefined once again. This week, we are going to chat about getting in tune. No, not instruments, and we're not going to sing, because that might be bad, but we're going to talk about getting our retirement plans into tune, especially because we all want to have that good solid piece in there that we know we're going to be comfortable and happy and get the things we need out of it, but we also can drift off from time to time. So, we want to pull those back in, get the reins if you will. So, that's going to be our topic this week is getting in tune. What's going on guys? What's shaking? How you doing? John: All good. Nick: Staying busy. Speaker 1: Yeah, staying busy. How's the dog? I know you got that dog that's really old. Is she doing okay? Nick: Depending upon your definition of okay, she's doing great. Speaker 1: Well, good. Nick: Yeah, she definitely keeps me on my toes. I think she had to go out five times before 11:30 today, so that was fun. Speaker 1: Holy cow. Nick: Yeah. Speaker 1: My mine's 15 and she's going deaf and going partly blind, but she's still okay in that department. How's yours doing? Is she having some hearing or vision? Nick: Oh yeah. No, she can't hear and her vision is not great, and so it's fun stuff. I'm on the third floor of my building, so I carry her down every time to go out. She's not a big dog, so it's easy, but- Speaker 1: It's cute and it's sad sometimes that she's losing her hearing. I'll be calling for her and she can't figure out exactly where it's coming from, because she's not completely deaf. So, she looks around in different angles and I'm like, 'I'm right next to you, you ding dong.' Nick: Oh yeah, I know that look well. Speaker 1: Pretty funny stuff. John, what's going on with you buddy? I know you don't have these exciting dog stories, but what's happening? John: Not too much. Just staying busy and I think as you're aware, becoming a school parent, so that's fun and then started my little one in gymnastics, so I have to head there tonight. Speaker 1: Oh, nice. Yeah. You're getting to that phase now where you got hobbies and activities all the time, right? John: Yeah, play dates are starting to get formed now. I pick her up from school and it's like, "Hey, I want to do a play date with my friend." It's like, "All right." Speaker 1: Yep, go, go, go. That's all right, hey, at least we're getting back to some of that stuff. So kids and stuff. I mean, everybody needs interaction, so it's good that we're here getting some of that stuff going on. Getting our life back in tune, so to speak. That'll be my segue back into the topic here. So, let's talk about how to get our financial plans or our retirement plan back in tune in case we've got out. We talked a couple weeks ago guys, and we're waiting to see what the fine details are going to be, we'll probably do a podcast on it, but tax considerations, future tax considerations. Speaker 1: A lot of the stuff that's right now at the time we're taping this that's before the house, it may go through, there's quite a bit to the corporate tax change, there is bumping up. They're trying to make it sound like it's all going to be for the higher net worth folks, but $400,000, $500,000 is not that hard to get to for some of these things. So depending on where you're at, tax considerations needs to be on everybody's radar no matter what you're making. Nick: Yeah, tax considerations are definitely something that we try to focus on with clients. I think in our minds, the number one, the rule of thumb when it comes to tax considerations in regards to investments and retirement accounts is to have options. So, what we mean by that is not only a diversification in the types of investments, underlying investments that you have, but also in the types of accounts that you have. Nick: You want to have accounts are going to be tax free down the road, accounts that will be taxed down the road and then maybe some accounts that are subject to income or capital gains taxes versus just ordinary income. So, the having options, building a personal moat and being able to have the ability to adapt and adjust, I think and staying nimble is the number one priority when it comes to planning. Speaker 1: Having a personal moat, I like that. John, you've been getting so much rain, you might have your own moat, right? John: Yeah, that's funny. I do feel like it's been raining every day. It's just new house, it's like we have this big yard and I walk back there and it's constantly soaked and the pool's always overflowing. So yes, I do have a personal moat keeping Nick out. Speaker 1: Nice, I like that. Okay, so tax considerations. Again, lots of things happening there, so that could even be changing and that's why it's definitely important to make sure. It's always important really, no matter what time we're in, but I mean certainly when we get to retirement, tax considerations and what we're paying is a big deal. So it's not what you make, it's what you keep, all that stuff. Speaker 1: Life insurance. Fellas, having the right amount, well, 'Hey, I'm retired, I don't need it.' That's what most people say, or at least that's the general consensus or rule of thought, but is that correct? John: Sometimes it is. It really comes down to when you're looking at, do I have the right amount? So, is there a need for it? If there is a need for it, then it becomes income replacement. So example, I go to retire and let's say I do have a pension that's life only. We talked about that a couple weeks ago and if I pass away, that pension's gone, does my spouse need that money for her money to last at that point or for her to hit her goals? John: If the answer's yes, she needs that pension replaced, then yes, there is a need for life insurance. There're other things that go into it, but that's just looking at it from a retirement standpoint. It's really replacing someone's income or assets that are needed to generate income for the surviving spouse. Nick: Yeah, and I would say just on top of that, I think probably the reason that we mentioned this in this conversation is just to not absentmindedly push it off the side. I think there's a perception for people that no matter what, they're not going to need any sort of coverage approach in retirement or into retirement. Just like anything else, we think it's important to take inventory, and when you're building your plan, to make sure that you vet out the different situations and scenarios. Nick: Because when you were originally planning, you may have not expected to have a mortgage, you may not have expected to help out your kids with education costs or maybe at the level that you did, or a myriad of other things. So life comes at you quick, we think it's important that... because so many people automatically assume that it's just no longer a part of the conversation for them, that you make sure that it is or is and take a good inventory to see if it makes sense for you. John: Yeah, definitely. Let me jump in here real quick. Speaker 1: Sure. John: This is really important for big business owners to look at as their near retirement, because a lot of small businesses, they are in essence the business, and if they don't have any life insurance and something happens to them, sometimes we've seen businesses have to fire sale and stuff like that. Nick: Yeah, if something happens to the owner, the business is relying upon the owner, the family expected to be able to sell the business and cash out and be profitable and sail into the sunset that can get derailed pretty quickly. So that's another good example. Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely. And you mentioned cash, just cashing out, but that was actually, cash is on my next one who doesn't love cash. I mean, everybody loves cash. We want to keep a nice amount around. We feel like most people kind of have this, the higher the number the better. My kid, she's 24 now she's working, making good money for a change. Speaker 1: Now she's learning how to play this game with herself about, Ooh, how much can I get my savings account to grow? I'll be chatting with her and she'll be like, 'Yeah, I'm trying to hit this number. And I'm adding a little bit more.' And it's nice to see her kind of start to play that game with herself where she's trying to grow those accounts. And she enjoys always the fact they're growing and that only happens more as we get older. So people sometimes want these pretty large amounts sitting around. So what's the right amount to actually have, because I mean, at some point, we start talking about emergency funds and so on and so forth. I mean, what are you going to do with $100,000 sitting in the banking cash? Is that really too much? Is that the right amount? I mean, how do you figure that out? Nick: Well, this is where our very effective, but also annoying answer of it depends comes into play. So, this answer possibly more than almost anything else is I think hyper dependent upon the people or the person that we're talking about. Obviously there's kind of the rule of thumb of, six to 12 months of expenses in cash. But really when we drill down further, one of the things that I like to run by people is to have them think of cash in a way of it's the ultimate permission slip. What I mean by that is what amount of cash allows them to feel comfortable enough to not make irrational decisions with the rest of their money? So if having a year or 18 months, 24 months, even 36 months of cash allows them to be invested in a way that they should be with the rest of their money. Nick: Then in my mind that the opportunity cost of that money, getting more upside, that cash getting more upside is worth it because it prevents them for them overreacting to things like market corrections like we're having this week or these different sorts of scenarios and circumstances where one of the best techniques that has worked for us is going through and saying 'Yes, the market just pulled back over the last three months. Let's just say it did 10%.' But if we can go to the client's accounts and say, 'Look at, you've got your next 18 months of expenses without ever touching your investment accounts is sitting there in cash for you.' Plus remember that we've got somewhere between 30% and 50% of your actual investment and fixed income automatically their blood pressure, their heart rate, and their amount of emails and phone calls to us go down, which are all things that are positive. Speaker 1: Really that's the talk, starting talking about risk as well. And that's my final bit on getting the plan in tune is having the right amount of risk for the time that you're in and for the situation that you're in. Maybe those two things go hand in hand, well, they all really go hand in hand, if you think about a retirement plan in general, but getting the right amount of risk is certainly important. Speaker 1: And we touched on this a couple of weeks ago when we were talking about couples and how they sometimes they're opposites in that regard. So you still have to find that that happy place that's working for the plan. I think I saw an email for somebody in a couple of weeks back guys, and it was something like, my account haven't done as well as the market this year and maybe I should change advisors. And it was like, well, wait a minute. You know, don't just assume that it's the advisor's fault because it didn't keep up with the market. How are you set up from risk? Are you exactly... Are you taking all as much risk as possible in that, which case the market return should be closer? Or are you very conservative and just don't really know what you have and that's why you didn't perform as well. There's lots of ways in variables to look at this correct? John: Yeah. It's definitely one of the most important things to look at when your overall portfolio is what is your or risk tolerance and how are you invested in? And what you just said is on point, we find that a lot where people are trying to compare not only to us, but other advisors like, 'Well, the S&P did this, what did I do?;' And then when you start diving into it, it's, well, you're a 50, 50 mix and that's the S&P all 100% equities. It's not going to be the same. John: But definitely from a planning standpoint, we try to make sure people are invested correctly based on their risk tolerance. Because if you are more aggressive in your portfolio than you actually are, when you start to see a dip, chances are you're going to panic and chances are if the dip is fast enough or goes down enough like in the COVID period, there March, April 2020, some people change courses and went from what they were, and then went to very conservative. John: And then three weeks later, the market just rallied back and all the gains were lost if you were, are seeing on the sidelines. It's important to really pick your risk tolerance, pick your portfolio and stay at the course based on the plan. Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you can't panic. That's usually the worst time to do it. It's definitely one of those cases where we tend to do that. And that's, again, the value I think of an advisor, because somebody can call up and say, like the pandemic crash or whatever, and say, 'Hey, I'm panicking. What do I do?' And you can walk through those scenarios without just locking necessarily locking in those gains by panic selling or whatever that case might be. Speaker 1: So something to look out for, make sure you have your plan in tune, and they require a tune note, folks, these they're not a set and forget it kind of thing, it's not. Even life insurance, if you bought life insurance 25 years ago, and you hadn't looked at it 25 years, it's one of those things where we buy it, we think we're never going to need it to look at it again, but no, that's not the case. Speaker 1: Stuff changes. Life happens. So make sure you're making little tweaks, your plans should change and ebb and flow just like your life's going to. And that was our topic this week on the podcast. And as always, we're going to try to take at least an email question or two, if we can, if you'd like to submit your own, go to the website at pfgprivatewealth.com, that's pfgprivatewealth.com drop us a line there and subscribe to the podcast while you're there as well. Speaker 1: We'll see if we can get these two in at least one, we got a question for Nick, from Jamie. He says, 'Nick, I've looked forward to retirement for many years and I enjoy the podcast. And now that I'm actually retired, I can't shake the feeling that I'm going to run out money. So you got any solutions for fighting the feelings, or should I just go back to work?' That's one of these things where people get into that situation. It's like they maybe don't have a good plan or they're just not comfortable. So they're not really sure what it's doing for them. Nick: Yeah. So this is interesting because I would say that realistically, the majority of the people that work with us, their plans are pretty solid and we have a high level of comfort of them retiring. In those scenarios where, where we have a high level of confidence in their plan and what we've done, especially, because we use a lot of pretty of variables. We try to up the cadence of meetings or the amount of times that we talk and get them to start trying to view things maybe a little bit more like us. Nick: So using things like the client portal that we have, where they can view their cashflow or their lifetime and see the different parts start to become more familiar with how the planning software works and get some of that comfort and affirmation that they're online and on target is really, really important. Nick: And then from the perspective of things that maybe aren't quite as static, in our regular reviews, really trying to drill down and dig into what are the things that are concerning them the most? For example, for some people, the things that are concerning them the most might be taxes. We can work, show them and illustrate a scenario of a significant bump in taxes and show them how that impacts them specifically. Nick: When I realized that I should ask clients that have serious concerns about how these specific things that they're concerned about impact them specifically, because one of the things we've seen is that, it's like, 'Okay, I'm watching the news and the news says this is going to happen and freak out in twos. Nick: They're thinking in large terms maybe from societal standpoint and that's understandable, but take that one step further and say, 'Okay, well how does this impacting me? How impact my plan? How does this impact me? And then when we start to drill down, when they start to learn to do that, the amount of stress that they have starts to go away pretty significantly. 'Okay, well I'm concerned about these taxes.' All right, well, Hey, let's take a look at the amount of income you're in. Let's take a look at sort of bracket you're in. Nick: Historically, even if we go back the last 20 years, how much that bracket has fluctuated and you see throughout 9/11, throughout the great recession, throughout the bounce back, throughout... Year bracket that you're in has gone plus, or minus 3%, that's not going to really have a huge packed on you or let's even just let's bump it up an extra 10%, those sorts of things or using that same sort of situational awareness with markets or, whatever else it is, health, those sorts of things. When people start to really think about how to impact them, it's usually kind of a calming factor for them. Speaker 1: Yeah, I think at the end of the day, if you don't have a good strategy in place that makes sense to you and that you understand you're going to have a hard time shaking that feeling and not feeling calm and feeling nervous about it. And that's really where the right advisor and also the right plan comes in place. If you're working with somebody and you feel like things maybe aren't totally there, it's okay to get a second opinion. Whether it's Jamie or anybody else that checking out the podcast, find out if you're working with somebody and you're not sure that that's the right fit, then get a second opinion and you may find that it is. It's everything's working swimmingly well, and that's fantastic. Or you may find that you might need to make a change. Speaker 1: And if you do, just reach out to John and Nick and schedule some time, have a conversation with them. Second opinions is part of the industry. So give them a jingle, have a conversation, pfgprivatewealth.com, that's pfgprivatewealth.com and time wise, guys, I think that's going to wrap it up for this week. So we'll, we'll take that next email question next time on the show. Speaker 1: So reach out folks, let them know, to give them a cell, 8132867776 is the number to call. It's just easier to go to the website, pfgprivatewealth.com, subscribe to the show and all that good stuff on Apple, Google, Spotify. And we'll see you next time here on Retirement Planning Redefined with John and Nick and you guys have a great week. We'll see soon. Nick: [inaudible 00:18:25] John: Have a good one.

01:03 - Not Giving Into Peer Pressure 02:31 - Reaching Outside of the Accessibility World (Demystifying Accessibility) * Everyday Accessibility by Dr. Michele A. Williams (https://www.a11yproject.com/posts/2021-06-14-everyday_accessibility/) * Thinking About Disability Until It's Everyone's Normal Way of Thinking * Power Structures and Erasing Innovation * Recognizing Specialty * Cormac Russell: Four Modes of Change: To, For, With, By (https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/4510.pdf) 12:37 - The Real Work of Accessibility: Organizational Change * Taking a Stance and Celebrating Innovation * Inclusion 17:52 - Avoiding Dysfunctional Ways of Working * The 5 Principles of Human Performance: A contemporary update of the building blocks of Human Performance for the new view of safety by Todd E. Conklin PhD (https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Human-Performance-contemporary-updateof/dp/1794639144) * Context Drives Behavior * How Leaders Respond Matters * Set Up The System So The Right Thing Is Easy 26:46 - Moral Obligations and Social Norms: Top Down * PAPod 36 - Martha Acosta Returns - The 4 Things Leaders Control (https://preaccidentpodcast.podbean.com/e/papod-36-martha-acosta-returns-the-4-things-leaders-control/) * Roles * Processes and Practices * Values/Norms * Incentives 31:20 - Personas: Translating Ideas and Principles Into Action * Software Security: Building Security In by Gary McGraw (https://www.amazon.com/Software-Security-Building-Gary-McGraw/dp/0321356705) 37:04 - Putting Accessibility Into Action * Knowledge Building: Iterate * Giving Access * “Appreciate the bunt.” * Clearer Consequences * Greater Than Code Episode 162: Glue Work with Denise Yu (https://www.greaterthancode.com/glue-work) 51:06 - “Disability Dongles” – Liz Jackson (https://www.cbc.ca/radio/spark/disabled-people-want-disability-design-not-disability-dongles-1.5353131) * The Lows of High Tech – 99% Invisible (https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-lows-of-high-tech/) * Infrastructure Disables Blind Navigation * The Models of Disability (https://www.disabled-world.com/definitions/disability-models.php) * The Pretty One: On Life, Pop Culture, Disability, and Other Reasons to Fall in Love with Me by Keah Brown (https://www.amazon.com/Pretty-One-Culture-Disability-Reasons/dp/1982100540) Reflections: Michele: Finding room for everyone to provide their perspective. John: The real solutions are infrastructural. Rein: Accessibility has to be built-in throughout the process of building and designing software. This episode was brought to you by @therubyrep (https://twitter.com/therubyrep) of DevReps, LLC (http://www.devreps.com/). To pledge your support and to join our awesome Slack community, visit patreon.com/greaterthancode (https://www.patreon.com/greaterthancode) To make a one-time donation so that we can continue to bring you more content and transcripts like this, please do so at paypal.me/devreps (https://www.paypal.me/devreps). You will also get an invitation to our Slack community this way as well. Transcript: REIN: Hello and welcome to Episode 257 of Greater Than Code. I'm your co-host, Rein Henrichs, and I'm here with my friend, John Sawers. JOHN: Thank you, Rein, and I'm here with our guest, Michele A. Williams. She's the owner of M.A.W. Consulting (Making Accessibility Work). Her 16 years of experience include influencing top tech companies as a Senior User Experience Researcher and Accessibility Consultant, and obtaining a PhD in Human-Centered Computing focused on accessibility. A W3C-WAI Invited Expert, international speaker, published academic author, and patented inventor, she is passionate about educating and advising on technology that does not exclude disabled users. Welcome to the show, Michele. MICHELE: Thank you so much, John and Rein. Thanks for having me. JOHN: You are very welcome and we'll start the show as we always do by asking our standard question, which is what is your superpower and how did you acquire it? MICHELE: I don't think I have the most creative answer to this. [laughs] I kind of hate those, “Oh, tell us something fun about yourself.” But the thing I thought about that came to mind was my ability to not give into peer pressure. [chuckles] And some ways that manifests for instance, I have a technology background and yet I'm almost the least technical person like I was probably one of the last people to get a smartphone. I love my flip phone and you couldn't take it from me. So this idea that everyone's doing this social media, all of that, I just joined Twitter last year. So I do things dagnabbit; when I need it, not necessarily just because there's groundswell. So I would say that's pretty good superpower. JOHN: All right. So you gave some examples there in your personal life with technology and social media. I assume that that's also a fairly powerful capability in a business context as well. MICHELE: I think so. Particularly when you're advocating for say, disabled people who aren't necessarily always advocated for, it definitely helps to have a more strong will and the ability to take a stance that turns others rather than consistently feeling like you're being turned around about what others want you to do. So I agree with that, thanks. JOHN: [chuckles] Excellent. And so it looks like you've been involved in the accessibility world on a number of different angles and capabilities and so, what have you found to be the most impactful of those? MICHELE: I tend to want to reach people who are outside of the accessibility world. Unfortunately, I think sometimes accessibility people can tend to talk to other accessibility people a little bit too much. I tend to like to recognize that it is something that everyone in the world should know a little something about. It is an expertise, but there are some ways that everyone can do it. I just recently wrote an article for A11Y Project called Everyday Accessibility. That's when you're making a Word document, for instance, using the Ribbon, using headings, and buttons, or bulleted lists. So I tend to want to bring everyone on board, and demystify accessibility and make it more attainable and easier to grasp and that feels so much like this expert field that takes years to break it down to those tangible pieces that still make a big difference. REIN: One of the things that I hear a lot when abled people are advocating for accessibility is, “Sure, this helps disabled people, but you should care about it because it helps abled people, too.” How do you feel about that? MICHELE: So that's a conversation that's been coming up a lot, too and I have a particular colleague that sent me their response, for instance and it's a stance that I don't particularly align with because the problem with that stance is you end up keeping the status quo. So there are real consequences to being in a society that does not value disability and you, as someone who doesn't have a disability, do not feel those effects. So until we are a more equitable society, we do have to call out the characteristics that make someone have negative effects. So the reality is yes, there are things like situational impairments, which is when the situation you're in mirrors the impact of a disability such as walking and texting—you're not seeing out of your periphery—or there's temporary disabilities, like you've broken your arm, and then there's just the natural process of aging. All of that is true and you can also figure designing for your future self for that last part. But again, I think that we have to be very mindful that right now we need to overemphasize and think about disability until it is our normal way of thinking. REIN: It also seems like it's conceding the ground that doing what's right for disabled people is enough of a justification. MICHELE: Explain that a little bit more, what you mean by that. REIN: So when you say it helps disabled people, but it also helps abled people, it seems to me like you're saying it's not enough for me to just say that this helps disabled people. I have to give you another reason. MICHELE: Absolutely, absolutely, and that ties back into ableism and the invisibility of disability and the devaluing of disability. Like you said, it's like a disabled person is not enough. It has to also include absolutely right with that way of thinking and that's another reason not to go that route of segmenting it in that way. JOHN: I think this ties into something that you had mentioned earlier that I find really interesting, this idea that able people are doing something for disabled people. MICHELE: Yes, and that's the big thing. When you say like, “What's been on your mind lately?” That's the one that comes to mind and it comes to mind for a couple of different reasons. None of them new, none of them – I did not discover any of this; people have been saying this for decades upon decades. But for me, my personal experience, I will give a talk, an accessibility talk, I might explain something about say, screen readers, or some other technology, or a particular disability and then the response is, “Well, it should work this way,” or “We should do this.” There's a lot of solutioning around what I've just presented without any context of ever having met say, a disabled person, or particularly a person in the disability community that has been talked about and that comes, I think from this idea, a couple of things. One, again, this idea of a power structure where, “Well, I'm doing this for you, disabled person.” Not understanding the empowerment that the disabled person has, or this misunderstanding and again, invisibility of disability in spaces like tech innovation and not understanding, okay, that touch screen you're using, that text-to-speech you love, those captions that you use at the bar; all of these things [chuckles] came from disability. We erased the innovation that came from someone designing for themselves and designing for their ability and it's assisted technology and therefore, it's an add-on when it's for disabled folks, but it's innovation when it's for people who don't have disabilities. I think we need to have a lot more discussion about this, particularly in spaces like user experience, where we're supposed to be all inclusive and all about the user. There's some ways that we really are reinforcing this mindset and this power structure, for sure. JOHN: So I want to check my understanding of what you're saying, just to make sure. Are you saying that when you present a problem, accessibility problem, the abled people, the other UX designers, the other people who want to be helpful jump in with, “Oh, we can do this, we can do that, or that” rather than saying, “Well, let's go talk to some disabled people and find out what they need and let that guide how we solve this problem rather than us just being like, ‘Oh, it would be great if dah, dah, dah, dah, dah.'” MICHELE: So to two stages to that. For the first one yes, that's the first thing that happens. In the assistive technology, broad accessibility world, this manifests in some very familiar ways. The first is the blind navigation. Every year, some engineer thinks they've solved blind navigation, pedestrian navigation. Meaning they've created a belt with vibrations on the left and right with an Arduino, or something and they go, “You don't need a cane anymore because it's going to vibrate left when you need to turn left and right when you need to turn right, and you can walk like a sighted person,” or some variation of that—robot guide dogs, smart cane, something like that, or the sign language gloves, or the stair climbing wheelchair. There's these sort of assistive technologies that always come out with very little context around whether it's actually happening, whether it's actually needed. But then there's something John, about what you said, too about let's see what people need and we'll build it. We have to be careful even with that, too because that assumes that I can't build for myself and that's not true either. [chuckles] Disabled folks are the most innovative people because the world is not accessible. There is a such thing as a specialty. Like I have an accessibility specialty, I have a design specialty, but I think we often think that's someone without a disability. No, a disabled person can also have these specialties, or they can be someone who has the idea of what they need and you're partnering with them with your specialty in say, design to create those solutions. So again, I think we have to be very careful about our wording and our viewpoints of what's actually happening. REIN: There's a framework that I've been using for this that actually comes from aviation safety and there's a European aviation safety magazine where Cormac Russell published an op-ed called Four Modes of Change: To, For, With, By. The idea is that change to is the mode where change has done to us without us. So this is a sort of authoritarian top-down thing. We've got no say in the matter. It's not even necessarily for our benefit. Then change for is a benevolent top-down approach. “I'm trying to help you, but I'm the one who decides what to change.” Change with is a participatory co-creating the change. And then change by is change done by us for us where if I'm, for example, a manager, my role would be find out what support you need so you can make the changes you want to make. MICHELE: Absolutely. Perfect. Thank you. I knew there was some reference. This appears in disability justice spaces, in any kind of space where you're talking about inclusion, we know that sometimes inclusion can be code for do things the way that the current power structure does it. Do things the way that the current people in charge of comfortable and assimilate rather than no, we're actually going to allow you to be your authentic self and come into these spaces. Part of the reason this has also been on my mind is because I fit into some of these other spaces as a woman and as a Black person. I think that sometimes my cohorts think well, because we have experienced some of that in our lives, we are immune to them giving that out to others. So as a Black person, a woman, even someone with intersectionality, I can't possibly do that to do was done to me to someone else. But we don't realize how much ableism is steeped into our society, such that it is very easy to do that with disability and not even realize it and not even realize you have the mentality that someone is inferior to you, incapable, and particularly when the disability has to do with neurological, or anything that we really don't understand. But even still, even that kind of categorization can go away because the idea is that any sort of disability triggers usually some sort of ableist response and these things can happen even if you've experienced it yourself. JOHN: So like so many of the other things we discussed on this podcast, it sounds like the real work of accessibility is organizational change. It's getting the power structures to change to allow these things to come into being rather than forcing them in there, or trying to – like you were saying, not forcing the change on the disabled people to fit in. MICHELE: I've been thinking about the roots of this, for sure. And thank you for that. Unfortunately, capitalism drives a lot of this and again, if we're talking specifically more to tech worlds and say, including accessibility into your tech, part of that is just because the buy-in sometimes comes from the internal stakeholders, not the end customer. Again, if you're not mindful, not careful, and don't have leadership that are careful. So the dirty little secret is for instance internally yes, you may be making education software for students, but you're really marketing to the teachers who are going to buy it, and you're then even more so really marketing to whoever the management structure is internally who's going to approve it to even be on the market. So you get further and further away from actually helping a student because you have all these other checks that it needs to impress, or you need to make the case for similar to what we were saying earlier, you have to make the case for disability. For instance, you have to say, “Well, blind people to do this.” You get this pushback of, “Well, blind people don't do that so we don't have to worry about it and you keep moving on.” So there is a shift that is hard, but I do think it goes back to what I was saying earlier about taking a stance. I think that people do need to individually start to take the stance that that may be how we do things now, or how it may even need to be done. But we do want to be careful buying into that completely because it's going to perpetuate the same. We know that that power dynamic internally of who the stakeholders are, again, also sometimes doesn't reflect the diversity of who we are designing for. We're going to keep getting the same result if we're not super mindful and super careful to take the stance that we are going to care about the diversity of the end users, the people that ultimately will have their hands on what we're making and celebrate that oftentimes those best solutions, again, come from the community who are doing the work. So celebrating the innovation that comes from being tied back to those end users rather than thinking the solution has to come from within. So changing that mindset around this difficult, but it takes taking a stand and recognizing it, too. JOHN: So it's trying to change my thinking around to the by style change around accessibility and my context is on the team of web developers who develop apps that are eventually used by some disabled people. So I'm trying to think about obviously, we need buy-in from the power structures as a company and to spend time on the work, but deciding what work gets done needs to be – that's where the inclusion comes in and I'm curious about what the steps are there that helped me get to that point where those people are included MICHELE: So here's a few ways that that comes about. One of it could just be, okay, this is the feature we're doing and we're going to make sure that this feature that we're doing—however that came about—is assessable. That can come from anything from how you're going to code, like making the decision to use standardized elements that come with accessibility built-in, or whatever knowledge building you can do internally to just bake it into how you are creating that feature. Then there is what is the feature and making sure that that, if nothing else, is as inclusive as possible, or at least not exclusionary. You're not making a feature that will exclude people. Again, that comes from an understanding of who is the audience and making sure everyone understands that. No one, I don't think has fully solved for how to make accessibility the thing that everyone knows does – it's difficult. It takes time. It takes training. It takes science from top down as well as then knowledge from the bottom up. It's a journey. But I think that there are places where decisions are made, that you know you're going one way, or the other, whether it's, I'm using a div, or a button, [chuckles] whether it's we're going to wait to put captions, or we're going to go ahead and build in time to do that, whether it's, again, we're going to put in this very visual feature, or we're going to take a little bit more time to understand how to have an alternative to that feature. So there's lots of places where you can be very intentional, that you are going to take the steps to learn about accessibility from your point of view and then incorporate it. REIN: So let's say that your VP of engineering mandates that every project has to meet a certain accessibility score, or something like that, but you don't train the developers. So you were saying top down and bottom up have to come together. I have seen things like that lead to some pretty dysfunctional ways of working. MICHELE: I can see that [laughs] and I think part of that comes from a misunderstanding that accessibility is not just something you say we're going to do. Like, it's not like we didn't do it because we just simply forgot, or we didn't do it just for reasons that can then you can flip a switch and turn it on. People aren't doing it because they weren't taught it, they aren't fully aware of the diversity of it, they aren't aware of what's required, and then leadership isn't aware. Therefore, that steps have to be taken. So there's a lot of rally around let's be inclusive, let's be assessable, but then there's less so when you learn oh, that means we have to maybe take half of the time to train and disrupt our workflow, or we have to do our workflow differently, or we have to go back to the code we've already written and been using for years and fix it. Those are some real decisions and those are some real consequences sometimes to that, too when you're a business that is expected to constantly move forward, but they are decisions that have to be made in order to actually put it in place, not just say you are for it. REIN: Todd Conklin has a book, The 5 Principles of Human Performance, and there are two that I think are especially relevant here. One is that context drives behavior. So if you want to know why someone is behaving the way they do, the thing to look at is the context that they're operating in, and the other is that how leaders respond to matters. When I think about this, I think if you have a design systems team, is that design system built to be accessible from first principles? Is the easy thing to do grab a component that's already designed to be accessible, or is the easy thing to do is throw a div on the page? MICHELE: Yeah, and there are, I think that the number one takeaway is none of it is easy because all of it is late. So there are initiatives like teachaccess.org; we really need to be embedding it in how we even learn the things that we learned, because then it does feel like we're almost disrupting industry to do this. When in reality, we just learned it wrong. [chuckles] We learn to cheat and to make it look and feel the way I want it to look rather than learning that there was a reason there's this thing called a button versus this thing called a div. Now, recognizing, too, though that standards come after innovation. So you can't standardize something that hasn't really even been explored, or even invented yet. So we understand that as you want technology to advance, it's more difficult to then say, “Okay, there's a standard for this and that will guarantee us accessibility.” So for instance, using native HTML elements isn't all, or when we look at mobile, native mobile elements is more difficult to do. This is still a new space, a growing space and so, sometimes we don't often know what that looks like. But that then requires again, that awareness piece of what disability looks like and this is where they're trying to catch augmented reality and virtual reality with XR Access and accessibility initiatives. Because if you're at least aware of the diversity of disability, you can catch it early enough so that when the standards come out again, we're making it less hard. Someone on a panel I was on last week, talked about like tech debt and this idea of well, it can be overwhelming. Well, if you have less things you need to maintain, it's less overwhelming and that comes from using standards and being aware of standards. You lessen your tech debt; that becomes part of the overall responsibility of standards bodies, for instance. So there are some again, tangible steps that I think just need more awareness and talking about over and over again until we get it right, that can be put in place, should be put in place. Hopefully, it will be put in place to make this less daunting over time. REIN: Yeah, and then on the how leaders respond thing. If someone builds something that's not accessible to you, do you punish them to just drive that behavior underground, or do you say, “Why weren't they able to do it? Do they not have the right expertise? Were they under too much time pressure?” How can I make the context better so that people are more likely to do the behaviors that we're trying to lead them towards? MICHELE: Yeah. Thinking a lot about that, too. So I tend to have two ways. I guess, it's sort of the carrot stick kind of thing, or maybe some other dynamic like that, but we know some people are going to get the altruistic side. Again, awareness. They just weren't thinking about disability. It's not something that's in their life. It's not something that was exposed to them. Once someone is exposed and understands a little bit of the work that needs to be done, they're bought in and they go for it. There are other folks that just are ablest. They just will not care. If it has not affected them personally in their lives, they are going to look – maybe like you said, maybe their motivations are something like money, even though they don't realize they're excluding more consumers. Whatever those things are, they're just not going to buy in. That's when unfortunately things like the threat of lawsuits, or bad publicity has to be the way that you get those folks to turn around, or again, you just do it. [chuckles] So that's when maybe the folks on the ground can just do it regardless and the one thing, I think about is this video that went around with this little baby and there was a parent and a teacher aide. I presume the baby was supposed to be doing their sound it out cards, flashcards, but didn't feel like doing it. The little baby sitting on the floor back turned, the mom and the teachers, they did it. They did the sound out cards. The baby's looking back still playing, but keeps looking back and eventually, the baby goes, “Wait a minute, that's my game,” and next thing you know, they're playing the game. So there is something also, too to like you said, maybe it's just a peer pressure thing. No one else seems to be doing accessibility so why do we have to be the ones to do it? But if the cool kids start doing it, if the company start exposing that they are doing it, if there's enough groundswell, people will just get on board with the thing that everyone is doing, too. So I think maybe there are three ways now—maybe I've added a third in my mind. There are ways – as a user experience person, I say user experience the person that you're dealing with. Like you said, get in their head, what are they thinking? What do you think they would want? But ultimately, understand that it isn't always going to be because it's the right thing and the faster you learn that, the more you might be able to actually get some results, too. JOHN: Yeah. I like what you said there, Rein about set up the system so that the right thing is easy and I think obviously, there's a lot of work to get to that point where you have the whole system built around that. But once you can get there, that's great because then, like you were saying, Michele, there's so much less effort involved in getting the thing to happen because that's just how everyone does it and you're just pulling the components are, or copy pasting from the other parts of the code that are already accessible so that it that stuff is already built into the process. And then it doesn't have to be quite so much of an uphill. Like even just uphill thinking process where you have to think differently than you used to in order to get the thing done in an accessible manner. MICHELE: Yeah. Again, unfortunately it's not embedded within us to do this, but maybe the next generation will, maybe the next couple of generations If we keep talking about it and we take the effort to start to shift ourselves, maybe it will be the thing that people can't even remember when they didn't do it. I do feel like we're in a cool moment right now where that might be possible. I'm hearing it more and more. I didn't learn it in school when I was doing computer science and software engineering, but I know some students now that are coming out that are. So I'm kind of hopeful, but the conversations really need to be said aloud and often in order for it to happen, for sure. REIN: You mentioned the larger structural problem here, which is that designing accessible software is a moral obligation and we work in an economic system that's not optimized around moral obligations. Let's put it that way. MICHELE: Yeah. [laughs] That will dollar. [laughs] I think again, there's that school, are we changing that, or we're going to work within it. I think you can do both. Some people should – we should really be tackling both, any kind of inclusion efforts, same thing. Do you do it from within, or outside? Do you work within the structure, or do you dismantle it? I think there's benefits to both. I think there's benefit to basically editing what isn't working about what we're currently doing. There's always an improvement and I tend to look at it that way. It's not so much as it's down with this and up with that. I think we just need to recognize, as human beings who can evolve and do things different, learn, grow, and get wiser, let's just do that. Let's do what we're doing better and when we recognize that we have a negative effect, let's solution something that is going to work better and just recognize that and do better. It's okay to edit. So I don't think we have to toss our hands up and say, “Oh, we'll never get there because of how this is.” That was invented, too. All of these things are constructs. At some point, the way we do things wasn't the way we did things; we did things completely differently. Empires can fall and rise and be redone. So we don't have to stay stagnant, but we can, again, start to make these changes. REIN: I think that even within a capitalist system, there's still a place for social norms. There's still a place for deciding which behaviors we're going to accept and which behaviors we're not going to accept and what we're going to do about those. I just wouldn't expect that to be the CEO's job. I would expect that to be the entire community of the company. MICHELE: The entire community with the CEOs. So the two companies that are the pillars, for instance, of accessibility, Microsoft and Apple, you hear their CEOs say, “We do things accessibly.” So it's not necessarily on them to forego stakeholders and stock prices and all of that. Certainly, you can't do too much if you don't have a company, so they have to do what they have to do, but there is still an okay from that and that's part of that top-down. Again, we need training. Is there money in the budget for training? That has to come from management. So there is still a recognition and it's just always beneficial when everyone is on the same page that this is how we operate; the message then doesn't ever get disconnected. It just shifts to the role of a person and they put it into practice in their own particular way. REIN: Martha Acosta, who is one of the few original women in safety science, she says that there are four things that leaders can control, or have leverage over—there's roles, there's processes and practices, there's values, or norms, and there's incentives. So I think this ties in with what you're saying about what the CEO's job could be. MICHELE: Versus stock prices? Yeah. [laughs] Versus yeah. Which unfortunately is, again, I think it's even upon the CEO to take a stance on what they are going to do with their company and their time. Because certainly, the pressures are coming to them sometimes not necessarily emanating from them. So I think there is opportunity, this is why there's opportunity for everyone to evaluate what are we doing. Like you said, we can decide what is important, how are we going to go about this? And if enough people start to be even more mindful than they were yesterday, shifts are going to inevitably happen. And people who disregard others, discriminate all of these other negative effects that we've seen will inevitably have less effects because the norm will be these other ways that we're trying to include and get better as a society. REIN: So one of the things I like to think about when we have guests, or ask guests to think about, is to think about this challenge from the perspective of a few different people. A few different personas. So I'm a manager, I'm a line level manager and the people that report to me are engineers. What can I do? Or I am a mid-level engineer, what can I do? How do we translate these ideas and principles into action? MICHELE: So what is to understand that there are, for instance, guidelines like there are web accessibility, web content, accessibility guidelines, or author and tool guidelines, because we do need to define what it means. At some point, there needs to be metrics and there needs to be measures that need to be placed to understand, did we do this? One way to do that is to translate those into those various roles. Some of that work has happened and some of it needs to happen. So there's understanding the tangible actions that can and should happen. But I think also, it's simply a matter of deciding that accessibility and inclusion and particularly in my world, disability is just going to be a part of everything. Every check that you make for whatever your role is. You were talking about different frameworks for different levels. Certainly, that's true. I think that we tend to separate out disability from those kinds of conversations as if it's different. It's not different. Making decisions for how you're going to manage your employees should be inclusive of disabled employees. The tools that you want them to use, the ways you want them to work, how “productive” you want them to be, how you're going to measure that. All of that should be mindful of the variety of people that you are supporting. Same with I am a developer so that means that I am writing code on behalf of a group of other people and that means I need to know who these people are. It's funny you say personas because—I know that's not probably what you meant, but in my role, obviously that triggers the user experience personas, which I'm not a fan of. That's all another podcast. [chuckles] But when we're talking about that so in user experience we're saying, “Oh, we're designing for these people, these target audience per se.” It'll be John who's the manager and he does this on his way to work and then there's Mary. Maybe she's a stay-at-home mom, but uses it this way. Dah, dah, dah, all these other characteristics. And then we'll go so now we need disability personas. No. [chuckles] John can also be quadriplegic. Mary can also have multiple sclerosis. So again, it goes back to the idea that we have separated out and made invisible disability. Oh, taboo. Even the word oh, it's taboo. Can't talk about disability. REIN: Yeah. Like imagine having a separate persona for a woman, or a Black person. MICHELE: Thank you. We don't do it. We don't do the whites only school and we'll get to the Black people later. We know that intrinsically, but we do it in everything. So same thing particularly when we're talking about inclusion of disability in all of these phases of say, an organization, we go, “And disability.” No, no, no. If we really want to think about it, disability is the equalizer. Anyone can become disabled at any moment at any time, it does not discriminate. It is the one thing that any human being can become at any time and yet we still separate it out as if it's this taboo, or a terrible thing. Now, again, there are negative outcomes of disability. Not saying that, but we have this tendency to segment it in ways that just absolutely don't make sense and aren't necessary and are detrimental and make it more work, so. REIN: There's a book called Software Security by McGraw. It's kind of old now, but the premise is still very relevant, which is that to make software secure, you have to build security in at the beginning, and you have to keep constructing and repairing it throughout the software development life cycle. So it starts with design, but it includes, you talked about different touchpoints in the life cycle, where you want to sort of check in on whether you still are as secure as you think you are. So that includes design. It includes code review. It includes testing. I wonder if this sort of an approach works for accessibility, too; we just sort of bake it into the fabric of how you design soft. MICHELE: It should be how it works. The moniker is shift left. That's absolutely what has to happen to do it well. You have to be thinking about it all the time. Everything that you do. So that's how my mind works now. It took a long time to do that. But now when I'm sending an email and I put a picture in, “Okay, let me put the alternative text.” I'm making a spreadsheet, “Okay, let me do the heading.” Like, I'm always constantly checking myself as I'm doing anything. “Okay, if I'm doing a podcast like this, is there a transcript, or are there captions?” I'm just constantly doing these checks. That takes time to build up, but it is the way you have to do it to make sure nothing slips through the cracks so that all the hard work that say, the design team, or the dev team did, and then QA comes in and doesn't know how to test it. We're all interdependent so it has to be everyone all the time, all throughout the process in order to get it from end to end to work; the weak link in the chain will break that. So very much how it has to go. REIN: It also seems like this there are small, actionable things that you could do to move in this direction. So for example, when you do code review, ask some accessibility questions. Maybe build yourself an accessibility checklist. Now I don't like checklists, but that's a whole other podcast, but it's better than not thinking about it. MICHELE: Yeah. As you're learning something, sometimes the checklist is helpful because you don't yet have it in your own mind and you don't want to forget. Now you don't want to – I'm sure what you're saying is you don't want to tie yourself to the checklist, too. REIN: Yeah. MICHELE: But as you're building up knowledge, yes, there are so many just tangible did I do this things that you might as well just keep a sticky at your desk, or however you want to do it and just start doing those things. Again, we don't have to keep talking about it. It doesn't have to be this revelation of inclusive buy-in in order to put captions on your videos. [chuckles] These things, you know. REIN: Yeah. This also seems like an opportunity for tech leads to do leadership to say, “Hey, so I looked at this and the contrast ratio is a little bit low. Do you think we could punch this up in a code review?” MICHELE: Yeah. The only thing, though is back to the beginning—being careful about these directives, making sure you understand the directives that you're doing because again, a lot of times, particularly when people are new to accessibility, they overdo it. So they hear a screen reader and they think it needs to read like a novel so they want to add in a summary of the page in the beginning, a summary of this section, and they want to overly describe the alternative text, the image down to the pixels. There's some give and take there, too. There's some learning you want to do, but you can iterate. You can learn one piece, get comfortable with it. Okay, now that this next piece. Knowledge building it's just what it is, is what it is. So there's absolutely knowledge building that you can do to get more comfortable and we need everyone to do this. There's certain parts that should be specialty, but unfortunately, the specialists are doing what everyone else should be doing the basics and so, we've got to shift that so that the specialists can do the specialty stuff, the harder stuff that may not quite get – [overtalk] REIN: That's exactly the same problem is having a security person on your team. MICHELE: Absolutely. So it sounds like you all have a focus on implementation. Like you're implementing and you want to know how best to make – I'm turning it on [inaudible]. [laughs] So you want to know how best to make it work for you, or is that what I'm hearing? REIN: I guess, I lean towards practice. I want to understand the theory, but then if I can't put that theory into practice, the theory is not very useful to me. If that makes sense. MICHELE: Absolutely makes sense. My company name is Making Accessibility Work and a lot of what I say is put accessibility into action, because I am very much tied to this idea that you can be absolutely on board with accessibility and not have any clue how to do it. [chuckles] And then the inverse can be true, too. You can absolutely do not care, but because you care about semantic HTML, you're doing more accessibility than the person who cares. There are these places that people can be in their understanding that neither one is actually, or you think one is helping, but the other actually is. I think people think you have to care. You have to want to Sometimes, you know what, you don't. Sometimes I just need you to fix the color contrast, [laughs] or yes, it's great that you care, but in doing so, you're actually, co-opting a message. You care a little too much and you are actually not letting disabled people speak for themselves because you've now discovered accessibility and now, you're all about it. So I think we've got to meet in the middle, folks. Let's care, let's do, let's demystify, but also understand there are some harder problems to solve, but understand where those are. Putting headings on the page is not the hard problem we need to solve. Just put the headings, making math and science more accessible, particularly when we've made it so visualization heavy. Yeah, let's go over there. Let's tinker with that, folks and that's where we need to be putting all this massive brain power. We've had Web Content Accessibility Guidelines for 20 years. HTML5, which addressed a lot of semantics for accessibility, has been out a decade. Y'all, hurry up and learn that and let's get that going so we can get over to this harder stuff. Get this brain power over to these more complex issues and newer innovations. JOHN: Yeah. I think if you're one of those people that cares, like you were saying, a little too much, or perhaps just a lot, you can end up with option lock because you want to solve all the problems and then you're just like, “But what do we do? What are we doing here?” Like, I'll just put the headings in, put the alt texts in, we'll start there. You've got to get moving. And that's partly where I'm coming from with some of the questions I'm asking is that process of just getting that boulder rolling a little bit so that it takes a little bit less effort to keep going in the future. MICHELE: Yeah, and there's no perfect way to do it. I think everyone's looking for okay, well, how do we do it? You're going to spend a year on how and again, miss the year of what and doing it. It is messy because you're hiring people, you've got people working who don't know how to do it; it's going to be disruptive. We didn't come in with this knowledge. I know you didn't hire people to then train them up and send them to school but unfortunately, you've got to do that. People need to know what to do differently, what they're doing wrong. So some of it is going to be experimental, iterative, and messy, but in the end, start giving access. We talk about language even. Do we say disability? Do we say people with? Or do we say disabled people? And do we say differently abled? Even these – okay you know what, the reality is you do all of that and still don't get access. What would be better is if you have a person with a disability at the table to tell you themselves, but you're worried about language and yet can't even hire someone with a disability. So again, it's getting out of these little zones that we sometimes get in and recognizing the real work that needs to be done and can get done today. REIN: I think there's a real temptation to fixate on the hard, or interesting problems in the tech world that might be wanting to build this distributed database with five nines of durability. But your API server has a bug where 1% of the requests are an error. So if you don't fix that, your five nines over here are useless. MICHELE: The flashy thing, yes. [laughs] The shiny thing, we want to gravitate. Oftentimes, there's no glory in what was considered the grunt work, the foundational work. But I think that's where leadership could come in. I heard someone say years ago, “Appreciate the bunts” in baseball that oh, chicks dig the home run. We love the home run, but sometimes, that bunt wins the game. But that's where a leadership can come in and appreciate laying found a scalable foundation of code that does not add to tech debt, or the diminishing of the bugs that you've kept rolling year after year after year, you close 50 of them. That's where, again, a change in mentality of what we value. Sometimes again, accessibility is not put at the front because sometimes it's just code changes that aren't visible to users. So users are going to think you spent a year and didn't do anything to your code, or some of them will. But again, I think that's a messaging and that's an appreciation of really trying to do, and that's even appreciating software engineering versus just COVID. I have a software engineering degree and that's when I realized, “Oh, we're not just supposed to sit down and start hacking away and make sure it runs for the teacher to check it and we're done.” There's an engineering to this, but you have to value that. But also, I think there needs to be clearer consequences like speaking of engineering. If it's a building, we know the building can collapse. I don't think sometimes we appreciate what can happen if we don't do that foundational work and I think that's a shift overall and then technology and appreciation of that work. REIN: And I appreciate what you did there, which was to subtly redirect me back to the context and to how leaders respond. Because if building that five nines database gets you promoted and fixing that bug doesn't, what are people going to do? MICHELE: Yeah. So what's valued and that's set. Someone sets that. That's made up. You can value whatever you want to value. You can praise whatever you want to praise. Complete tangent, but that takes me to my high school where they were intentional that the students who performed well were going to be recognized by the principal because oftentimes, it was the misbehaving students that went to the principal's office. So the principal knows all the misbehaving students, but doesn't know any of the students that are doing the actual work that the school is asking of them to do. Not trying to get too much into school systems but again, it's an intention that you will honor the work, the unseen work. We do these in other spaces; the behind-the-scenes work, the unsung heroes. That's an intentional step that you can take as well to celebrate that, too. REIN: We have an older episode on glue work and how valuable glue work is, but how rarely it's acknowledged, or appreciated, especially by leadership and also, how it has a gender characteristic, for example. It seems to me like it might be easy to put accessibility in the category of glue work rather than in the category of like you were saying, foundational things that make us have a reliable product and a product that works for everyone. MICHELE: And I don't know if how we've presented technology to consumers plays into that as well. Again, the new flashy wow. The other day, I just looked down at my keyboard on my computer and I just thought about we just take such advantage of the fact that I'm just sitting here typing on the keyboard. Someone had to decide what the material would be that doesn't scratch my fingertips. Someone had to decide how to make the letters so that they don't rub off, or how they light up in the back. There's so much detail that goes into almost everything that we use and we just get so dismissive of some of it. “What's next? Eh, that's okay.” So I think, again, it's a human condition. It's the human condition to appreciate what people are doing for one another in front and behind the scenes and absolutely. But I think that also ties into, again, ableism, too. We see in assistive technology, or an adjustment because of disability as okay, that thing we can do later. But then when it becomes Alexa, when it becomes the vacuuming robot, when it becomes the new latest and greatest thing, then it's front and center and everyone wants to work on it. But it's the same technology. [chuckles] It's the same reasons that you should do it. It just happens to benefit everyone. It came out of disability, but you didn't want to think about it until you've found a benefit for all the “others.” Again, I think that's a human condition we have to correct. REIN: There's a thing that happens once a month on Twitter, which is someone will post an image of pre-sliced vegetables and they'll say, “What kind of a lazy loser needs pre-sliced vegetables?” And then someone will respond, “Disabled people need pre-sliced vegetables.” And then the response to that will either be blocking them, or saying, “Oh my God, I'm so sorry. I had no idea.” I think that there's maybe that dynamic going on here as well. MICHELE: Absolutely what I was thinking about, too, like Nike's shoes recently that you don't have to tie. Well, who doesn't want to sit down and tie their shoes? People who can't sit down and tie their shoes, but that was also a marketing issue. They refused to market it for disability. Like where were the disabled people? Where were the people with chronic illness, or chronic pain, or body size that just does not lend itself to bending over and tying your shoes? Why did it have to be marketed in that other way that then took away the messaging that this is a useful piece of equipment? REIN: Yeah. Like why is this fit model not able to tie their shoes? MICHELE: Exactly. Rather than take the angle that – again, they're all made up. Someone just happened to decide laces. We could have very easily decided this other way at the beginning. We could have very easily decided Velcro was the way. We just, I don't know, somewhere along the way, came up with laces. I think people in general have to go through their own journey of recognizing that what they were told was fact, truth, and stance just with someone's made up thing. Even these companies that we've just hold as pillars started in garages. They may have started in garages a 100 years ago, rather than just 50, or 20 years ago. But these things are just built. So we can build them differently. We can say them differently. It's okay. So taking away that stigma that things have to go a certain way and the way that they've been going, or at least perceived to have been going. We have got to start dismantling that. JOHN: Harking back here, a point earlier about the new shiny is always held up as always better. I read an article recently about prosthetic arms and how everyone's always really interested in building new robotic prosthetic arms. They're the new shiny, they're the cool thing to work on, and people feel good about working on them because they feel like they're helping people who need them. But that in a lot of cases, they're not better than the one that was designed 30 years ago that doesn't do a lot, but has at least a functional hook. They were following one woman through the article who had gotten one of these new ones, but it actually wasn't any better and she ended up switching back to the old one because she could get it to do the things that got her through the day and – [overtalk] REIN: Made with titanium. [laughter] JOHN: And you can clearly see that probably the people that are designing these probably weren't working with people bringing that feedback into the process enough and it was designed for rather than designed by. MICHELE: Absolutely. So Liz Jackson coined the phrase “Disability Dongle.” That's another one that comes up. The prosthetic, the exoskeleton, absolutely. The thing that non-disabled people look at and awe and look at what technology is doing, disabled people are over in the corner going, “That ain't going to help us.” [laughs] If you had asked, we would have told you we don't need that. I think we've also reached a point where we're at the harder stuff and no one's willing to tackle, I don't think always the harder stuff. So for instance, going back to blind navigation, one of the things that makes navigating difficult as a blind person—and I learned this because I talked and worked with like 80 blind people. [laughs] So one of the conclusions that came to with that infrastructure disables blind navigation, you don't need a smart – a lot of people espouse a smart cane. Well, they had this white cane, but it needs an infrared and it needs buzzers and it needs – okay, you're going to give people carpal tunnel. The battery on that is going to die. It's not going to be reliable. And in the meantime, the thing you could have done is educate people on putting stuff at head level. So the way that we design our street signs, for instance, we do everything very car minded. We do a lot of things for cars and we forget people also have to walk and so you put obstacles, or you can educate people about trimming your trees, for instance so people aren't running into them, or how they park their cars so that they're not in the way. Some of it is also just not a technology solution. It may be more an environmental and human education solution, but you can't tell people, who have signed up to work in technology, that they must find a technology solution. So they end up solutioning amongst themselves in ways that actually aren't helpful, but they make themselves, like you said, feel better and they promote within themselves. It's difficult to get people to undo that. JOHN: Yeah, it strikes me like you were talking about the wheelchairs that can go ramps, the exoskeletons, and there are certainly use cases for those sorts of things. But I think the distinction there is those are a solution to make the disabled people more abled rather than making the world more accessible. Like what they need is lower countertop so that in the wheelchair, they can still cook. That's what they need. Not the ability to walk upstairs, or have like you said, this awe-inspiring exoskeleton that just draws more attention to them and probably doesn't even solve most of the problems. MICHELE: I'm just going to say amen. [laughs] That is it. That is the thing we need people to get. So you'll hear about the models of disability, too. Sometimes you'll hear about – you should hear about the models of disability and when people extract that and summarize that, they usually pull out two, which is the medical model, which is generally what we've been under, which is the effects of disability and how that affects the person. Therefore, these things need to happen to overcome and this sort of again, hospital, kind of what the body's doing, or what the mind is doing mindset, which is opposite of one that people often quote, which is the social model. The social model says, “No, no society, the world, my environment is disabling me. If you would just give me something more adaptive, more inclusive, I'd be good.” So a lot of examples of that, I recently read a Kia Brown's book with a book club and you'll have to insert [chuckles] the link. The Pretty One is what it's called. Kia has cerebral palsy and one of the things that was a feat for her was putting her hair in a ponytail and it made you think about scrunchies and the makeup of that. What if we just made the mechanism to have maybe a little bit more to it to grab your hair and put it in the ponytail rather than relying on the fact that you have two hands that you can do that with? So those are the differences in the mindsets of our views of disability that we need people to shift and even go sometimes again, deeper into what it is you're really doing when it comes to inclusion. Are you really being inclusive, or are you saying, “Hey person, come on to what I believe is the way of life”? JOHN: So reflections, then. MICHELE: My reflection, or takeaway would be that my hope is that we can find room for everyone. Everyone who wants to create great tech, everyone who has an idea, everyone who has a contribution. I hope that that doesn't continue to need to filter through say, a non-disabled person, or a certain status of job title. My hope is that we're starting to recognize that there's room for everyone to provide their perspective and it can be valued and it can be included in the ways that we operate at equal opportunity. So that's hopefully, my reflection and my takeaway. JOHN: All right, I can go next. I think really actually the point that that's really sitting with me is what I had just said, which dawned on me as I was saying it, as we were talking in the last minute there about how the real solutions are, like you said, infrastructural. They're changing the form of society to make the disabled person able to do what they need to do rather than bringing them up to the level of whatever was currently built, or whatever that – and even there's a weird value judgment in saying, bringing them up to the level. I'm uncomfortable saying it that way. So just changing the thinking, like you said, the social model is, I think a powerful change and thought process around this, and I'm going to keep turning that one around in my head. REIN: I think for me, I'm coming back to the idea that just like security, accessibility has to be built in throughout the process of designing and building software. You can't have a part of your software delivery life cycle where that's the only place where you think about accessibility. You can't just think about it during design, for example, and you can't just have a team of accessibility experts that you go to sometimes when you need help with accessibility. It's really everyone's job and it's everyone's job all the time. MICHELE: I love it. I'm going to change the world. [laughs] Special Guest: Dr. Michele A. Williams.

John's recent bout of fever-induced hallucinations ... Does math actually help you understand QM? ... What experiments in QM have and have not verified ... John: All interpretations of QM are bad ... What do we want from science? ... "An operating system for reality" ...

John's recent bout of fever-induced hallucinations ... Does math actually help you understand QM? ... What experiments in QM have and have not verified ... John: All interpretations of QM are bad ... What do we want from science? ... "An operating system for reality" ...

John's recent bout of fever-induced hallucinations ... Does math actually help you understand QM? ... What experiments in QM have and have not verified ... John: All interpretations of QM are bad ... What do we want from science? ... "An operating system for reality" ...

John Chambers "Mr. Constitution" John with his wife Debbie Musack NeoLife Vitamins & Supplements Join us for a joyful sit down between two friends. John Chambers, “Mr. Constitution” takes us on a journey from his early years studying the Constitution to his life long work of helping people to understand it, no matter which side of the political aisle you happen to be on. In addition to that we touch on a range of topics as listed in the bullets below. Most notably his work with his wife Debbie Musack helping to education and help others have better awareness and decision making about nutrition. Be sure to check out the links below for more on their health products, nutritional education video you won't want to miss and John's site about the Constitution. Contact John and Debbie today - https://www.grantspasschamber.org/list/member/neolife-nutrition-musack-chambers-13248 Video (5 Key Criteria for Evaluating Any Supplement) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwYC8psM3sM Mr. Constitution - https://www.itsyourconstitution.com/about-Mr-Constitution.html Mr Constitution at age 3! 1:49 A Life Time Commitment: From Studying at The Smithsonian to Teaching the Constitution 9:18 Why I joined Toastmasters & Would Recommend It to Anyone 9:57 Constitution Study Group Locally & Nationally Online 11:07 Independence vs Dependence – Why I Believe in Being a Freedom Fighter 14:18 Working With Both Democrats and Republicans to Help Further Education About the Constitution 16:05 Governance is What Units Us, Politics is What Divides Us 18:47 What Brought Me to Josephine County 22:50 Grants Pass: A Community of Caring People 24:40 The Type of People I'd Love to Meet 29:21 Impact COVID-19 Had On My Life 31:29 Nutrition: Zoom Calls and Helping People Build-Up Their Immunity 34:21 Look Into the Future Transcription Brian: Welcome to Grants Pass VIP, I'm Brian Pombo. What you're about to listen to is a conversation that I had with John Chambers and it's recorded a little bit differently. We were sitting at his dining room table, and we start kind of right in the middle of our conversation together. I was asking John what he did, and as we start the podcast you'll hear John describing what he does. And so what you're going to hear is him break that down into pieces of all the different things that he does and what those things all have in common. This is a very interesting conversation. I hope you enjoy Intro: There's a place in Southern Oregon, filled with gorgeous natural beauty, friendly yet independent people and a mild, comfortable climate. That place is called Grants Pass. These are the stories of the people that live and work Josephine County. These are the movers and shakers that make this place of the best. This is Grants Pass VIP. John: All of the things that I do, they all have a theme to them and I had not recognized until recently. There is the nutrition aspect of it. Because if a person that has proper nutrition, then they are not dependent upon the rest of when I say the rest of the world, I mean, like that medical and the government and this sort of thing to take care of them because they can take care of themselves because they have decent nutrition, they're independent of it. Also, I do drug prevention here and there, not a whole lot but I'm certified as that. And I keep up my certification so that I can do that. Then also, I have been teaching a constitution that started in 1991, a private high school that was near me. The headmaster of that private school wanted me to come and write a history text for him with no political bias, because the history texts around, they had a lot of public life. So I came and I was at the school and I was doing research there and talking to the parents, talking to the kids, talking to the teachers, talking to the administrators, all that and also studying and putting things together and s...

In 2008, the economy had tanked and John McDonald was left at a crossroads. Rather than withdraw into comfort, he took the opportunity to do something a bit crazy. John was a woodworker who spent time at trade shows, and someone once suggested that he make cabinet doors that fit with IKEA cabinets. With nothing to lose, John launched Semihandmade to do just that. Now, a decade later, Semihandmade has seen consistent double-digit growth year over year and has been featured in countless blogs, interior design social posts, on the feeds of influencers worldwide, and in the homes of tens of thousands of people. On this episode of Up Next in Commerce, John tells the story from start to finish, including how he built a successful ecommerce custom cabinet model on the backs of the IKEA brand, and how he’s now launching into the DTC space with the first US-made custom cabinet DTC offering, BOXI. From finding the right partners, to building an omnichannel approach that doesn’t handcuff your resources, to challenging yourself to strive for more, you’ll learn something from John and his story that just might help you level up your ecommerce business, too.  Main Takeaways:Perfect Partners: For ecommerce brands taking on an omnichannel approach, there is no reason to tie up a lot of your resources into retail spaces and showrooms. Instead, exploring partnership opportunities with other brands in a similar category might be a mutually beneficial way to expand your brand, the brand you partner with, and offer an in-store experience to customers who seek one.Meeting the Moment: The world of home furnishings and interior design is changing rapidly, especially as A.I. and VR technology enter the marketplace. With that tech, users are gaining more flexibility to design their own spaces without leaving home, which means there is an opening for DTC companies that are tech-first. Step Up or Step Out: You can’t let competition scare you, let it inspire you to raise your game. By surrounding yourself with the best and forcing yourself to compete against them, you have to level up to simply survive, and succeed expectations to grow your business in a meaningful way.For an in-depth look at this episode, check out the full transcript below. Quotes have been edited for clarity and length.---Up Next in Commerce is brought to you by Salesforce Commerce Cloud. Respond quickly to changing customer needs with flexible Ecommerce connected to marketing, sales, and service. Deliver intelligent commerce experiences your customers can trust, across every channel. Together, we’re ready for what’s next in commerce. Learn more at salesforce.com/commerce---Transcript:Stephanie:Hey, everyone. Welcome back to Up Next In Commerce. This is your host, Stephanie Postles, Cofounder at Mission.org. Today, I had the pleasure of chatting with John McDonald, the Founder and CEO at Semihandmade and also Boxi. John, welcome.John:Thanks for having me. It's great to be here.Stephanie:I'm really excited to have you on. Before we get started, I was hoping you could give me a little background, and for anyone who doesn't know what Semihandmade is and also Boxi, how did you start it? What is it? How do I think about it?John:Sure. Semihandmade is a company that's been around, I guess, just over 10 years now. We're based in Southern California. We make doors that fit IKEA cabinets. What that means is, if you want to buy a kitchen, bathroom, closet media system, IKEA, for the most part, gives you the amazing flexibility of not buying their doors. For a kitchen, you'd buy the cabinets, you'd buy the interior components. Then we have over 40 different options from entry level doors to some really high-end, one-of-a-kind offerings.Stephanie:I love that. Do I think of it like white labeling? You take IKEA's [inaudible] and then you can add like rose gold fixtures on it, yeah?John:Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. The credit, obviously, goes back to IKEA. This is an ever expanding ecosystem that's been around probably for 15 years now. People that make amazing slipcovers that you can put on their sofas. People that make furniture legs, companies like us that make fantastic cabinet doors. It's a way to get a really high-end look for a really mid-level price.Stephanie:Cool.John:I'm even fortunate to grow quite a bit with that.Stephanie:That's great. How did you come to this idea?John:I'm always honest and clear that this was ... It's a spectacular idea that somebody gave to me.Stephanie:Who gave it to you?John:I think his name is David Stewart. I think he's a photographer. Look, I'm 53. I don't know if I'm older than a lot of the people you talk to.Stephanie:A little.John:I came to things a little bit later. I had moved to California from the East Coast when I was 21. Well, wanted to get rich and famous, work in the film business, didn't really have any kind of plan, bounced around with that, was writing, not making any money like everybody else I knew waiting tables. Then I woke up in my early 30s and said, I got to do something with my life. It was post 9/11, which is a wake-up call for a lot of people. I tried a bunch of different things. Then I somehow landed in woodworking and furniture making at first and cabinetry. I got good at it.John:Through the late '90s and early 2000s, that's what I was doing, Southern California based custom furniture and cabinetry company called Handmade. I worked hard. I approached it like a business into my late 30s, which was different than a lot of other people I knew, the craftspeople, spectacular artists, but just no head for business, no interest in business. I always looked at it like as a business like any other. That's what I was doing through, again, the early 2000s. I was networking and blogs just started to happen. I was doing a lot of woodworking shows but also design shows. At one of those design shows in 2008, I think somebody came up to me, this guy randomly and said, "Have you ever thought about making doors for IKEA cabinets?"Stephanie:Was that something that others were doing? Why did he have that idea? Then was like, I'm going to tell John to do that.John:It's interesting. Again, I always want to give credit where credit is due. On top of him, there was a company called Scherr's based in North Dakota that has been making doors for IKEA cabinets just a little bit prior to that. People are always making their own doors as well. It is because IKEA lets you not buy doors when you buy their kitchens. I don't know why he mentioned it. I think part of it was because when I did those shows, it was a show called Whelan Design, which is a great show in Southern California at the time and back when Dwell magazine was really in its heyday and just an iconic brand.John:I was always like the one off independent company. It was me and all the big brands. It would be like Kohler and Caesarstone and Sub-Zero. I was there alongside them with my little custom furniture setup. I don't know if he took a liking to me, but we just spent that day, the Friday and then the following day just talking about it. I had no idea what he was talking about at first.Stephanie:That's awesome. Then for people listening, I know when I first heard of your brand and was looking through it. I'm like, oh, it's just like a small thing, a big thing. Then I was looking through some of the stats and you've been named like the fastest growing private company every year by Inc. magazine [inaudible].John:Well, yeah, one of. Yeah, one of many. Inc. 500 originally, we've been on that list, I think, six or seven years now.Stephanie:You've had double digit growth for almost a decade, year every year.John:Yeah. It's exciting. It's, again, one of many things. I try to be candid and clear, but I never expected this. I never thought in a million years I'd be doing this. Every year that we were fortunate to grow, even my ambition or dreams, it got bigger. It's like get to a million, get to two million, get to five million. It's been exciting. Believe me, I don't take it for granted. That's why I enjoy doing things like this, because I always ... At 40, I was newly divorced. I didn't have any kids at the time. I have a son now. He was nine. I lived in my shop for a year, because I got divorced.John:I didn't have anywhere to live. I had options, but I wanted to hide. I lived in my woodworking shop. I lived on my sofa with my dog. I just said, I got to do something else. It was a huge wakeup call. Then that's when the conversation I had, I think, six to nine months prior. It was like, maybe I should try this. Again, in terms of the second acts in life, whatever, I was 40 and had no clue. 10 years later, more than 10 years later, it's different.Stephanie:Yeah, that's very inspirational. Cool to hear about and cool to see where you can start and where it can grow to. How did you grow the company? From starting out where you're woodworking, you're building stuff, and then you're like, okay, I'm going to buy IKEA stuff and make it better. How did you get in front of people and be found in general?John:Like anything, Stephanie, it's like you look back on it and as much as it was, a long journey at times were so challenging, whatever. You get through it, and you gloss over it. It's only when conversations like this that I do get an opportunity to look back. The reality was, again, I had a nice custom furniture cabinetry business. I had some really good clients. I work with some good architects and designers. Then in 2008, the market tanked. Everybody went in the dumpster. I had to do something else. Things had slowed down.John:I started saying to a couple designers and architects, "What if we try to do integrate some IKEA cabinetry into the custom project." Because at the end of the day, a box is a box, and you're just going to see the outside of the beautiful panels and the doors. There were a few people that took a chance on that. That's how it ... It's like anything. I was 100% custom in 2009. Then it's like, okay, you can start mixing it in and starting to organically ... I don't even know what kind of ... I wasn't doing advertising. Blogs had just taken off.John:Apartment therapy had seen see me at a design show and written about me, which was amazing. That was a really big deal. L.A. Times did a story on me, which is incredible. Yet it was always organic. Through 2010 and 2011, it became, okay, now we're doing half custom, half IKEA. Then every year, it's a little bit more headed towards full IKEA. The truth is, I don't know when it was, maybe 2013, when it was fully just making doors for IKEA. It was fun. It was always a steady progression, always growing every year.Stephanie:Yeah, sustainably growing, which is a lot different than a lot of the brand.John:Yeah, profitable every year. Beginning, doubling every year, which, again, was not what I expected. Part of that, what's funny too is I have a lot of incredibly supportive family, but also friends, guys that I grew up with. When I was in California at 21, or 22, or 29, or whatever, they were amazing. They love me. They were supportive, but they probably had no clue where I was headed. I didn't either. Now, it's fun. I gave them a hard time constantly about the fact that they probably gave up on me.John:Not in a bad way, but it's just ... I mean, I do think that there is a time to cash in your chips. It's great to have dreams. There was an interesting like Scott Galloway kind of thing recently about if you should follow your dream. His overly simplistic thing is definitely do not follow your dream. Because unless you're willing to pay your bills to start because following just exclusively your dream can be incredibly impractical. The people that you admire, suddenly, the people that I admire weren't these head up in the clouds kind of people. They worked really hard. I geek out on founder stories, things, podcasts like this. I'm fascinated by that. It's never an overnight thing, or at least it's rarely. Again, I'm 53 now. This is all house money.Stephanie:Wow, that's awesome. When you started, getting more money, you're doubling growth, more revenue, obviously. Where did you invest? How did you think about investing that? Because I'm sure you're like, woo-hoo! I'm going to go have fun now.John:No.Stephanie:No?John:It was never like that, no. It's interesting. I would say I like nice things like some people do. I'm pretty frugal. In terms of the business, everything lives inside the business. I had a partner at that point. Up until three years ago, we made everything in-house. I was the original guy making the doors and packing them up and then shipping them in New York or different places. Then my partner at the time, Ivan, came on board. He was the guy cutting the doors. Now, we were fortunate to grow.John:Eventually, we had close to 35, I think 35 or 40 people that were working in production. Up until three years ago, we topped out at 75 people and half of them were making products. Now I'm proud to say we don't make anything in-house. Everything, it's made around the US, some at the top manufacturers in the country. That was a huge shift. To answer your question, everything is in the business. That's why you see revenue numbers are different than other things.Stephanie:Yeah. What were some mistakes maybe that you remember where you're like, ooh, I would have avoided this if I were to do it again, or especially in the more maybe the past five years or something. Not early on when you're just ...John:Right. If we're going to say 10 years ago, the mistakes that I made were unavoidable in the sense that I was creating this out of thin air. Ivan and I were just making stuff up as we went along. We were two guys. He's a little bit younger than me. He came out from Boston. I came out from Philadelphia to be writers. In some ways, no business starting this kind of business. In the last five years, it's probably the mistakes that I've made are ... I don't know, maybe waiting too long to really build up the team, which is not to say that we didn't have good people, we did.John:Part of my job now is just looking at the next 12 months and 18 months and say, hopefully, where are we going to be? Where do we think we're going to be? What are we going to need then? As someone who is ... Again, I think pretty honest about their limitations or whatever, we only thrive with people that are smarter, better, or more experienced than me. That's one of the biggest changes in the last at least six months, where we really just hit the gas and brought in some really amazing complementary pieces.Stephanie:Yeah, cool. How do you think about building on top of another company? What if IKEA changes their cabinet line or does something different, did that ever worry you, building a business that's ... I mean, a lot of businesses are built on another businesses, obviously. How did you think about that?John:We've always been after market. With IKEA, it's pretty well documented. We've gone up and down with them. I think in most ways, they appreciate what we do. Certainly, it's undeniable that we sell kitchens that people wouldn't normally buy if we weren't available. They also, I think, hate a little bit that we're there. I don't know this is arrogant or anything to say. They're not going to change their model because of us. They're never going to not sell doors. Even if they did, I would say to people like, "Then just buy the doors that literally cost $2."John:Then we'll pay for them and recycle. Their model is that a la carte wide range of pricing. We've always been respectful. Again, I have immense respect for them and what they built. It's extraordinary. Even when my fiancé and I moved into a new house and it's like going there, buying the basics for the house, it's just nobody can beat it [inaudible].Stephanie:Yup. I'm doing that now as well. I think, like you said, you're opening up a market that they probably wouldn't have access, otherwise. When I'm about finishing this house now, I honestly would not have thought to go to IKEA to get cabinets. I don't know. Then when I saw you guys, I'm like, oh, well then you can have the finishings and the colors and the things that I actually want. I don't actually care what a cabinet is like inside or behind the scenes, but I care about how it looks. A lot of the IKEA stuff does look like you know sometimes.John:Yeah, it's understandable. Because at that scale, you can't get that fancy and creative. This is the part where I drop names, just in the sense that what I do love is we work with some really cool people that do make IKEA more accessible. It is people like Karlie Kloss and Coco Rocha and all kinds of celebrities and high end designers and influencers. They, more so than us, have normalized IKEA. That's good for everybody. If design is supposed to be democratic and accessible to everybody, there's nothing more accessible than IKEA. Obviously, Amazon, Wayfair, and things like that.Stephanie:Walmart? Walmart is coming back. I have bought rugs now, a little egg wicker chair. It's from following influencers. I'm like, Walmart is coming back.John:You're right. It's funny, because the same thing with my fiancé, Stephanie. Yesterday, she was looking at different coffee tables. She said, "This is ... " She showed me a thing. I was like, "That's awesome." She said, "Oh, it's like the Kelly Clarkson line." I was like, "This is great." It's true. Look, certainly, you can make the argument that some of that stuff is more disposable and it's going to go into a landfill and less sustainable. I understand that. The reality is, not everyone has the same access to disposable. If you can get cool stuff, it's reasonably priced and it lasts for a few years. I don't know. It's hard to turn that down.Stephanie:You mentioned that you partner with influencers and celebrities. How does that relationship work?John:Yeah. I think that's always been a huge differentiator for us, one of several things. From the start, I always felt no self-consciousness about reaching out to people. Whether it was blogs, I would say, "This is what we're doing. Here are some photos. I'd love for you to write about us." Or even influencers. The biggest one and the one that we worked with the most is Sarah Sherman Samuel. We've had a door line with Sarah for three years. That's a situation where, god, I think 2014 or 2015, she reached out and said, "Hey, I bought a bungalow in Venice. I love IKEA cabinets.John:I wonder if we could partner on some doors." We did a small collaboration, gave her a tiny discount. She painted the doors. She styled everything. She took photography. The kitchen went completely viral. It's one of those kitchens that is everywhere. I think a really cool Farrow & Ball paints, brass and mixture of this light green and white. That just opened the door to all these other relationships. People saw that and started reaching out to us. It's been an amazing thing. The truth is, we've gotten to a point where we've had to pull back on that because it's just a different way to market the brand. It can be expensive. It's definitely grown us, there's no doubt about it.Stephanie:Have you thought about Netflix series? I'm just thinking, wow, they should be on a home remodel type of show. How perfect is that? People always trying to do amazing things on a budget on like the HGTV [inaudible].John:Yeah. We've talked about that stuff in the past. I like that stuff. Again, I don't know. I do think it's interesting our growth. That's how I always look at things, behind the scenes of how businesses grow, especially within that. I do like someone we haven't worked with in a while, the Studio McGee, the Netflix series, which is great. That's really interesting, especially after listening to another podcast like our friends at Business of Home, where ... I left the podcast with so much more respect.John:Because my interaction with them was a long time ago, and then I just see the photos and the beautiful stuff. Just the growth that they've had and the behind the scenes, and again, hearing their story is really extraordinary. I enjoy watching that stuff. I don't know if I want to watch this. I get sick of hearing myself talk. Maybe if it's everybody else, that might work.Stephanie:Yeah. I was just thinking like, wow, that'd be a really good partnership strategy. I always bring up the Container Store partnership that they had on the Netflix series and just how much Container Store sales went up after that series.John:[inaudible]Stephanie:I can see why, same thing with cabinets and stuff.John:Yeah, it's interesting. Because even that, again, I'm a lot older than you, but in the early '90s, whenever Trading Spaces came on and that was huge like ...Stephanie:I watch Trading Spaces, just to be clear.John:I mean, even in the '80s, the godfather of that is like Bob Vila in this old house. That's definitely before your time. That was restoring amazing New England homes and stuff. It was master carpenter, Norm. I think Norm Abram is absolute craftsman. That was the start. Then you had Trading Spaces. Even now, you would have thought, after 10 years, that goes away, and it hasn't. That's the thing. Is it the ladies like Home Edit and stuff like that? I don't know. It hasn't evaded, it just only grown. Obviously, Chip and Joanna Gaines and the dynasty that they have built. It doesn't show any sign of stopping.Stephanie:Yeah. It seems like the world is now just moving to a more curated collections like I'm going to look for someone who knows my style, so I don't have to waste time looking at everything. Whereas before, it's like, oh, I'm going to go to Target to get this, and then I'm going to go to Dollar Tree to get this. I make it up. I think, 10 years ago is very much about DIY, but all over the place. Now, it's like, okay, I'm going to follow Chip and Joanna Gaines, their line at Target, whatever that is, and follow the people that I know are my style and be ready to immerge myself in that brand.John:Yeah. The interesting, whether it's the 180 to that is the amount of growth that Restoration Hardware has had, where it's just almost like meteoric, being a complete luxury brand and selling the whole experience. It is like the Ralph Lauren of today, and now as they move towards hospitality restaurants and sounds like hotels. Part of your brain thinks, man, you can't sustain that. How do you keep growing? There is a market for that. Even when you watch the Studio McGee, their services are not expensive. Amber Interiors, who we work with, people like that, incredibly talented, at the really high end of the market. They keep growing.Stephanie:Yup. Tell me a bit about your omnichannel approach. I saw that you had showrooms around the country. Then you're, obviously, online as well. Now you're moving into DTC. How do you think about keeping a cohesive story of your brand but also expanding and reaching a lot of people on different channels?John:I guess the biggest challenge, if it is the biggest, it's just the fact that what we're selling comes at a higher price point than the average online purchase. We sell certainly, if you're doing a GODMORGON bathroom vanity, that then may cost $150, $300, $400. We're selling cabinet doors and panels and complementary trim and things like that that can cost $3,000, $5,000, $20,000. Again, it's not buying a pair of Warby's or an Olay bag for a couple hundred bucks. There's a lot to it, a lot of back and forth. Excuse me.John:Showrooms we're always a part of we've got to show people our product, especially when we're asking them to spend that much. The benefit of IKEA is, even though they're still a privately held company, there are only, I think, less than 60 around the US. What I could say to people to say to you, Stephanie, or wherever, like you're in New York, go to one of the five local IKEAs. Then come into our mini ... I never want to call it a showroom, because it could be 200 square feet. It's got some cabinetry in it. It's got door samples, things like that. There would be a whole experience.John:I would always say, if you want to see a kitchen, go to IKEA and you can see 15 kitchens or see 20 kitchens. Want to see the doors? Come see us. We've had that in New York, in Brooklyn, in Chicago, obviously, in LA, Minneapolis, a bunch of different places. Again, trying to be reasonable about that. I don't want the overhead of signing leases if I don't have to. What we've typically done and we will continue to do even more so is partner with other great brands. It is like a multi-brand approach.John:With our lighting friends, with hardware companies like Rejuvenation, Fireclay Tile, upcoming collaboration with Caesarstone, it's partnering with Cambria in the past. It's just saying, let's do this collectively. Because the kitchen is, as someone said to me, "The base purchase, if you're fortunate to have him as a house, there's a car, and then maybe there's your kitchen." We're trying to grow the company that way. We started what I think is an amazing ... I got to [inaudible] blog anymore. It's that. [inaudible] stories that launched last summer.John:That was the idea that I wanted to bring together all these great writers, great content to help promote the brand, of course, but also expand us, again, to make that cliché to becoming a lifestyle brand. On the one hand, it would be enough to have a really successful cabinet door company. I just think we have the opportunity to do so much more. That's what something else we can talk about, is this brand Boxi, which is going to launch at the beginning of March. That really is direct to consumer. That's our own product, no IKEA. That's a whole different thing for us.Stephanie:Alright. Let's move there next after my one thought. I've many ideas when talking to you now.John:Awesome.Stephanie:What about having like partnering with IKEA on their AR app or developing your own AR app, instead of having to have a showroom, being going to IKEA, pull up your phone, and then you can swipe through the designs of ours, and you can see exactly what that trim would look like, what that doorknob or whatever, so then you eliminate showroom.John:It is interesting. Look, the thing with IKEA, they have partnered with people in the past. Obviously, places like Target have done an amazing job of that completely. As you said, Walmart too.. It always seem like the natural fit with us. If you were going to do it with anybody, it would be us. In terms of AI, yeah. IKEA has been slow and is put a huge push in the last couple years of their online presence and their economy. They have an app they launched last month. What we are doing with the new brand is working with a 3D AI company called Skip. It's going to launch in the next few months. That lets you basically not go in showrooms.John:There are ways to order this new line of cabinets, and one of them is to make an appointment and someone comes to your house and 3D scans your room. Then you design remotely. With 80 hours of AI and machine learning and everything else, it's compressing that and then presenting you with design options.Stephanie:That's cool.John:That's where we're headed. All has changed dramatically in the last year. COVID or not, it was headed towards that. The new iPhones have the camera technology where you can almost do that. Maybe in 12 to 15 months, you don't even need a guy to come to your house. You can do it with your iPhone. They're already pretty close.Stephanie:Yeah, I think it's fair. I have a little tape measure app on my phone and it says, okay, scan the whole room. You do that and then you can measure everything. The placeholders all around the room for you and [inaudible].John:Yeah, it's fascinating. Even brands like Primer that launched last year, which do the work with other brand partners, and you want to click on like the Hygge and West Wallpaper, you can hold it up to your wall. They'll show you different swatches and things like that. It's interesting. For us, yeah, that is part of what we think is a differentiator. IKEA is always going to have massive brick and mortar. Even though they move in some cities towards smaller footprints, it's still footprints that are 20,000 to 150,000, as opposed to 300,000. There's another cabinet line that's launching.John:It just launched, it's got a 30,000 square foot showroom on the East Coast and 100 kitchens. You go in and wear the AR or the VR goggles. That's completely different because you're looking at some space that has nothing to do with yours. It's kind of what you're saying. The point is, things are changing so fast. With Boxi, it is saying, can you make this as DTC as possible? The caveat being, it could cost $10,000 to $15,000, to $20,000. It's not like ...Stephanie:Okay. Tell me what is Boxi then since we [crosstalk].John:Boxi is the first American direct to consumer cabinet brand. It's a cabinet system for the entire home. It's basically taking the last 10, 11 years of everything we've learned from IKEA and saying, let's try and offer something. I don't know, if it's ... I don't want to say better than IKEA. Because again, I've huge respect for them. It's a more complete package. Certainly, the quality is there. The accessibility is there. One of many things that we're going to improve on is the fact that Semihandmade customers have to go to IKEA first.John:It's a two-part process where you've got to go to IKEA. You've got to order the cabinets and hardware. Then you've got to order the doors from us. Thank God that they do, but especially in the last year, IKEA, like a lot of people, has suffered horribly with supply chain issues. We have customers now, unfortunately, it's January, they're hearing, cabinet boxes might not be available for three, four, or five months because ...Stephanie:I ordered a couch from Pottery Barn and four months out. [crosstalk] order, I just didn't look, I guess.John:As a business, on a personal level, that annoys me because I want ... That's a whole thing. We have such ridiculous expectations because they're easily met or they have been up until now. Not to blame Amazon because that's too easy. I'm a hypocrite about Amazon too. With Boxi, we're saying, no big box stores. Somebody can come to you, things ship, leave the factory in a week. Part of what we're doing, you're from Palo Alto, I don't know if you're born there, but it's almost like an In-N-Out Burger West Coast approach. Meaning we're going to do a limited number of items, and we're going to do it great. If you want ...John:What they do is they're great. What's interesting about that is they ... I think just little background on burgers. I think the founder was best friends with Carl Karcher who started Carl's Jr., another big West Coast place. In the '50s, they open hamburger stands right next to each other. The In-N-Out guy's thing was always, I'm not worried about competition. You're welcome to open across the street from me, next door, or whatever, because I'm just going to bury you. I'll just be that much better. Not like in an obnoxious, overly competitive way. Just like, this is going to raise our game. With us, with Boxi, yeah, limited selection, fast turnaround ships in a week, never need to go to a big box store. It's built in the US at a really competitive price point. That's the idea.Stephanie:I love that it's built in the US. I think that a lot of companies right now are bringing things back into the US and some are struggling seeing how expensive things can be and what was happening overseas and maybe how it's just different here. What did you guys learn from IKEA that you're taking with you? Then what are you discarding where you're like, we're going to do this different though?John:Again, in some ways, I learned everything from IKEA. Look, I learned a couple things. One of them is you can't compete with them in terms of pricing. That's the most basic thing. I always say like, with Amazon, the same thing, you can't ... I mean, then the turnaround lead time. Up until recently, with COVID, you could buy a kitchen today and bring it home today. Nobody else could do that at a crazy price. Best of all, really high quality. IKEA, to their credit, pretty much every year, as long as I can remember, the last 10 years, is right at the top of like J.D. Power customer satisfaction in terms of quality, customer service, things like that.John:You could complain about certain products from IKEA and their quality, but their kitchens, I think, are inarguable. As much as I'm not affiliated with them directly, I always get defensive when people would slag them. Because it's also understanding that the product that they offer, and this blows some Americans minds, but it's a particleboard core with a melamine skin, a three-quarter melamine box. That standard in the entire world for kitchen cabinets. The most expensive cabinet brands in the world are constructed the same way.John:In the US, that's less the case because 70% of the market wants a frame around their cabinet. It's literally a face frame cabinet. The European style that IKEA is called frameless 32 millimeter. Again, I've learned everything. We're deeply indebted to them.Stephanie:Well, is there anything that you're changing though now that you are exploring DTC that's [crosstalk]?John:Yeah. We'll always have the ability. With Semihandmade, one of the differentiators were ... You'll always have this when you're smaller, we're microscopic compared to them. It's just being able to be nimble, to be able to get more custom, to be able to offer certain versatility that they could never do. Limited run doors, ability to do appliance panels for really anything. The Semihandmade, we could always do that. We can do upgrades with matching ... We used to do open cabinets that match your doors and things like that. We do less of that now.John:With Boxi, what will be interesting is because the hope is anybody to scale and to have short lead times, quick turnaround, we're not going to offer as much customization. We've learned like what ... In terms of people's taste. We have eight doors, which are basically the biggest sellers for Semihandmade. It's basic white, gray, black, and some wood tones. It's not saying like we have at Semihandmade of 45 choices. That's fun to me. Because if anything, you can have too many options and that is paralyzing.Stephanie:Yup. Just going to say that I appreciate when things are curated or you showed me something cute and I'm just like, "I'll have that." Whatever that is, the white, the gold, and the brown, perfect. That's what I want. Not choose every single piece of it. Which I think is for a lot of ecommerce, that's what I've heard throughout many interviews, is don't give so many choices, show people what you think or know that they're going to want based off of preferences or how they're interacting with your site or whatever it may be.John:That's part of if there'd been multiple challenges with getting Boxi off the ground understandably. I think the biggest one is like you said, with even a call today, there was seven of us on the screen and I said, "If the seven of us were the typical technology guys or girls that knew nothing about socks, but we're launching a socks brand, we wouldn't bring all this baggage to it about what we thought we knew." With Semihandmade, we have all this great knowledge, but some of it can get in the way with the new brand.John:Because the new brand, for it to really work, you can't do all the customization. There are certain things that Semihandmade where we'll make exceptions and we'll do things. Of course, you always want to service the customer, first and foremost. It's just recognizing that if the goal is for this really to take off and grow, which I think it will, we have to be a little stricter, a little more brand fidelity, like say, this is who we are, this is how we get to where we want to go, and then stick to that.Stephanie:Yeah, that seems tricky. Having two different hats where you and your team are like, we know what works, this is what works, we build a company that does this. Then having a slow creep where you turn the other brand into the same thing. Like you said, you have to really be strict about creating a whole new company with a new vision and making sure everyone's on board and not just let the old company creep in and [crosstalk].John:I think in some ways too, whether in a good way or a bad way, the fact that we've been fortunate to have growth and success for Semihandmade, it's either made it easier or harder to get the new venture off. Because it buys you certain time. If we were a startup, we raised funding. We've got 18 months to runway all these different things that will be different. Probably, things have taken longer. On the other hand, we wouldn't have been able to do it. When this launches, what we leverage is, yeah, it's 10 years of Semihandmade. It's 25,000 projects. It's incredible.John:We have 2,000 semipro designers around the country that are champing at the bit to offer this. It's relationships we've got with Rejuvination and Kaff appliances and Caesarstone that are going to be partners. I continue to remind people and even myself like if we were a startup, we'd never have this stuff. We wouldn't have five, six amazing influencer projects that you're going to roll out in the next six weeks with the new launch. You'd be launching and then keeping your fingers crossed.Stephanie:Yeah, yeah. Okay, cool. Alright, so let's move over to the lightning round. The lightning round is brought to you by Salesforce Commerce Cloud. This is where I'm going to ask you a question and you have one minute or less, prepare, get your water, [inaudible], shake it out, do what you got to do. Alright, are you ready, John?John:Yup.Stephanie:Alright. What one thing will have the biggest impact on ecommerce in the next year?John:That's great question. Do I have a minute for this?Stephanie:Yeah, a minute.John:I think it depends. I'm cynical about the fact that in some ways, yeah, a lot of companies have taken off, Instacart and things like that, but even like Wayfair. I was reading Bed Bath & Beyond today. I think the question is whether or not that'll be sustained. When life comes back to normal, which hopefully, inevitably will, certainly, people will be more inclined to shop online. There's no doubt about that. The world is changing. It's not going to go back. There are companies that have gotten a little frothier or whatever that I think that artificial is going to wear off. It's normalized.John:It's great. There's stuff I would have never done. Even with not ecomm, but with Zoom, we hired a new president, Beth and Molly, who runs marketing and stuff. I hired three of our highest people remotely. They're based in New York. I would have never done that. I would never trusted people or trusted myself. Now, it's normal.Stephanie:Yeah. I was slow with grocery delivery and curbside pickup. It forced me to do that because I was the one who always want to go to the grocery store, look around with my friends, whatever it maybe. Now, I'm like, oh, I don't really want to go there anymore. There's no point. I'll save my time and do other things.John:It is amazing. To me, it's more interesting to see how those people make money. That's the part where it's one thing to do great revenue. Obviously, profitability is a thing, unless it's not your money, unless you have a thing too. When it is your money, it's much more of a focus.Stephanie:Yeah. We just had someone from Intel on who was saying that they work with a hardware store and they're struggling because contractors were coming in and placing 40, 50 item orders for curbside pickup.John:All of it?Stephanie:Because they're like, why would I send in my contractor and paid him to be there for two to three hours when I could just have you all do it. They're struggling with trying to figure out the program because they weren't really expecting them.John:Yeah, that's interesting.Stephanie:I'm like, that's scary. What's the nicest thing anyone's ever done for you?John:Business wise or otherwise?Stephanie:Anything, whatever comes to mind.John:I guess the biggest cliché was my son's mom having my son. That's probably ...Stephanie:That's a good one. Having three kids, I appreciate that answer.John:I mean that from heart.Stephanie:Yeah, that's a good one. What's up next on your reading list?John:I constantly have five or six books I'm reading. That's interesting too, whether it's because I pursued writing for a long time. I haven't made the jump to eBooks. There are few writers that I correspond with on Twitter. Twitter is another thing that I didn't use that much before this. I've asked them like, "Well, what's the feeling on eBooks? Is it like cheating or whatever?" Of course, these guys and girls want to sell books. They're not considered cheating if you buy their eBook. The response I got from a bunch of them was, it's best in some ways for nonfiction.John:I read tons of nonfiction. I'm reading Say Nothing, which is a story about the troubles in Ireland. I'm finishing a great book on ecommerce called the Billion Dollar Brands book, something like that. That's spectacular. I've got so many. I'm reading a book on Chinatown, the making of the movie. I love a lot of different things. It is mainly. It's less fiction now. It is more nonfiction.Stephanie:Very cool. What is your favorite cabinet design? What's in your house?John:My house, it's interesting. Because in my house that I share with my son who I split custody with, we have a more contemporary kitchen. It's walnut. It's unique. We sell a fair amount of walnut and it is one of a kind. Every kitchen is different. That's a little more contemporary, even though it's wood. It's contemporary. In the house with my fiancé, where she lives, that's a more traditional. It's a shaker kitchen. It's got some really pretty hardware. I guess I'm very particular about what I like. In general, even when we she and I have arguments about furniture, I just say like, "Buy something quality and it'll fit with everything else." I know it's a copout, but that's where I'm landed. I love eclectic as long as it's nice quality.Stephanie:Yeah, cool. Alright and then the last one, if you were to have a podcast, what would it be about? Who would your first guest be?John:That's a great question. I like a lot of probably IKEA. I like a lot of different things. Even podcasts, same thing. I didn't listen to before, frankly, a year ago. I listened to one the other day. Marc Maron was really talented, funny guy who've been doing podcast for about 10 years. He had this guy, Daniel Lanois, who's a big time record producer, did U2 and all kinds of amazing people. I was amazed at the depth of Maron's knowledge of music. I don't have that. I don't know. I like diverse things. I don't know if I could do it.John:Because I like to think I'm a good listener, but I'm probably not because I'm always ready to say something. Obviously, like in your spot or whatever, to do it well, you should be listening to people. Again, I love screenwriting podcasts. I like anything. I like news, podcasts.Stephanie:Okay, so it'd be a little bit of everything. I like that. That's cool.John:I could do this kind of thing. If we're talking about remodeling, if anything, would always have an edge to it. If I were going to do a show, that's the thing. I gravitate less, maybe not towards Gordon Ramsay, but like Anthony Bourdain. There would be an edge to it. It wouldn't be ... Even when I was inside people's houses, I don't know if I was combative. I had very strong opinions about with architects and designers and homeowners and what I thought they should want. The one thing I don't like is when it's all sweet and sacristy and artificial. Totally with an edge.Stephanie:I like that. That sounds good. Alright, John, well, this has been a pleasure having you on. Where can people find out more about you and your work?John:Sure. Semihandmade, we can do semihandmade.com. Then Boxi, which launches March 1st, is at boxiliving, B-O-X-I-L-I-V-I-N-G.com.Stephanie:Okay, thanks.John:I appreciate the time. This has been great.Stephanie:Yeah. Thanks so much for coming on. It was fun.John:Thanks for having me, Stephanie.

In this episode of "They Actually Survived" we share Steve and Hannah Irwin's experience with the world's deadliest Indian Ocean Tsunami!  Listen to their tale of how their tranquil honeymoon paradise turned into a nightmare as they fought to survive.Andy shares the story of a scientist named John All, and his treacherous climb after he free falls into a crevasse.  Who knew a cup of coffee could lead to such danger!

John Lawson, Chief Executive Officer at Colder Ice Media, started in e-commerce in 2000 on eBay. He claims that people talked about business in Ebay chat rooms, making it  “the first social commerce platform” before there was such a term. At the time, John sold bandanas, and was pestered by constant customer questions for information on “how to fold a bandana.” So, he made a video and tracked ten thousand sales – not ten thousand dollars in sales – from that single video listing. Today's digital/social media was not the beginning of social commerce. John says, “No matter where you go, whether first world country or third world country, there is a central location that is a marketplace where people do commerce” and that no matter the channel, there is always a person on the other end. If you appeal to human instinct, people will respond. Commerce, by its very nature, requires human interaction and “social” should be much more broadly defined. John explains that there are social channels that many people do not recognize as social, e.g., Amazon Comments. John wrote a book, Kickass Social Commerce, which offers universal stories of social commerce (as opposed to social media). In one story the book, he tells how Madam C.J. Walker, an African-American entrepreneur, developed a line of hair care products, marketed them to her friends, then sold them door to door, and finally had her friends set up “product presentation” parties for a cut of the sales, a sales strategy later used by such companies as Tupperware and Avon. Walker became the first self-made female millionaire in the US. John describes this as “early social marketing.” John presented “Twenty-one Kickass Social Commerce Tactics to Sell More Today” at HubSpot's 2020 Inbound Conference, where he talked about the phases of social that make people buy and “the flywheel of contacting, engaging, getting people to take action, and then measuring that action to create better contact.” Two key concepts he covered were: Identify and define your avatar, your King Consumer . . . and profile in detail a minimum of three people who would purchase your product. Establish a need for reciprocity. DO SOMETHING for your King Consumer that creates an imbalance that makes them feel that the need to do something for you in return. In a candid and enlightening history lesson, John also discusses how race has impacted the growth and development of black entrepreneurship. Thank you, John. John can be reached through “Colder Ice” on LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest – almost everywhere except on Tick-Tock. ROB: Welcome to the marketing agency leadership podcast, I'm your host, Rob Kischuk, and I'm joined today by John Lawson, Chief Executive Officer of Colder Ice Media, based in Atlanta, Georgia. Welcome to the podcast, John. JOHN: Hey, thanks for having me, bro. ROB: Yeah. Good to have you here. If we were you know, if it weren't COVID, we might meet up in person. JOHN: Right? ROB: We have an Atlanta episode today. JOHN: Absolutely. ROB: Well, why don't you start off, John, by giving us a rundown of Colder Ice Media and what you all do exceptionally? JOHN: What I do exceptionally. I do e-commerce. Right. And I started my e-commerce business back in 2000 on eBay as a necessity. People were asking me the same question over and over, how to fold a bandana because I sold bandanas. It was annoying. So, I made a video on YouTube on how to fold a bandana. I would give everybody who asked that question that link. That bandana video went completely viral. Three hundred thousand people watched the video. Out of that, we were able to track ten thousand sales – not ten thousand dollars – but actual sales from that single video listing. That was like a cavalcade of understanding for me as people started asking me, “Hey, how do you do videos for selling stuff online?” I'm like, “Answer questions that people want.” That got me on stages. Finally I was like, “OK, if you need help with how to use social – the whole world of social – then that's what we did with Colder Ice Media. ROB: That's a very fun story. I can see why someone would put you on stage to talk about it. I think within that, at a tactical level, there's some cleverness, I think probably in your attribution –  because when you're talking about was not the easiest time to tie through who bought this thing. So how did you sort out that people were buying OR buying more of your product from that particular video? What was your tracking? JOHN: We would just look at the Google tag. Google tells you where traffic was coming from and we would see YouTube, YouTube, YouTube, and I'm like, “Dude, this is crazy.: And then, like you say, back in the day, the tools were not that deep, but they would show you the views. I would see these peaks and valleys in the number of views.  The week of Halloween, the peak would be 10X normal viewership. I had no idea that Halloween would be a great time to run specials selling bandanas. And I got that kind of information just by the volume of watchers during that Halloween week. So, it's if you take all of the parts, then you start seeing trends. You can't see a trend in a month. I know people think you can, but a real trend comes over years. When you see something happen three years, you can jump on and really take advantage of those little blips that other people are not able to see because they're just getting started. So, there's value in being there for a long haul, especially on social media. ROB: Wow. How many YouTube channels do you have in your orbit now? JOHN: Five. Yeah, I'm short. I will tell you one thing that I do – every time I get a new client, I create their own Google space – go out and create a Google account – because you need a Google account to create the YouTube. You're going to need that for writing or using their Google advertising. I will create that entire environment and isolate it for myself. What we do – we can show them the value of one-to-one versus, “Oh, by the way, here's some other tracking inside of your tracking.” I'm like, “No, we're tracking this. Put this in your cart so you can see exactly what our efforts are bringing to your business.” ROB: That makes perfect sense. You got this start in understanding on the video side, but you have this, I think, a broader intentionality around social commerce in general. How has that unfolded – your understanding from that first moment of “a video driving sales” to the broader portfolio of social platforms and tactics? JOHN: That's great . . . I like that question. What happened with me is I got really fascinated with Twitter in the beginning. I'm talking about . . . there were like one hundred thousand people on Twitter when I joined. What was fascinating for me is that I had created this business and I left the office space and I didn't have a whole lot of conversations anymore. So, I started using Twitter to just conversate with people while I was sitting at home in my home office. All of a sudden, it just started naturally moving into, “Hey, what do you do?” “Here's what I do.” “Oh, Ok.” Then I start talking about what I did. The e-commerce thing just started bringing other people in that were in the same field. That made me say, “Why or what is it about being or putting your expertise out that makes people suddenly feel like you are their expert?” You hear about this – everybody today will say, if you want to be an influencer, the first thing you do is start going to places and giving your expertise, There was no playbook when I was doing this. But I would watch this happen and it would happen organically. So, you start wondering. Social is very organic. I know people think it is some technology, but it's really not. I've traveled all over the world and no matter where you go, whether first world country or third world country, there is a central location that is a marketplace where people do commerce. In that commerce marketplace, there's always at least one coffee shop where you have social. Social and commerce go together. I tell people. Facebook was not the first social platform neither was MySpace. Actually, eBay was the first platform. Why? Back in the day, we would sit in these chat rooms while we were waiting for eBay auctions to end. A lot of people were talking about business in those chat rooms. They were a social commerce platform way before there was a term. They were doing social because social has been here since chat boards and chat rooms. AOL was Facebook, 1990. Social has been here forever. And if you grasp what I'd like to call the flywheel of contacting, engaging, getting people to take action, and then measuring that action to create better contact  . . . it goes around and around in that flywheel. And that's kind of what I talked about when we were doing the Inbound thing. It was about the phases of social that make people buy. ROB: Let's get right into that. We were talking beforehand. We were probably hoping to meet up at the Inbound conference and record this live and in person or in Atlanta. But we're not meeting up for things like that right now. But Inbound still happened. HubSpot's big Inbound conference, tens of thousands of people, maybe more – online. And your session there was “Twenty-one Kickass Social Commerce Tactics to Sell More Today.” And so I'd love you to dig in and get us into some of the meat and potatoes, maybe some particular things that you saw resonate back out into your audience on Social because you probably were paying attention to that. JOHN: Yeah, I mean, the first thing I'm all about and I tell people and Ok, I get it these do feel very, "Oh I've heard that before." And that's probably the problem is that if you've heard identify your avatar, I call him the King consumer. If you can identify and get in the mind of your King Consumer, then everything that you do after that speaks to that King Consumer. Create at least one. But I say really, at minimum three people that actually purchase your product. They can be real people or they can be fake people. Let's say you don't have your product in market yet, or you think you know who's going to buy that product when you create this King consumer, what you have to do is start thinking about everything that that consumer is into. I want you to go deep into your thought patterns about, not just what they're what they want, but what do they need, what situation are they in? How do they know how many kids do they have? What job do they have?  What are they what do they listen to? What do they say? What are some of the terminology they use? And the more you find that out, the better your business is going to be. I know when I created our business and I was selling those bandanas, I bought those because I was into hip hop and everybody in my neighborhood was wearing the bandanas. I could sell that to people in my sphere. But once I started putting it out there and getting the feedback from others, I was like, whoa, wait a minute; these aren't hip hoppers that are just buying these. These are the bikers. Oh, wow, that's cool. Like I said, people do in the Halloween. Oh, Ok. Cool. And once I started asking my people, hey, how are you using that? How did you like that? You got to definitely go out there and ask. You have to ask. What you're going to learn from your ask are things you're never going to be able to come up with in your own mind. Things that you think when you think that your product and you are your customer – you're not. You're absolutely not. So back to the original question. Identifying that King consumer is one of the things you have to do. The next thing I talk about was reciprocity. If you do something for others, there becomes an imbalance in them that makes them feel like they have to do something for you. That was the whole thing about me teaching people – and I didn't tell you that is the main question actually was – how to fold a bandana like Tupac. Right. And it's so ridiculous. But remember, this is early 2000s, so or late 2000. So, the deal was in my mind, I'm like; everybody knows how to do that. But here's the deal. The people between the East Coast in the West Coast – those flyovers would watch videos and they wanted the same look and they didn't know. Once I taught them how to fold that bandana, then when they were making their choice on who to buy one from, they automatically thought about, “Hey, those guys taught me how to do it.” And just by the nature of who we are, we wanted to make the balance inside of ourselves with reciprocity. So, I'll buy it from them. They might be a dollar more, but I'll go ahead and do it. So, you really want to think about that. That's human nature. We want to get in balance. We always do. If I ask all my friends to help me move, I know, when one of them asks me to help them move, I can't say no. That's reciprocity. Right? ROB: And it's even more helpful in it's not just that they want to know this information. It's that the Internet to an extent and social have made it possible to ask questions that you're too embarrassed to ask your friends. So, you're bailing people out of feeling silly that they don't know how to fold that bandana. JOHN: Yeah, that's true. That's true. Or, they don't even know who to ask. ROB: Yeah. And that continues on out to – I think you look at the some of the beauty influencers and all these makeup tips. There are people who want to know how to do something with their makeup and they are embarrassed that they cannot. Yeah. YouTube bails us out of that. YouTube bailed me out of not knowing how to fix my toilet . . . anything. JOHN: And think of who are the biggest beauty influencers out there – a lot of them are males. That's crazy, right? But you think these guys wanted to put on makeup and a lot of their audience maybe never did. So, who are you going to ask? Your sister? There's a whole lot I got to do before I ask my sister how to put on makeup, There's a whole lot of steps I got to go through. ROB: Yeah, you're probably not going to get a straight up answer right away on that. JOHN: There's going to be some other conversation where exactly we need to have a deeper conversation. ROB: Amazing. I like how the story it started out. When did you realize that you were going to be into this world of social and commerce and Colder Ice Media for the longer run? Was that evident right away? Or was there something after the instigating moment that really cemented the business for you? JOHN: It was probably around 2012 2013. These guys were writing a column about eBay sellers and they asked me if I could do an interview as one of people who are eBay success stories. I agreed.  We get on the phone and were doing this interview and she's like, ”You're one of ten people we're going to feature blah, blah, blah.” But we stayed on the phone for 80 to 90 minutes. And I was like, “Just for a feature piece, this is kind of weird.” We were just having good conversation. At the end of that call . . . she and her husband are a team and write together . . . . . . at the end of the call, they said, “John, man, that was really good stuff. I think we're going to make a multipart feature just on your business.”  I was like, “Really? That's pretty cool.”  And then he's like, “Hey, and if you ever think about writing a book, I'd help you because we've written twenty-two books and we'd love to help you.”  I was like, “Really?” I had never thought about writing a book before because I never thought I had much to say . . . or how much you need to say. But once we put the treatment together, it became my social commerce book. First. It was about social commerce, not just social media. But the key thing was, I don't care how many people like me – I want you to buy from me. There are a lot of people out here who have social influence but couldn't get people to piss on them if they were on fire – they don't really have the ability to move people. There's a difference between having likes and having people that will buy from you. And that's the big difference to me in social media. For me, it was all about the commerce portion. ROB: And what's the name of the book folks want to go . . . JOHN: Kickass Social Commerce. ROB: Excellent. Excellent. Any additional publishings of it or is it still pretty fresh? JOHN: You know what? Here's the thing. When I wrote the book, I wrote it forever. Yeah, right. I did. I literally did because the concepts, again, of social and purchasing go together. So, I grabbed all of these universal stories. And one of my major stories, he first story I talk about is a woman called Madam C.J. Walker. Have you heard of her? ROB: I am not familiar with her. JOHN: Great. Fantastic. So, I could tell this story if you don't mind. ROB: Go. JOHN: All right. So, here's the deal. Madam C.J. Walker was an African-American, a black woman. OK, I like that better. Right? She was a black woman and she created a scalp ointment because her hair was falling out from straightening it. She created an ointment that would keep her hair healthy. And other women saw her hair from going to where she had maybe patches, bald spots, and not healthy hair to these long, luxurious locks. People asked, “What are you using?” She had created this thing in her kitchen and she ended up going from her sink and to the bathtub to create larger volumes of it to sell to her friends. Well, the business starts growing and she starts going door to door to do sales. So that's the first part, right? You go from friends telling friends to going door to door. Her door to door sales grew so much that she realized that she was limited by the number of doors she could go to in a day, and that was hampering the growth of her base simply because there's only so many doors you can knock on. So, she came up with this great idea. She said, look, I'll get one of my clients that already buys for me to have a party and I'll go to the party and display my products at the party. Sound familiar? ROB: Mmm-hmm. JOHN: She was the one that created the model that today Mary Kay and Avon use. She created that and that was, again, social. You're expanding your network by using small influencers to bring their friends in and allowing you to do that demonstration. Of course, you would give them a cut for the party. Ultimately, she built a house bigger than the White House . . . and this was in 1918. This is she is the first self-made female millionaire in America. She was ranked number six of the top 10 entrepreneurs in Entrepreneur magazine for all time, one of the greatest success stories. But I tell this story because, as I was listening and reading and researching, I realized how social media can grow for commerce because. literally, she had her own, quote “Facebook” by doing what she did with these people. So, it's universal. I wrote from that understanding . . . from that standpoint. ROB: Yeah. You can imagine a version of a book on social commerce that would get nitty-gritty – focus very much on the popular channels, marketing channels of the day, would talk about specific ad-spending tactics – and it would have a very short shelf life. But I get the sense from talking to you that you define social channels – and you did this a little bit with eBay – you define that remarkably differently from many people. So, when we think about social channels today, what are some other channels you think may not be intuitively understood as social, but yet are extremely so? JOHN: Hmm, that's a good question. ROB: Because we could talk about Tick-Tock, but we don't and we can, but we don't have to. I don't think you could write a book with a long shelf life if that was your frame of mind. JOHN: Right. Because the channels always change their rules. Yeah. But if your understanding is, no matter what their handle is, there is a person on the other end and there are certain things that we . . . we as humans are just a higher level of animals and there's certain habits that we have that we're always going to use. No matter what channel you use to get there, if you nail that human instinct, they're going to respond to it. Here's what I give you that you wouldn't think of: Amazon comments. Amazon comment, that is a social channel. There are some people that do nothing but read and post or try things and post and then they read other stuff from people. And then they respond in those posts. They do this all day long. Why are they doing that? Because that's their social world. ROB: Hmm. Have you seen some people using Slack communities in a business context, maybe? JOHN: Yes, absolutely. Because what they're doing now is they're getting people away – moreso Reddit. I mean, Reddit, its killer. Reddit is really killer. But a Slack community is a great way to get people that are interested in a specific topic away from the distraction that is social media, especially in an election year. ROB: Hmm, right. Plenty of that. JOHN: There's so much of that. And people's moods are being changed sometimes by the constant back and forth in these major social channels like Facebook or Twitter. It gets distracting. So, you get your people out from there into a nice global world that doesn't have all the noise in it. ROB: Mm-hmm. Yeah, it's almost in some cases, there's too much – If you were in a room, there are some rooms where there's too much shouting to be helpful. You can't help people who are in the middle of a fight. JOHN: Right. Exactly. It's like it's really hard to get my attention when there's a train wreck right in front of us. ROB: What does that pivot point look like? What's it look like? What's an example – help us kind of think through it and catalyze our thinking – of someone who's commenting on reviews on Amazon and they're selling something and it's driving – I understand it conceptually, but it's a bit abstract. Is there a concrete example you've seen where they comment on this thing because they were selling this other thing? JOHN: Well, what ends up happening is, if you comment a lot, Amazon flags you as a commenter. Once you get that known as a trusted source, once you get that flagging, then other people that are trying to get reviews by people that have that tag or that flag will start reaching out to send you products. ROB: Got it. JOHN: Right. So, here's the deal. Once you recognize that people are gravitating to you, starting to ask you for your opinion, you've probably got something going on there. I've got a client right now that built a business – and this is so weird – around selling old music media. So, it's flipping CDs. Who buys a CD today? Why don't I get that? I didn't get that. I get it now. He's done six figures just teaching people how to look for CDs at garage sales and thrift stores. That's just amazing to me. You wouldn't think there was a community around that before this. I just never knew. So, there are a lot of niches – there are people that do nothing but needlepoint – there's a niche for darn near everything and it doesn't take a lot of people for you to reach out and find an audience that will either purchase from you or take your recommendations and purchase other things so you can become that influencer for that thing. ROB: Right. It's like the kind of the Kevin Kelly conversation, around a thousand true fans and there are lots of thousands of fans that are looking to be with him.  JOHN: Who did you say? ROB: Kevin Kelly, I think. JOHN: Who's Kevin Kelly? Wait a minute, is not the original? ROB: It might be. Where have you heard it most? JOHN: I'm just going to check this out because. Ok, says Kevin Kelly. Interesting. I'm thinking. Anyway, go ahead. Go ahead. I want to talk about it, Ok? KK.org got it. Technically. ROB: Yep. JOHN: Yep. Yeah, absolutely. Because it's funny you say that. When it first came out, I was so into that. The reason why I was into it, just to go a little bit backwards. is because I'm a huge Prince fan. When Prince left the label, he left a multi-million-dollar deal with Warner Brothers. He was like, “You know what? You can have my entire song category. I just want to be free.” And I was like, “What the hell?” Right after that, he put out his own album. This was the early 90s, He used like a chat room, basically a chat board, to sell a hundred thousand records. Now, this is a man that sold 10 million records for just his Purple Rain album and now he's selling a hundred thousand. And he said, “You know what? I made more off that hundred thousand records than I ever made off of Purple Rain. And when that thousand true fans came out, I was like, ‘Wow'.” That is the basis from where I teach. If you can get a thousand true fans, you're in. ROB: That's amazing, I didn't know that story about Prince, but even in the music world, it brings me forward even to someone like Run the Jewels. Their first album, they put it on their website for free. And they kept on doing their albums for free. And now their albums are basically for free, even if on Spotify. But they were able to cut through a lot of noise and find their fans a lot faster, but still make a living and in a way that is far beyond just selling music. JOHN: Right. Most musicians don't make their money off selling music anyway. That's why they have to tour. Yeah. They have to tour to pay for everything because, I mean, the music business is an amazing thing. I don't want to go into how they really do their business, but let's put it like this: If you sell a million records, you're probably not a millionaire. ROB: Yeah, man. Well, John, this is this is quite a knowledge drop here. I hope that when we're back to meeting in person, people will get a chance to get out and see you and meet you and hear you. When people want to find you and when they want to find Colder Ice Media, where should they go to track you down? JOHN: Just put in Colder Ice. That's all you got to do. Put it in your browser and I will show up I'm Colder Ice on every platform. I am one of those branding crazy people that did that a long time ago. And I'm Colder Ice on LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest. I don't care where you go. Pretty much I own Colder Ice except for Tick-Tock. Somebody stopped me on Tick-Tock. ROB: Oh man, that's tough. Well maybe you can make a phone call at some point and get it unlocked for Colder Ice. The handle you reserve when you were early on Twitter, did you get another good Twitter handle early. JOHN: Man, you are just pulling out all the good stories. But my name is so common. John Lawson. When I first looked it up, there were like eight million John Lawsons. I had the story in my head. I remember this story that back in segregation – a lot of people don't understand this, but African-Americans are some very original entrepreneurs, not because we had the entrepreneurial spirit – but you had to be an entrepreneur if you wanted to feed your family. You couldn't I couldn't walk into the regular grocery store and buy groceries back then. You had to have a black-only grocery store. There was a black-only cab company. There was a black-only bus company, black-only hotels. All of that. Run by black people because “white people wasn't sharing.” But literally, those storefronts that were serving the black community, the day that integration became the norm, they would see their customers walk right past their storefronts to go shop downtown. They came up with the saying, “Well, I guess the white man's ice is colder.” And I always remember that: colder ice. That's the story. ROB: Wow, I didn't know that either and you're gracious in your history lessons. There's a lot of strong feelings tied up in that. I know. We're all trying to figure out different ways to actually be sorry and be better. JOHN: No, we're all getting better, man. That it's all good effects on your ear. That's the great story of America. ROB: Well, John, thank you for coming on again. I can't wait to get out and hear you share something in real life, but I appreciate you joining virtually as well. And I think our audience is better for it as well. JOHN: This was a great interview. I really had fun. ROB: Thank you. Thank you for listening. The marketing agency leadership podcast is presented by Converged. 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.

Alone on a science expedition in the Himalayas, John All falls 70 feet down into an icy crevasse. Miraculously landing on an ice block wedged in the V shaped fissure, his shoulder dislocated, ribs broken and bleeding internally, Hall is freezing to death. In this episode, Dr. John All shares stories of his expeditions and adventures undertaken in the name of science. Confronting Maoist revolutionaries, descending into deep caverns and climbing into the highest mountains, John All searches for answers to climatic changes in our environment. A rare combination of research scientist and accomplished mountaineer, John embodies the classic traits of all good explorers.For more information about Dr. All, visit his website at JohnAll.com and at climberscience.org.

We might be getting show Crocs! Join John, Riley, Rose, and Hoody as we learn about what Hoody's girlfriend has planned for his birthday today and how John kind of encourages everyone to drink more! Why do we want to host a "Crocs-Only" party? What alcohol does Erick really want to try with John? All that and more in Your Morning Show Leftovers for today!Make sure to also keep up to date with ALL of our podcasts we do below that have new episodes every week:The Thought ShowerReally RileyRose & BowsCrisis on Infinite PodcastsLet's Get Weird

  We’re Live. Great news from the guys. All points out that recent strategies are working on bringing sales home. People are constantly online these days. Chuck made a few alterations on one of his sites design-wise and had a big sales uprising in just one week.   John has been applying new strategies as well, and they are working better than expected. Lots of new stuff that did not work in the past are currently working on this new sales environment.   There’s a big room for new ideas and improvement, it’s time to take the calculated risks.   Thought of the week:   John - “All you need to do is stick to your plan”

God is Good (Part 1) - John & Donna BishopGod is Good (Part 2) - John & Donna BishopGod is Good (Part 3) - John & Donna BishopToday® Radio Transcript  References to conferences, resources, or other special promotions may be obsolete. For Better or For Worse Guest:                        John & Donna BishopFrom the series:       God is So Good  Bob: More than a decade and a half ago, John Bishop was experiencing headaches that took him to the hospital.  He was diagnosed with meningitis, and then a month later, unexpectedly, his memory was gone.  What happens to a person, to a marriage and a family, when everything about the past has been erased?  John Bishop says you have to start back at the beginning, learning to walk, to talk, learning to love. John: When she began to teach me, she said, "You're John, I Donna, we're married."  I said, "Married?  Married?"  And she said, "Oh, okay, you forgot that.  That means you belong to me, and I belong to you."  I look at her, I say, "You my Donna?"  She said, "Yes."  That what I call her ever since – "My Donna."  It was so easy to love her.  She loved me so good. Bob: This is FamilyLife Today for Tuesday, August 5th.  Our host is the president of FamilyLife, Dennis Rainey, and I'm Bob Lepine.  What would happen to your marriage if, all of a sudden, you were starting from scratch? John: I tell people she taught me everything I know.  Every woman dream come true – her husband forget it all, and she get teach him.   [laughter]  Bob: And welcome to FamilyLife Today, thanks for joining us.  In our years of interviewing folks, we've met a number of couples and heard some remarkable love stories, but the story our listeners are hearing this week is an all-time classic, isn't it? Dennis: It may be the best.  I mean, we've heard some great ones here, but we wanted to bring this story to you, as a listener.  John and Donna were married in 1974.  They had three sons.  He was an evangelist for a number of years, pastored a church, had a ranch for young people that he helped staff and give leadership to. Bob: It was back in 1995, though, that he was diagnosed with aseptic meningitis and had to be hospitalized, and normally you recover from aseptic meningitis and life goes on. Dennis: But what happened was, it was like someone erased the chalkboard.  All the memory, all of his understanding of all the basics of life were gone because of this disease. Bob: This is a month after he's had his meningitis that he loses his complete memory.  He doesn't know that he's married, he doesn't know what marriage is, he doesn't know how to talk, he doesn't know how to eat. Dennis: He doesn't know who God is. Bob: It's like starting from scratch and, obviously, that leads to an incredible stress on a marriage, on a family.  I mean, what do you do from there, right? Dennis: It's one thing, Bob, to have a life-threatening illness and live through that valley, but the story you're going to hear is all about how they picked up and began to live life on a daily basis. Bob: Donna, it's almost like when you brought John home from the hospital, you were bringing home a newborn baby who had some adult-level functionality but some very baby-like qualities.  Was he ever like a bad boy?  When he was home from the hospital, were there ever times when you thought, "I'm going to have to" … Dennis: Let's put it the way it is, Bob – did he ever pitch a fit? Bob: Or a tantrum? John: I can answer that – yes. Bob: Did he go through the terrible twos with you? [laughter]  Donna: Yes, he would – especially when it came to eating.  He wanted to eat his dessert first.  "Why do I have to" – you know, he was always asking questions, why he has to do this and do that, and it was funny, one time I came home, and he was trying to help me, so he was washing the dishes.  When he washed the dishes, he broke a plate or a glass or something, and so he hid it in the trash, buried it in the bottom of the trash so I wouldn't know that he broke a plate. So, you know, he was hiding things from me and sneaking around behind me when he was doing things he thought I didn't want him to do. Bob: Now, here's your husband. John: [laughing] Yes … Bob: … acting this way, and you feel like you have to paddle him, spank him, for how he's behaving?  How do you handle that, as a wife, when … Donna: I'd be glad to spank him. [laughter]  John: She never spanked me, but she had to get after me but, oh, she has been so patient. Bob: When did you – when did it dawn on you that you had a sin nature – that deep inside of you is this rebellion that you want to be selfish, and you want things the way you want them.  When did that register for you? John: Once I began listening to the Bible on tape, I – for instance, Bob, I can remember first lie I told, and at least after the illness.  In the hospital the nurses had asked me if I had taken something, and it was something I didn't like, and so I had thrown it away, and I told her I had taken it.  Now, I didn't know what a lie was, but I felt guilty.  But later on I learned what lying was. Dennis: I'm sitting here thinking when you hid the plate – that also had to result in some guilt. John: Yes, mm-hm. Dennis: So here is God convicting you of your need for forgiveness, your need for Savior.  And yet you've already made that commitment as a young lad growing up.  You don't happen to have that sheet of paper do you? Bob: The page in your Bible that shares your testimony? John: No, I didn't bring it.  I sorry, I didn't bring it with me. Dennis: Basically, what does that sheet of paper say? John: Well, it tells about that Saturday night in September.  I was brought up in Bristol, Tennessee, over in east Tennessee, and there was a citywide crusade, and the preacher was C.E. Autry.  He is with the Lord now.  As a matter of fact, I've got a book.  I have his name down.  I can even tell you the song they sang that night.  On my testimony CD I have some people sing it – "It is no Secret What God Can Do." [music – "It Is No Secret What God Can Do"] Evidently, that song meant a lot to me, and so I even put that down – they sang that song that night.  I was a 15-year-old teenage boy and lost home, and Mama was telling me that none of the family was saved at this point.  And I even wrote that I brought a Gospel tract home from the stadium, the Tennessee High football stadium, it's still there, and with John 3:16 on it, I can tell you it was a Saturday night that September, I got on my knees, and I put my name where "whosoever was" – "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him," and I put my name – "whosoever" there – "should not perish but have everlasting life."  I know all those details but can't remember a bit of it, but I wrote it there, and I'm just so glad that I received the Lord as a teenager. And then Mama said I surrendered to the call to preach, and preached my first sermon a month after my salvation, and I've been preaching ever since.  The Lord has just helped me and, matter of fact, she said able to be interim pastor of a little country church when a senior in high school, and this is true now – it's Goose Pimple Junction, Virginia.  That's where it was – population 29, and so … Dennis: Hold it, hold it, Goose Pimple … John: Yes. Bob: Junction? John: Mm-hm, Virginia, and it is there.  You've been there, haven't you, Donna? Donna: Been there, yes, sir. [laughter]  Bob: Donna, did you ever have anyone come alongside you after the illness, while you were trying to care for raising your boys and care for John and say, "You know, there's a place he could stay where they'd take care of him, and you shouldn't have to bear this burden?"  Did you have folks suggest that to you? Donna: Yes, sir, I had somebody suggest that I could do that, you know, if I got tired and so forth, and I would get tired of taking care of him, but I thought about it.  I thought, you know, I could, but just go on.  I just was never tempted to do anything like that. Dennis: Now, what our listeners don't know is the length of time this story took.  I mean, we're not talking about 30 days in rehab back to John getting to normal.  John, give our listeners an idea here of the timeline we're talking about here. John: Well, for several weeks, Dennis, she had to do everything for me, and you know what I mean, I say everything.  I was like a baby.  This went on for weeks and weeks.  Like I say, it took me near two years to where I could walk, and I had to work at it, work at it, and so forth, but it was just incredible how good she was to me. I remember one day she finishing cleaning me up again, and I look at her, I say, "Donna, why so good to me?" And she said, "Well, two reasons."  And I said, "What that?"  "Well," she said, "one, I promise I would."  I said, "Promise?  I don't remember promise."  And she went and got our marriage vows, and she brought them, and she said, "John, we got married."  I said, "In sickness and health, better or worse," and I remember I said, "Donna, I am so sorry it this worse, but thank you keeping promise, thank you."  And then she said, "But second reason is" – and she gave me a big hug and says, "I love you."  And I got an award back a couple of years ago.  A college had asked me to come and they surprise me, they asked me give testimony, and they were giving me an award, and so I was so scared I was going to have to say something and right at last minute, and I thought, "What I going to say?"   And here is what I said – I got up, I said, "I'm going to take this award home to my Donna, and will get on my knees, put in her lap, and I'm going to say, 'Donna, if it wasn't for God and you, I wouldn't even be alive much less getting this."  So I said, "This yours."  I said, "One day I get to heaven, and I'm going to say 'God, why you been so good to me?' and I think God going to give me two reasons.  He going to say, "One, I promise I would," and He might remind me Roman 8:28, "All things work together good them love the Lord," and maybe say "John, I told you you love me, everything all right," and then I believe God going to give me a hug, and I believe God a good hugger, and He going to say, "But, John, main reason I love you," and I sure hope I have something put at His feet and say "Thank you, God."  But I can't describe how good she's been to me, and God and everybody been so good to me. Dennis: How does that make you feel, Donna?  I mean, I'm over here crying. Donna: I'm thankful that the Lord gave me the strength and that I was taught those valuable lessons that my family taught me and my church taught me when I was young, that it's worth it.  It's worth it in the end.  Don't ever bail.  Just stay with it, God will bless you. Dennis: For two years it took you to learn how to walk? Donna: To walk good, you know, without stumbling and up steps.  He has a real hard time with steps. Dennis: But even beyond that, John, you've suffered incredible headaches. John: Yes. Dennis: I mean, and just times of just feeling lousy. John: Yes. Dennis: And that's continued on for how long? John: All 12 years.  Immediately, because of the brain damage, I began having seizures, and I still have those.  But I gladly not quite as bad, and then cluster migraine headaches is what I have, and that's what actually caused my blindness.  They change nature, they're sort of what they call "ocular" cluster migraine.  But those have been big struggles for me, and I got very depressed, very discouraged.  I wish I tell you I got sick and just said, "Oh, everything be fine," and went on.  I didn't, Dennis.  I got very depressed and went through some very dark times, and I even prayed, "Lord, please take me home, please, because I hurt," and I felt burden for my Donna.  She never tell me I burden, but I felt that way, and depressed people do. And I got so depressed, I begged the Lord, "Please take me home, please."  I tell people when I talk audience, I said, "You never life seen person want to die and pray harder than man looking at," and then I say, "But now you never in your life want to see – ever seen anybody want to live more than man you're looking at."  God turned that around and helped me through those dark times.  But that was mainly because of the pain issues and the seizures. I called them issues instead of problems.  They just become problem if I let them, but I've had a lot of issues, you know, to go through, but the Lord's given me grace every time. Bob: You know, the name of your ministry … John: Yes? Bob: "God is so Good" Ministries. John: Yes. Bob: John, some of our listeners are going to hear this and say how can you, with all you've been through, testify to the goodness of God.  If God was good, why would He allow all of this to happen to you? John: Yes, and, you know, Bob, that was the struggle I was going through.  Those questions were going through my mind, and I needed to get hold of something, and the truth I got hold of, I was listening to Bible on tape, but I really loved the Book of Psalms because David been through some trials, too.  So I listened to it over, over, over.  Matter of fact, I wore that tape out and had to get another one.  And he kept saying, though, "The Lord is good."  He kept saying it, one psalm after other, other – "God is good."   And I'm not saying that all that God is – He is also holy, and He's just, and He's righteous, but the two things that stand out to me is He is good and He's right no matter what happens.  He's always good, and He's always right.  Our God put Himself through pain.  I am able to read now, Dennis, and I'm not smart enough to be able to know a lot of general information, so I focus my reading on people who are hurting, because that's my whole life now, is helping hurting people. The one thing I can tell people is nobody is hurt more than God.  When He gave His Son – they say one of the greatest pains a person can go through is the death of a child, but yet He let Him go through greatest pain anybody ever through because something better and – now, I don't have to know what all the better is, but I know I can trust this God because He let Himself hurt.  Jesus suffered more than any of us will ever know, and if God love His Son and let Him go through that because He knew something better for everybody, I'm going to trust Him that He got something better for me and everybody, too.  You can trust a God like that.  He's not like many other religions have gods that are above pain and above suffering.  Oh, God put Himself right in middle of it, and I can't always tell people I know how something feel unless I'd been through it, but I can tell them the Lord does because His Son went through the most incredible pain ever been and the reason we're here today is because He did. So I know good going to come from it because He's a good God. Bob: Well, we've been listening today to part 2 of a conversation with John and Donna Bishop and, Dennis, as I was listening to John talk about responding to his own trials, his own pain, I thought of 2 Corinthians, chapter 1, where Paul says, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of all mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves have been comforted by God."  He is a living application of that verse.  Rather than being consumed by his own pain and suffering and saying, "Why me?"  He is comforting others in their affliction. Dennis: He is, and, you know, as we've talked here today, it just occurred to me – there are two groups of people that are listening to this broadcast.  One group, who is in the midst of suffering, and they're going through the valley right now, and they know exactly what John is talking about, and they have been comforted, as you've talked about.   But I want to remind that group of people where John's comfort came from, and to do that, I want to quote Dr. A.W. Tozer.  He said, "The most important thing you think is what you think about God."  And the key to John's faith was he had the right thoughts about who God was.  He got them from the Scripture – that God is a good God.  No matter what happens to us, He is still good.  No matter what befalls those we love, God hasn't changed.  "The most important thing you think is what you think about God."  There's a second group, though, and it's a far larger number, I think, Bob, even though we have a ton of listeners who are hurting who listen to this broadcast, and it's the larger number who need to be reminded of what they promised.  They promised, "'Til death do us part," and they needed to hear this love story.  I needed to hear it.  Who doesn't need to hear of a compelling promise that two people have made to each other to go through such an incredible ordeal as what Donna and John Bishop went through. Maybe you just need to take your spouse's hand before the day is over, and you just say two things – "I promised" and "I love you," and that's a great place to begin to build a family. Bob: You know, I think about the listeners who, over the next couple of weeks, are going to be off on a trip somewhere, a vacation or headed somewhere in the car.  They ought to get a copy of this CD and listen to it together as they drive wherever it is they're going together.  In fact, if the whole family is along, this would be a great story for the whole family to listen to. We've got copies of the CD in our FamilyLife Resource Center, and if our listeners would like to receive a copy, they can contact us online at FamilyLife.com or by calling 1-800-FLTODAY.  If you go online, when you get to the home page, on the right side of the screen, you'll see a box that says "Today's Broadcast," click where it says "Learn More," and you can find out how to order a copy of the CD that features our complete conversation with John and Donna Bishop.  We've had to edit parts of it for time purposes here on FamilyLife Today. Or you can call 1-800-FLTODAY and ask for a copy of the CD with John and Donna Bishop.  Again, the toll-free number is 1-800-358-6329.  When you contact us someone on our team will make arrangements to have the CD sent out to you. You know, on Friday nights at our Weekend to Remember Marriage Conferences, Dennis, we talk about the inevitable difficulties that will come to every marriage.  Very few folks will receive the kind of trial that John and Donna have had to experience in their marriage, but all of us will experience challenges and trials in a marriage and in a family.  The question is – are we ready for those trials when they come?  Are we building the foundation of our relationship each day so that when a trial comes, we are ready to face it because we can stand strong together on our relationship with Jesus Christ. You and your wife, Barbara, wrote a book several months ago, a devotional book for couples called "Moments With You," that is designed for a husband and wife to read through together each day, to spend some time in prayer together, to look at a passage from the Scriptures each day, with the hope that those few minutes invested together will strengthen the foundation of your relationship.   And this week we're making copies of your devotional book for couples, "Moments With You," available to our listeners when they contact us with a donation of any amount for the ministry of FamilyLife Today.  We are listener-supported.  Those donations are what keep us on the air in this city and in other cities all across the country, and so we appreciate hearing from you. If you go online to make a donation at FamilyLife.com, and you'd like to receive a copy of the devotional book, "Moments With You," just type the word "You" in the keycode box that you see on the donation form, the word, y-o-u, and we'll make arrangements to have a copy of the book sent to you. If you call 1-800-FLTODAY to make a donation over the phone, just request a copy of the book, "Moments With You," and, again, we're happy to send it out to you as a way of saying thank you for your partnership with us and for your financial support of the ministry of FamilyLife Today.  We appreciate you. Now, tomorrow, we're going to hear about how John and Donna Bishop can continue to call God good, even after all they've been through, and I hope you can be back with us for that. I want to thank our engineer today, Keith Lynch, and our entire broadcast production team.  On behalf of our host, Dennis Rainey, I'm Bob Lepine.  We'll see you back next time for another edition of FamilyLife Today.  FamilyLife Today is a production of FamilyLife of Little Rock, Arkansas – help for today; hope for tomorrow.   ______________________________________________________________________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                 

Today is part 5 of our social security series and we will focus on the survivor benefit option. We will talk about a few situations that can arise and share a couple of client stories that have revolved around this topic.Helpful Information:PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/Contact: 813-286-7776Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.comTranscript of Today's Show:----more----Speaker 1: Back here with us for another edition of Retirement Planning Redefined, the podcast with John and Nick from PFG Private Wealth. Gentlemen, how's it going? Nick, how are you today, my friend?Nick: Doing pretty well. How about yourself?Speaker 1: I'm hanging in there. Not doing too bad. We are into December. Moving along nicely on this. John, how are you doing? You doing all right?John: I'm doing good. I'm doing good. No complaints. It's a getting a little cooler here in Florida, which is nice. It's been been hot, so it's nice to get a little a cool, no more humidity.Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Now, as planners, you guys plan a lot of things, but are you the same way when it comes to holiday shopping? Have you kind of gotten some of this knocked out? We're at about the middle of the month here now in December. So you guys ready to roll for Christmas or are you last minute?John: I'll take that one first. No, I do a lot of Amazon shopping [crosstalk 00:00:49].Speaker 1: Me and you both. But how about you, Nick?Nick: Anything I can do to avoid going to a store, I do, so the majority of my shopping [crosstalk 00:00:59].Speaker 1: I think so many of us are that way, right, which obviously we can see in the death of brick and mortar, for sure. But yeah, absolutely. I agree with you there. Well, hopefully, folks, you're out there getting your shopping done. Maybe you're checking out this podcast while you're driving around doing some shopping or walking around in the malls or whatever the case might be. That is kind of the beauty of podcasting. It's not like traditional radio obviously, so you have more options, and hopefully you're subscribed to the podcast Retirement Planning Redefined. Do it at Apple, Google or Spotify, and a couple others as well, and you can find the links if you want, and podcast episodes on their website at PFGPrivateWealth.com. That's PFGPrivateWealth.com.Speaker 1: All right, part five. I think this is going to probably wrap it up, too, for our series on social security. We're going to talk about survivor benefits. Guys, give us some things to think about here. Survivor benefits are available to children and surviving spouses, correct?John: Yeah, so it is available to children and surviving spouses. For today's session, we're going to focus more on surviving spouses because that comes into play more when we're doing retirement planning.Speaker 1: Okay.John: So we always like to actually joke around with the survivor benefit. Not many people are aware, but they get a nice $255 lump sum death benefit if the spouse were to pass away.Nick: Obviously has not been adjusted for inflation.Speaker 1: Yeah, no, that doesn't cover much of anything, does it?John: No, no it doesn't. But they do get a monthly benefit as survivor and when it comes to planning, that does help out quite a bit when we're talking about strategies and trying to figure out a plan for a survivor. Kind of some rules that go with that. A survivor can actually start drawing social security at age 60 versus 62, which is kind of the normal first spouse, which we discussed last week.Nick: It is important to note that as a reminder, even though they're eligible to draw at 60, there are still the income tests from the standpoint of reductions. So if that person is working, then it may not make a whole lot of sense to get that early.John: Yeah. What Nick's referencing, we talked about the earnings penalty if you start taking social security before your full retirement age. That does still apply age 60, so if you're still working, most likely that will wipe out any social security benefit you're going to get as a survivor.John: Some other things to consider, and I'll kind of give some examples of this. Survivor benefit is not available if someone remarries before age 60, okay, unless of course that marriage ends. So we've had situations where we were planning for clients and we were talking about doing some survivor strategies and they actually ... Let's just give an example. They were 57 and were considering getting married and actually deferred their marriage until age 61 to be safe, which I don't think the spouse is too happy with us on that because it deferred the marriage, but it made sense because we actually get some pretty easy strategies, which we'll talk about later, to maximize the social security.Nick: For the widow to the eligible for those survivor benefits, they had to have been married for at least nine months. There's a caveat to that where the death was an accident, that could come into play. So essentially, that's pretty lenient, but it is important to understand the nine month rule as well.John: Yeah. And we stress a lot on just understanding what your situation is. Just kind of give you an example of that, I had a client that thought she's eligible for social security because she was married, but he passed away when they were within eight months of marriage. And she was shocked [inaudible 00:04:23] the whole time, let's say the last seven years, she was planning on it and then didn't qualify for it. So it was shocking, and unfortunately for her, she was hitting 62 so it made a big difference to her overall plan.Speaker 1: Gotcha. Okay. So good information there. Surviving spouse's benefit is based on what?Nick: So essentially kind of the caveat to this is whether or not people have been collecting. So if both spouses are receiving their benefits and there is death, then the surviving spouse receives the higher of the two.John: Not both.Nick: Correct. Not both, which some people will be surprised about how that works. But it's important to understand that they receive the higher of the two, not both. And one of the big factors that gets calculated into the firm calculation of the amount of money that the widow will receive takes into account when the deceased spouse originally claimed their benefit. And it gets a little bit confusing, quite frankly, for most people, but it factors in essentially whether or not they took it before or after their full retirement age. So John will walk us through an example on that. But it is important to understand how this works.John: Yeah. Again, we like to do everything in the realm of planning. So this is where doing the social security maximization strategy is very important. Social security is a big part of someone's retirement income. So you want to make sure that you're making the best decisions available to you, because the last thing you is to look back 10 years ago, it's like, "Oh, I wish I did this. I could have had X amount of dollars or really been enjoying my [inaudible 00:06:05] a little bit more."John: So just going to touch on an example of that. We'll call them Jack and Jill. We talked about some survivor strategies last week, but let's say Jack's up for retirement benefits, 2,400. Doesn't take it [inaudible 00:06:20] 70. Basically, Jill can jump on and actually take ... Let's increase it to 2,976 increases. That will be her new basically benefit for social security, so she gets a nice increase and that's where we talked about really trying to protect the spouse and giving them more income for life. And if she tries to draw early, let's say she takes it at 62, which anytime you draw early, you get reduction of benefit or a reduction based off of now the higher amount that he deferred, which is a nice little caveat. We have to really do some planning for a spouse.Nick: And one of the things too from a comparison standpoint is when we discuss the spousal benefits and how the spousal benefits do not grow past full retirement age, the death benefits does, or the widow benefit, survivor benefit does grow past [inaudible 00:07:15] age, so another reason why that's really a big factor.John: Yeah. And one thing that we'll always do, if we're incorporating strategies, you always typically want to delay the higher benefit. So if you're looking at an opportunity to take a widow's benefit or my own, rule of thumb, and everyone's different, but rule of thumb is defer the higher ones. I'll give my family as an example. My father-in-law, his wife passed away young and basically age 60, he was able to actually draw her social security benefit at 60, which a reduced amount. Most of his income is from real estate and investment income, so an earnings penalty didn't apply to him. So the plan is he's taking the widow benefit at 60 and he's deferring his, and then at full retirement age, he's going to switch over to his and get his full retirement benefit. So from 60 to 66, he was actually able to get some type of benefit and then at 66, will jump to his own and he gets the full amount.Speaker 1: Yeah. So there's some good strategies, some good things to think about, good information here when we're talking about these survivor benefits. So a couple of final key points or key takeaways, guys, just to think about?John: Things to consider is a reminder that basically when the person passes away, their social security benefits stop. And if the surviving spouse is going to take one, they'll take either their own or the deceased spouse, whatever one's higher, just making sure that it's important to plan and make sure the strategy is best for you based on your situation. Social security ... This is everything, not just survivors ... it's very confusing, and there's a lot of different things you can do, so if you're working with an advisor, just make sure that they have the capabilities to stress test your decisions, to make sure you're making the correct decision based on your situation and not your neighbors or as Nick likes to say, up north, his clients, they've talked to their plumber.Nick: Yeah. Everybody likes to get an opinion from somebody else. We will talk about opinions. But so anyways, I think the biggest kind of overlying thing, and we talk about it a lot, but we can't emphasize it enough, and even when we do overemphasize it, people still ask, but this is not a decision to be made in a vacuum. So many other factors tie into this decision.Nick: And even when we plan ... As an example, I was walking somebody through a plan this week, and they are three or four years out from retirement, and even though we have a strategy set up for social security in the plan on what we plan to do from a baseline standpoint, they asked and I really had to emphasize that realistically this decision doesn't really get made until maybe three, six months before their retirement.Nick: So we may plan for a certain strategy for four or five years, but the importance of planning and updating your plan every single year cannot be understated, because especially with social security, if we're in the midst of a recession, if we're in the midst of a 2008, we're not going to have somebody take a bunch of money out of their nest egg even though over the last five years we planned to do that. We're probably going to have at least one of them take social security, protect the value of the nest egg, give it time to bounce back and then adjust accordingly. The planning is via kind of a living, breathing thing and we always have to adapt and adjust.Speaker 1: Nope, I think that's a great point. We've said that many times here on the podcast that you've got to have a plan and then you have to realize that that plan needs to evolve much like your life's going to. A lot of times we kind of get a collection of things. We have some investments, we have some insurance vehicles, we think about social security. Maybe you're lucky enough to have a pension and you say, "Okay. Well, I've got this collection of things. I'm good to go. I have a retirement plan." No, you have a collection of things. So pulling them all together in a full retirement plan is really important.Speaker 1: That's what John and Nick do every day at PFG Private Wealth, so give them a call if you've got questions or concerns. Get on the calendar at 813-286-7776. That's 813-286-7776. Don't forget to go to the website, PFGPrivateWealth.com. You can always subscribe to the podcast and get new episodes, check out past episodes, things of that nature on Apple or Google or Spotify. So check them out online as well@pfgprivatewealth.com and also share the podcast with folks that you think might benefit from it as well.Speaker 1: This has been Retirement Planning Redefined. Thanks so much for staying tuned into the show. John. Nick, thanks for your time, as always. I hope you have a happy and safe holiday and we'll talk actually I think in 2020.Nick: Sounds good.John: All right.Speaker 1: You guys-Nick: Thank you.Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely. Take care and enjoy the holidays, everybody, and we'll see you next time right here on Retirement Planning Redefined.

How do you market a company that is selling something fundamentally new and different? This week on The Inbound Success Podcast, John Rougeux of Flag & Frontier talks about category design. It's not a tactic for every company, but when used strategically, category design can drive truly remarkable marketing results. John digs into who category design is right for, how long it takes, what a category design go-to-market plan looks like, and how to gain organizational support. He also shares examples of companies and marketers who've successfully created new categories. Highlights from my conversation with John include: John is an experienced category designer who has also owned and exited a business. He says that compared to traditional inbound marketing strategies, category design requires a much larger lift when it comes to educating the market. Every business has a choice to either compete in an existing market or create a new market.  If you're creating a new category, you have three choices: 1) try to fit your product within an existing category; 2) ignore category in your marketing and focus on the product's features and benefits; or 3) create a new category. John says options 1 and 2 don't work. When considering whether category design is right for you, you need to honestly evaluate your product and determine whether its simply a niche within an existing category or something that has truly never been offered before. If its the latter, then category design is really the only logical solution. Category design takes time. John says you should expect to spend six to nine months just designing the category behind the scenes, and then once you roll that out publicly, it can take another few years before it really takes hold. Category design needs to be a business initiative, not simply a marketing strategy, because it affects product roadmaps, sales and more. When executing a category design strategy, it is critical to focus marketing messaging on the problem that your audience is experiencing and the outcomes that they will experience as a result of your solution rather than how the product itself actually works. The companies that have been most successful at category design have evangelists whose job it is to go to market and talk about the problem and why there is a new solution. Its also important to build a consistent conversation around your new category. That might mean holding a big event (like HubSpot's INBOUND or Drift's HYPERGROWTH) or building a community, like Terminus's FlipMyFunnel.  If your company is venture-backed, it is also important to get your investors on board with the idea of category creation so that you have the funding to support the strategy. There are examples of category design all around us. Some of the bigger and more visible ones are minivans and music streaming services. The category wasn't created overnight, and in many cases, people don't even realize its a new category, but we see it is as fundamentally different from the status quo, and that is what successful category design looks like.  Resources from this episode: Visit the Flag & Frontier website Email John at John@FlagandFrontier.com  Visit John's personal website Purchase a copy of Play Bigger Listen to the podcast to learn more about category design, when it makes sense, and how you can use it to dramatically improve your marketing results. Transcript Kathleen Booth (Host): Welcome back to the Inbound Success Podcast. I'm your host, Kathleen Booth. And this week, my guest is John Rougeux, who is the founder at Flag & Frontier. Welcome, John. John Rougeux (Guest): Hey, Kathleen. Thanks for having me on. John and Kathleen recording this episode. Kathleen: Yeah. I'm really excited to have you here for completely selfish reasons. I am deep, deep into the weeds, trying to learn everything I can right now about category creation because it's something that I'm kind of working on for a little project at work. And I stumbled across your name. I think it was in a LinkedIn post mentioned by Sangram Vajre at Terminus, and he mentioned you as somebody who's doing a lot of work on category creation. And I immediately thought, oh, I need to have him in on the podcast. And here you are. I am so excited, so welcome. John: Thanks. Thanks. I actually want to come back to something that you said a minute ago. You mentioned this was a little project for you, so I'm going to pick your brains about why it's not a big project. Kathleen: I think I might just be downplaying it. John: Okay, all right. Kathleen: It's a huge project. John: All right. Kathleen: Yes, yes. It is a giant. In fact, it's probably bigger than I think it is. No, it's- John: Well, Sangram told me a few weeks ago. He said, "If you're not doing something that scares you a little bit, then you're not setting your sights high enough." So I think you're on the right track there. Kathleen: Yeah, no, I think my whole career has been a succession of choices that consistently terrify me. So hopefully, that means I'm on the right track to somewhere. So you have an interesting story. You started out or your career really grew in B2B tech, and you worked in some companies that were looking at category creation as a potential strategy and it seems that that wet your appetite and led you to where you are today. Can you just talk a little bit about your background and how it got you to where you are now and what you're doing now with Flag & Frontier? About John Rougeux and Flag & Frontier John: Yeah. Yeah, happy to. So the thing that I like to tell people is that I always wish that I knew about category design earlier in my marketing career. I think it would have helped me be more successful and make better choices and think through the strategy of what I was working on at the time a lot more thoroughly. So the reason I say that is in 2013, I co-founded a company called Causely. And I won't get too far down into the weeds of what Causely does and the business model, but we were basically using cause marketing as a way to incentivize people to take action. And specifically, we were looking at incentivizing referrals on social media. And at the time, I was looking at marketing through a fairly narrow lens, like a lot of people do maybe when they are kind of earlier in the middle of their marketing careers. We were looking at things like you know how do you improve the performance of an advertising campaign? How can you write a better better blog post? All of those kind of tactical things. And I didn't realize at the time that what we were doing was something categorically new. People didn't have context for what that meant, what they should compare it to, what value they should expect, what things should it replace or not replace? And so we had a reasonable trajectory. We scaled the business to a few thousand locations. It was acquired. But when looking back on it, I know that if we had had this lens of category design of how do you describe something when it's different than anything else out there, I think we could have gone even further. And so when I joined a company called Skyfii in 2018, I had started to kind of understand what that meant, so I had read Play Bigger. I read some, the works by Al Ries and Jack Trout that talk about how if you can't be first in a category, design any category you can be first in. And at Skyfii, that business, it's a publicly-traded SaaS company out of Australia and they found that they were participating in a fairly commoditized space. Or I guess to be more accurate, the perception was that they were a competitor in a fairly commoditized space. And their business had evolved past that and the product did all sorts of other things that were much bigger than the category the market thought they participated in, but they didn't really have a framework for talking about that. And so we went through a repositioning exercise where we defined a new category that better reflected what they were all about and and how people should kind of relate to that. And that was a really, I think, powerful and challenging exercise to think through.We've got something new in the market, but how do we describe that? How do we tell the right story? How do we tell the right narrative so that people know how to relate to it? Why category design is a fundamentally different approach to marketing Kathleen: This is so interesting to me. There's so much I want to unpack here. I guess, starting with something that you kind of started with, which is that there is this typical marketer's playbook, right, where people come in and they think, "Oh, we need to top, middle, and bottom of the funnel. We need to create content and attract people," this and that. And when it comes to category creation or trying to market something that is different than anything else people are used to, that playbook doesn't really work. Because as I'm quickly learning, especially looking just at the top of the funnel, traditional top of the funnel marketing, it's like well what is that problem that people are having and they start to look for a solution. And the challenge you have is that if the solution you're offering is something they've never heard of, it's such a steeper climb to try and gain their attention. It's like they don't know the right questions to ask even, if that makes sense. John: No, that's absolutely right. And I always like to mention a really thoughtful post that Mike Volpe, the founding CMO of HubSpot wrote a few years ago because it lays such a great groundwork for any discussion around category design. And the blog post simply says that look, every marketer has two choices on their strategy. They can pick an existing category and try to carve out a niche within that category. Maybe they can dominate that category. But basically, they have to pick a space and then do the best they can within that space. Or they can try to design a new category. And when you look at kind of the underlying product or business model and you really take a close examination of what it is and whether it's different or whether it's something better, you almost don't have a choice. If you're doing something that is new that people don't have a framework for, you really have three choices. So I want to pack these for you. So choice number one is you can try to shoehorn this new thing you've built into an existing category. And we'll come back to why that doesn't work in a second. Number two is you can just talk about the products, like features and benefits but not really think about a more underlying narrative for that. And then number three is you can design a new language, a new framework, which is called category design. And so here's why number one and number two don't work. So again, number one is if you try to shoehorn something new into an existing category. The reason that works against you is that people will make the wrong comparisons for what you're supposed to do, how you're supposed to be priced, how you deliver value. That just works against you. Secondly, if you just try to talk about the product itself but don't provide a larger context, you're not giving people, you're not giving them really any framework, and it makes it difficult to understand what you're all about and why they should be interested in you. I'll give you a great example. A friend of mine works at a company and I won't mention the name of the company, but they combine two different categories kind of in an existing platform. So one of these is VoIP, Voice over Internet Protocol communication software, very established, known space. The other thing they do is they have these marketing automation functions that they add to their software to at least in my view very disparate types of software, but they combine them together. And so far, they haven't really given their buyers a context, a category for what this thing means. And so they're basically letting people to their own devices to understand and come up with their own conclusions about what that is. And that just puts a lot of work on your buyers when they have to think about who they should compare you to when they need to think about what department is this even for, or what products does this replace or not replace? That's generally too much work for people when they're trying to understand something new. And like you said, Kathleen, if you're not telling them what questions they should ask, then chances are they're just going to be too confused before they'll even really be interested in having a conversation with you. Kathleen: Yeah, and there's two other aspects to what you just said that I think are really interesting, which I'm beginning to appreciate more with the work that I'm doing. One is that human nature is such that people want to slot you into something that they already understand. They don't want to have to think outside the box. So when people hear about something new, that their natural inclination is to try and categorize it in with things that they already know. And that's a hard thing to battle because you are literally battling human nature. And the second thing is if you do allow yourself to be put into a category that already exists that maybe isn't really truly what you're doing and you are actually successful in selling your product, you will wind up having a lot of problems with churn once you do sell it because people are still going to be thinking that you are like that other thing that you're not actually like. And they're going to be looking for your product or your service or whatever it is to solve for them in the same way that other thing does, when in reality your thing does not solve those problems. So it's like you're setting yourself up for a very long horizon of failures that you might not see at the outset, but it's kind of a you're failing before you've even begun. John: Yeah, that's a great point. And yeah, people do... They tend to... The world is so complicated, and there's so many things that we have to deal with and try to understand that we use this rule of thumb of categorizing things. Sometimes we do it explicitly, like smartphones are a great example of a category we all know about and buy them and we know why they're different than a mobile phone. Sometimes we just do it implicitly. We don't necessarily have the language or the terms to describe that category, but we know that we try to group likes things together because it makes it easier to understand the world. Kathleen: Yeah or we use analogies. So many times, you hear things like, "Well, that's just the Uber of," and then they list a different industry. Or, "That's the Airbnb of something else." John: Yeah, that's right. Kathleen: And so we're constantly trying to put these things into comfortable mental frameworks, which I think is fascinating. So you mentioned there were three things. The first two, I think you covered. And then the third is really designing a new category. John: The third is designing a new category. That's right. That's right. When does category design make sense? Kathleen: So how do you know... I guess the first question is how do you know when that's the path you should be taking? John: That's a great question because I've heard from some people that they have this idea that every company should try to design a category, and that's really not the case. It applies to some companies. But for many other companies, like if you're developing a CRM, a better version of a CRM, don't try to build a new category around that. So yes, so the way you would look at that is there's no formula you can put into Excel and calculate and churn all this out, but it really comes down to does the thing that you've built, does it solve a problem that has not been solved before? Or does it do so in a way that the world isn't familiar with? So is there a new business model behind that? Is there a new delivery mechanism behind that? It really comes down to those two things. And maybe if you want to look at it at a more fundamental level, you could ask yourself do the existing categories that my market is familiar with, do they accurately capture the type of thing that I'm offering? If they do, then one of the reasons you may want to choose to carve out a niche in an existing category is that people are looking for established products in established categories. People are looking for marketing automation software, they're looking for smartphones, they're looking for video communications tools like Zoom, like we're using today. And so, if you say, "Hey, we have the right tool within this category for this specific market or for this specific need," that can be very powerful. And arbitrarily forcing yourself out of that category just because you like that idea of category design is going to work against you. Now, that being said, again to kind of flip it around, if you find that the categories and the language that are used to describe existing products your market is familiar with just don't capture what you're doing or they limit it in some way, then ultimately you need to find a way to break out from that and that's what the process of category design is all about. What does it take to create a new category? Kathleen: Now, one of the things that I've come to appreciate just the more I look at this is what a big lift creating a category is. As you said in the beginning, this isn't a little project, right? I would love it if you could just talk a little bit about sort of expectation setting. If somebody is listening to this and they're thinking this really sounds like it could make sense for me, from your experience and what you've seen and you've talked to people who've been involved in category design, how long does it take before you can really expect that the market will recognize a new category? John: Yeah. It's a pretty long-time horizon. And so I mentioned Mike Volpe at the beginning of the call and I'll mention him again and Kipp Bodnar, the following CMO of HubSpot mentioned the same thing I'm about to tell you. And they told me that when they first started talking about inbound marketing, it was like standing in the middle of a town square on a soapbox just shouting into the wind with nobody paying attention. And that was the case for two to three years before that phrase really started to work its way into the lexicon of marketers. Salesforce, they pioneered, not so much CRM but cloud-based software. And even today, they still talk about other applications to cloud-based software that's 20 years later. And another example might be... So at Terminus, they talk about the account-based marketing gospel. And maybe this kind of hints to the challenge of how difficult it is to build a category. Sangram used to be there, I think he was their head of marketing if I'm not mistaken. He's definitely a co-founder, but his role is chief evangelist. And so they recognize that to really get people to be aware of and to understand and use this terminology around account-based marketing, they've had to invest very heavily in evangelizing that market or that message out in the market. Kathleen: Yeah. The other story that I've always found interesting... I followed all the ones you just mentioned really closely. And then the other one that's been fascinating to me is Drift because they came on the scene. And if they're listening, they may take issue with what I'm about to say, but look. A big piece of what their product does is live chat, website live chat, and then they have chatbots. Well, those things have been around for a while. That was not anything new, but they were really smart and they coined it as conversational marketing and they really focused more on, not so much the how and what the technology does, as what it enables the business to do, and kind of wrapped a methodology around existing technology in a way that made it feel fresh and new. And it was pretty genius. And I feel like they actually moved really quickly by comparison to a lot of the other examples I've seen. So it's interesting to me why in some cases, businesses are able to gain traction faster than others. John: Yeah. I would have to think that a lot of it has to do with the culture and how quickly or rapidly that business has gone through change in the past. And the other thing we should probably discuss is just the timeline of everything that happens before you share your new category with the world. I was talking with... There's an interview I did with, let's see, Anna and Cassidy at a company called Narrative Science. And they expected just the category design process itself to take about six to nine months. This is before they released language out publicly. And at Skyfii, that was our experience as well. And for that situation, that company, I think they were founded in 2012 or 2013. So they were five, six years into the business and there had already been a lot of discussion around the space that they started in, which was Wi-Fi marketing or Wi-Fi analytics. And so anytime that you're going into a space where the culture already kind of thinks and has a mental model for what their business is, the process of reworking all of that and getting everyone on board, especially the leadership team and perhaps even investors, getting them on board with that new message in a new way of thinking about the business, it takes time. And I would argue it should take time. Because if you rush the process and you ask your team to start using maybe even radically different language about what you do, people need time to really think through that and maybe they need to push back or challenge you a little bit or ask questions or provide suggestions. There's just this change management process you have to go through. And if you rush through that, people are not going to feel like they're a part of that process. And then ultimately, that's going to undermine your efforts in years one, two, three and further as you're asking your team to help you share that message. And at Skyfii, Skyfii is publicly traded in the Australian market and so they have investors and they have a public... They're very thoughtful about the message they put out into the market. And so they really wanted to take the time to make sure that message was right and that it made sense. And so, yeah, it took us, I don't know exactly how many months, but yeah, around six to nine months to really start that discussion and then get to a point where we were comfortable with the category name and the underlying narrative to support it. Why category design needs to be a company-wide effort Kathleen: Yeah, and I think there's... To me, one of the most important things is consistency because you kind of said if everybody is not on board and everybody isn't speaking from the same playbook, all it takes is one or two people to diverge and talk about your thing and language and terms that puts it squarely back in with all of the other things out there that... And it destroys your effort. John: Yeah. Well, and this is probably a great segue into another really important point about category design, which is that it's not a marketing project. Sometimes, it can be spearheaded by marketing, and marketing will often do a lot of the legwork, but it's not something that's relegated or exclusive to marketing. It has to be something that that CEO is involved in. It affects the company vision and is affected by the company vision. They kind of play off of each other. It affects the product roadmap. It affects what the sales team says. It affects what you might tell investors. So if your CFO is in charge of investor relations, he or she, they have to be on board and educated on the message. That's another misconception I heard a few times and it was... Personally, I thought it was a marketing initiative when I first read about it. But the more I dove deep into it and the more people I talked to, I realized it's actually a bit more of a business initiative, more so than a marketing one. Kathleen: Yeah, that's a great point. Having that buy-in top to bottom, it's really important. John: Yeah. What's been your experience at Prevailion in kind of leading your team in that discussion? Kathleen: So it was interesting because I came in really excited to make this a category design play. And shortly after I came in, we hired a head of sales, who also had some experience with category design and saw that that was a really strong play for us. He and I had both read Play Bigger, and we just kept talking about it until we basically beat the rest of our leadership team down into buying copies of the book. They've all now read it. They're all super excited about it, and it's great because it's given us a common language and framework around which to talk about what it is we're doing. So we're still really early stage, but I think we have that excitement and that buy-in in principle at least is there. And now, we're at the stage where we have to figure out our plan. What does a category design strategy look like? Kathleen: So along those lines, let's talk a little bit about somebody who's listening and they think, "Yep, this makes sense for me. Okay, I'm going to set my expectations. I understand I need to get top to bottom buy-in." What are the elements that you've seen in your experience from the companies that you've studied that have done this that contribute to successful category design efforts. In other words, what would be a part of a company's plan if they were looking to move forward with this? John: Yeah. So I'll mention two things that come to mind. So one I touched on a moment ago, but it's making sure that the CEO and the leadership team are involved and to the extent that they feel like they have a stake in the success of the project. What I mean is it's not enough for them to say, "Sure, that sounds great. Category sounds great, Mr. or Mrs. CMO. Go for it. Let me know how it turns out." That's not sufficient for getting buy-in. So getting them to be a stakeholder and have a real level of participation, that's absolutely key. And there's an interview I did with Chris Orlob of Gong.io, where we talk about that in more depth. So if you want to link to that, I'm happy to- Kathleen: Yeah, that would be great. I would love that. John: Yeah. The second thing is category design, it's all about talking about a problem that you're solving and less about the product. And so one thing I always like to say is that problem... Let's see, so your solution, your product. Solutions don't exist without problems, right? And then problems don't exist without people. And so you have to go back and understand the people that you're trying to work with and serve, and understand the problem you're trying to solve and the language they use to describe that problem, and the context for which they're trying to solve that problem or maybe they're not even aware that it is a problem or they think it's unsolvable. The point is you have to really understand the problem first and use that to lead your messaging. If your category is all around, here's why this specific product is so great and it's called this category, you're kind of missing the point. When you look at the language and the marketing that companies like Drift, for example, do, 80% of it is on the problem. Drift likes to talk about how the buying process has changed. Buyers are not interested in waiting hours or days or weeks for someone to respond to them. They want a response now. And you even see that word, "now", used.  Kathleen: Yes. That word, that one word... I went to HYPERGROWTH. I think it was not this year, but the year before. I went this year too. John: Okay. Kathleen: The year before, their whole keynote at HYPERGROWTH was all about the one word, "now." And it was so powerful, the way they distilled that down I thought, really, really simple but effective. John: Yeah, yeah. And they've written a book around conversational marketing. If you've used Drift products, you can kind of see some tie-ins but it's really about the problem that they're trying to solve. And people smarter than me have said lots of times that if you can articulate that you understand the problem better than anyone else, then people will assume you have the best solution. You don't have to work so hard to talk about every single little feature or benefit that you offer. Showing that you understand the problem creates empathy with your audience, and then again, they'll assume that you have the best solution to address that problem. Kathleen: Yeah, that's interesting that you talk about that because I think that's a really easy mistake for marketers to make, which is to say that, especially when you talk about B2B technology, it's really easy to fall into the trap of talking a lot about what the product does, how the product works. And I think many times, that's facilitated or even encouraged sometimes by the customer asking, "What does the product do? How does it work?" John: Right. Kathleen: And yet, I think the challenge as a marketer is to try to really get ahead of that and take control of the conversation and steer it towards not only the problems as you say and really deeply understanding them, but the outcomes that come from the use of the products. There's problems, and then there are what is the outcome for the user? How does it make their life better? How does it change them for the better? If you think of those as two different poles, and in the middle, lies the product and all the stuff it does, if you can keep the conversation more at the periphery on those poles, then I think you can be really successful. But that's tough. John: No, I've never heard it described that way, but that's a really clear way of describing that. And it's funny you mention that because I was having the opposite experience just this week. I was there was looking for a new email client for my computer. And that's a pretty established category. There's a million email clients. And in that context, you don't need to talk about the problem of communicating with people. Kathleen: Right. John: You know what email is. You don't need to talk about the outcome so much. There were a few features I was looking for and I was trying to find a client that had those features. And so you can talk about that a little bit more upfront when the category is established and people know what the category is, what it isn't, what it's supposed to do. But to your point, Kathleen, if that category doesn't exist and you're really trying to sell a vision around solving a problem, emphasizing what the problem is and then emphasizing the outcomes are really what's necessary to get people interested in just having a discussion around this new idea. And then from there, they're probably going to ask, "Okay, this sounds really good. Tell me about that product itself. What does it actually do?" Then you're in a perfect position to go into those details because they're ready for it. And they get the larger idea. Kathleen: Yeah, and that's where I think the traditional framework of top, middle, and bottom of the funnel comes back into the discussion, right? When you do get towards that middle to bottom of funnel stage, you can get into the weeds of how it works. And I know in our case, for example, it might not even be the same person we're having the conversation with. Our ultimate buyer isn't going to ever care so much how it works. They're going to hand that part of the decision off to somebody on their team and say, "Validate this for me." And it's almost like we've talked about it. We just need a spec sheet, but that... It's kind of like when you're going to a conference and you get the convince your boss letter, but in reverse. We're selling to the boss and the boss needs a convince their engineer letter that they can just hand to them and say, "Here, take this. It's in your language. It'll answer all your questions." Right? To me, that's the steps that we need to go through, but if we get too stuck in the weeds of convincing the engineer early, we're never going to get to convince the boss. John: Yeah, that's right. That's right. Building your category design go-to-market plan Kathleen: Yeah. Well, have you seen... So there are those foundational elements of how you talk about what it is you're doing, how you talk about the category, how you begin to gain share of mind. And then there's the actual go to market. And I've seen a lot of information written. For example, in the book, Play Bigger, which we've mentioned a few times, which is kind of like the Bible for category creation and other places. They talk about the concept of a lightning strike, which is just really a big kind of splashy go to market. It could be an event. It could be some other, something else that really makes an impression on the market and gets it talking about your thing. What have you seen or have you seen anything that has worked really well as far as like quick, well, I don't know if quick is the right word, but very high impact kind of strategies for really making an impression on the market? John: That's a great question. I'm not sure that I've seen a ton of really great examples beyond the few that we've discussed. So back to HubSpot, I don't recall a big... They have their INBOUND event, right? I don't recall that having a huge kind of blow up the world moment at the time when that conference first came out, but they've certainly been consistent and they made it a very conscious decision not to call it the HubSpot User Conference or even put the word HubSpot in there. It was about inbound, something bigger than themselves. I've seen Terminus, they have focused on this idea of a community of people who are interested in account-based marketing. Sangram told me they started with a fairly small event, relatively small event. And they've kind of built it from there. But that's more of an ongoing exercise, I guess, an ongoing process. Drift has their HYPERGROWTH conference. They came out with a book called Conversational Marketing. That's probably the biggest kind of high profile thing they did that was explicitly around that category. I think one of the things around lightning strikes is that, at least the way they're described in the book, is that they feel like they could be appropriate for a VC-backed company, or maybe a publicly traded company who's launching a new category and wants to really make that big splash and can afford to do that. I would say if you're earlier on and you don't have millions to drop on a big event or a massive campaign of another nature, it seems like other companies can can be successful with more of a process-driven approach of who are we trying to get to care about this category? What are they interested in? Where do they spend their time? And how can we just have these conversations with them on a repeatable basis? Because, like we were talking about earlier, it's not like once you name your category, the whole world suddenly cares about it and there's all these... Gartner doesn't give you a ring and say, "Hey, I guess we're going to create a Magic Quadrant because we saw your lightning strike. That's good. This is so great." Everyone who I've talked to anyway, who's done it well, has had to dedicate consistent resources over time to really get people to understand it and think about it. Kathleen: Yeah. You're talking about something that strikes very close to home for me because I've looked at those examples too and I had an opportunity... I've interviewed Kipp Bodnar. I've interviewed Nikki Nixon, who was one of the first leaders of the FlipMyFunnel community for Terminus. I interviewed Dave Gerhardt at Drift. So I've had a little bit of an inside peek into some of those companies. We didn't talk about this topic specifically, but what did strike me about all of those conversations and all of those examples is, as you say, consistency but also not just consistency, volume. There's a difference between, "Hey, we're going to consistently blog once a week, and it's going to be a great blog," and that's just an example. All of these companies not only have been super consistent, but they have turned the volume dial way up in terms of the amount of content they're creating around their category. I think every one of them has written a book actually, because Brian Halligan and Dharmesh Shah wrote the book, Inbound Marketing. You mentioned the book that Drift wrote. Sangram has written a couple of books. I don't know if that's a requirement or it's just a coincidence, but I think it certainly has helped. But it's also a reflection of that turning up the volume. We're not just going to write a bunch of blogs and use this keyword on them. We're going to write the book on our topic and really own it. And to me, there's something to that. If you're going to do a category creation play, you don't necessarily have to have the biggest budget in the world. Maybe you're not going to throw a HYPERGROWTH type conference, which is a cool conference. But you are going to need to really be prepared to just saturate the market with content, flood people with educational content around what is that problem you're solving, why it matters, why it's new, and why the new approach is better than the old one. John: Yeah. And that comes down to having patience and the right time horizon. And like you were asking about earlier, if your expectation is that category design is something maybe you can do for a few months and then you can go about business as usual, that's a wrong time horizon. And it will take months or probably years for people to really get what you do and talk about it, independent of conversations with you. And you have to have the content to support that, whether that's an event or a blog or a book or a podcast. And I think you also have to make sure that your investors understand that vision. They understand that you want to create something big, you want to create a category that you can dominate and design to your favor. And then if you do that, five to 10 years from now, you will be in a very good position. But also understanding that the first few years will have a different trajectory than someone who's just really trying to scale growth right off the bat at a very high level. Kathleen: Yeah, I feel like you just brought the conversation perfectly full circle because we started talking about how important buy-in was, top to bottom. And you can think of top to bottom as like CEO to the bottom of the organization. But honestly, if you have investors, that's really the top. Your board has to be totally bought-in because you'll get a ton of pressure. I mean we do have investors. We just got a series A round, so I'm dealing with this right now. And we're very fortunate that we have a really bought-in board, but I completely agree with you. It's also fascinating, you mentioned earlier analysts. That's another thing. If you're working with the analysts, what are the expectations you should have there? Because I recently read a quote that was like, "Gartner will never create a new market if there's only one player in it." Right? Because what's in it for them to build a Magic Quadrant for one company? They're not going to do it. So by definition, if you truly, truly are creating a new category, your thing is new and different and not like anything else and you "don't have any competition" which is like the bad words to ever say... Because even if you don't have competition, you have perceived competition. There's nothing in it for an analyst to say, "Well, this is a new category because a lot of work to produce a Magic Quadrant or a Forrester Wave." They're not going to do it for one company. So that goes back again to the conversation around time horizon. So it's such an interesting play and not for everyone certainly. You mentioned a couple of really good examples from the marketing world, Drift, HubSpot, Terminus. Can you think of any examples from outside of the marketing technology world that are really great examples of category creation? So if somebody is listening and they want to kind of look out in the wild and see who's doing this well, who would you point to? Examples of category creators John: Yeah. Yeah, that's a great point. Once you understand what category design actually means, you start to see new categories all over the place. So I'll mention two. So in high school, Kathleen, I drove a minivan. It had wood siding, I hated it, and it was just the dorkiest car you could drive. But at the time, I didn't know- Kathleen: We have to come back and have a conversation about that in a minute. John: So at the time, I didn't know that minivans were actually representative of a new category in the market. And I can't remember when they first came out. I think it was maybe the mid-80s, and I mean there were these full-size work vans, but people didn't conceive of this van that you would use to haul your family around. It was a completely new category. And it continues to be... I've come full circle. We've got a minivan today, another one. And so anyway, that's kind of a great example. You see that in automotive all the time, so hybrid cars. The Prius was a great example of designing that category. Tesla now for electric cars, SUVs as well. So that's one. And then another one is, I was actually thinking about this on the way to work this morning, the way that Apple and Spotify have really created, I guess, a new category around how music is distributed, I think, is another interesting example. And I think it's a... The reason I bring it up is category design isn't so much about a specific name or a specific taxonomy or a word that Gartner has capitalized. It more has to do with the business model and the way people look at a space. So when Apple launched iTunes, they completely changed the way music was distributed from buying a full album to buying individual songs and to needing to have the physical copy of the media to having a digital copy you could take anywhere. And now, I would argue that maybe Apple or iTunes created that category. They are the first to do that. But I would also argue that it's really Spotify, I think, if I'm not mistaken, I think their user number is larger than Apple's for Apple Music, they're the ones who have actually designed the category. They're the ones who said, "This is what streaming music looks like. This is what you're supposed to pay. This is about how many artists or songs we're supposed to have available. This is how we're going to curate music to you." And that's a completely new way of using music or listening to music. I don't know what the official name for that category is. Maybe it's just called streaming music. It's not something I'm an expert on, but that was a very long answer to your question but those I think are two that come to mind for me. Kathleen: Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. I do feel like we're surrounded by category creation. And it's happening even faster than I think it used to because of the pace of technological change. We just don't necessarily recognize it as such. But when you have that framework through which to think about it, you do start to see it everywhere and it's really interesting to watch. And I think it's kind of like the whole frog that boiled in the water analogy, which is actually a terrible analogy when you really think about what you're talking about. But the notion that- John: Who's actually tried that by the way? Do you know anyone? Kathleen: No, God, I hope not. That's like, don't they say serial killers start by torturing animals? No, no, no. Do not boil any frogs. But the whole idea being it's happening to us. We are experiencing category creation. It's just that it's happening at a pace that we don't like see it. It's not like a yesterday it didn't exist, and today it does. That by the time the category has happened and has become commonplace, it just feels like it's been there all along kind of. It's really interesting. I think there's probably a whole psychological aspect to this that hasn't even been mined in a way that it could. Kathleen's two questions Kathleen: But all right, shifting gears because I could talk about category creation forever, but we don't have forever. Inbound marketing. We talked about really what the podcast is about, and I love talking about category creation as part of it. Because when you talked about consistency and HubSpot and Drift and Terminus, really they were all phenomenal examples of companies that really did inbound marketing well. So when you think about inbound marketing as it is today, is there a particular individual or company that you really think is killing it? John: I'm going to say that it's really like a style of inbound marketing that I think is starting to get a lot of attention and it's this idea of having an evangelist be a voice for the company. And the reason I think this is so interesting is because, like our world is, there's so many messages we get from brands today, both on the consumer side and on the B2B side, that I think people have a real... They started to see that you can have a brand say anything, right? It's a construct. But when you have a person who's a real human being talking about the vision and the values and what their brand represents and how it might be able to help, to me, that's a much more authentic way and it's just very relevant in the world today because I feel like people just crave more human-to-human interaction. So a three examples of that. We've mentioned a couple already, so Sangram and Terminus does that very well. Dave Gerhardt does that. He doesn't have the title of evangelist, but he's much more of the face of the company I think even than David Cancel or others. And then, Ethan Beute at BombBomb is doing that really well. Kathleen: Yeah. John: I know you had him on a previous episode, and yeah. I know there's others out there, but those are the three that come to mind. I see their content very regularly. They all do a different job. They have their own styles. They have their own voice, but they're very authentic. And I think they're adding a lot of value for the respective companies through what they do. Kathleen: I totally agree. Those are three great examples. And picking the right person or settling on the right person to fill that role is such a critical decision for the company. It has to be somebody that truly, deeply understands, as you said, the problem that the audience is experiencing, but that also can come across as charismatically and passionately believing in that shift that needs to occur to create that new category. So it's an interesting mix of skills that you look for when you try to find your evangelist. John: Right, right. So does this mean you're going to step up and be the evangelist at Prevailion? Kathleen: I don't know. We actually... I'm really lucky. And one of the reasons I joined the company is that we have this amazing team of really smart people, who are also very invested in participating in marketing. So our CEO is unbelievable. He could sell ice to the Eskimos, not that he would. That makes him sound like he's a smarmy sales guy. He is so smart and he really has been in the market a long time and knows it, and he's also incredibly well-spoken. So while I would love to get up and talk about it, I think I'm really lucky that I have an executive team that is full of people who could probably fill that role better than I could. John: And you know what? I don't think it's entirely an either or situation. Some of those companies I've mentioned, they have someone who's maybe has the largest following or the loudest voice, but there's others on the team who can contribute to that. And I think that's what's really exciting, is it's not just one person, but you can have a whole series of people on your team evangelize for the company. And I don't know about you, there's something about when I just see the people behind a product that I'm thinking about using. I feel so much more comfortable having that conversation and and exploring what they do than I would if I was just reading pure brand messages. Kathleen: Absolutely. It all comes down to trust, right? And if you feel like you can trust that person who is the chief spokesperson, somehow or another there's a halo effect from that that shines down on the brand. And it really saturates the brand with that feeling of trustworthiness, that makes you want to buy from them. John: Yeah, that's right. Kathleen: Yeah. I love it. Well, digital marketing is changing so quickly. This topic of category creation is so fascinating because conceptually it seems like something that will stand the test of time, but then how you implement it obviously will change over time. With everything changing so quickly, how do you personally stay up to date and stay educated on all things marketing-related? John: Yeah. For me, both listening to and hosting podcasts has been a big driver of my growth. And so conversations like this one with you are really helpful because you and I could swap ideas. The episodes I've done... So I co-host a series on the B2B Growth show around category creation. I also did a series on FlipMyFunnel. That's given me the chance to talk to people who have done more category design work than I have and learn from them in the process. And for me, that's been so much more valuable than anything I could read or stumble across in a newsletter, not that those things aren't valuable. But having one-to-one access to experts, there's few things that are... I'm not sure if anything is going to beat that. Some of those conversations have led to ongoing relationships, where I've been able to ask questions and dive deeper into other topics. And so that's where I found the most valuable use of time, is just having conversations. I love to read, love to listen to podcasts, but anytime I could just talk to people and listen to them and then talk through my own ideas, man, I'd do that every day if I could. Kathleen: Amen. I just filmed a LinkedIn video about this, about how I learn. And the number one way I learn is through hosting this podcast, which when I say that to people, I know that that's not something that's going to be feasible for everyone. Let me just spin up a podcast so that I can learn. But it is the most amazing vehicle because you get to meet such incredible people like yourself, pick their brains, really get into detail that you can't get into in other ways. And it's amazing how much I take away from it. Second for me is I love to listen to Audible business books on 2X speed as I do my commute. John: What are you listening to right now? Kathleen: I am finishing Crossing the Chasm. And then before that, it was Play Bigger, From Impossible to Inevitable, and I come back. I'll listen multiple times to books because I feel like you absorb more the second time. John: Right. Kathleen: So yeah, lots of good ones. There's never too many books to read or never too few books, I should say. I always have more. John: Right, no shortage of content, yeah. How to connect with John Kathleen: Thank you. That's what I was trying to say. Well, if somebody has questions about category design and they want to reach out, learn more about what you're doing, or ask you a question, what's the best way for them to get in touch? John: Sure. So you could email me at John@FlagandFrontier.com. So that's J-O-H-N@FlagandFrontier.com. You can also just put in John.Marketing in your browser, and it'll bring up a really simple page with just my contact info. Sometimes that's easier to remember. Kathleen: So smart. That's great. I love that. John: I can't believe no one bought that domain, but it was there so why not? Kathleen: Genius. John: It's easier than spelling my last name. And then you can find me on LinkedIn as well. I won't attempt to spell my name here, but if you want to link to it in your episode- Kathleen: I'll put that in the show notes, absolutely. John: Yeah. You know what to do next... Kathleen: Great. Well, I have really enjoyed this. I've learned so much. I feel like I probably could have made this podcast three hours long, but nobody wants to listen for that long. If you're listening and you liked what you heard or you learned something new, I would really appreciate it if you would take a minute, go to Apple podcasts, and leave the podcast a five-star review. That is how other people discover us, and that is how we get in front of a bigger audience. So take a minute and do that. And if you know somebody else who's doing kick-ass inbound marketing work, tweet me at WorkMommyWork because I would love to interview them. Thank you so much, John. This has been fun. John: Yeah, my pleasure, Kathleen. And hopefully, we can have another conversation later on as you go further into your own category design process. Kathleen: Yes, about that and also about the minivan that you drove in high school. John: All right, sounds good.

John All, PhD, JD, Western Washington University: Nepal’s Himalaya and the Cordillera Blanca of Peru have both provided ecosystem services for local people for thousands of years. However, new economic possibilities combined with climate change impacts on local resources have changed local community vulnerabilities and resilience to change. From 1996 to 2006, civil war engulfed Nepal. The insurgents used the Himalayan national parks as their bases and this had severe social and environmental consequences – consequences that have continued to this day. John All was on Everest leading an NSF-supported expedition during the 2014 icefall and subsequent closure of the mountain by the former Maoist insurgents. John’s research team was in the middle of the icefall that, at the time, had the greatest death toll in Everest history, and one member of his team was killed as they studied climate change impacts on the Everest massif. He discussed the positive and negative environmental impacts resulting from the Maoist insurgency and how these impacts have reshaped the cultural and social dynamics of the area. Dr. All then linked this project with similar work in Peru as the Mountain Environments Research Institute conducts holistic, interdisciplinary research in the world's highest mountains. The interaction of local resource decision-making and climate change impacts will continue to shape mountain landscapes as environmental and population stresses increase for the foreseeable future.

Pete and John return feeling not-so refreshed after the break, then open with some somewhat disputable Tips to Teachers.  Pete then looks at some of the ways we as teachers build a focus on self-improvement of our students, through allowing multiple test takes. Without falling into the trap of students outsmarting us and falsely inflating their marks.  John tries to find the middle ground when it comes to differentiation. Trying to find something that supports all learners in the class, without labelling students or burdening teachers with an unsustainable workload.      Pete: Allowing Test Retakes - Without Getting Gamed - Stephen Merrill @smerrill777 https://www.edutopia.org/article/allowing-test-retakes-without-getting-gamed   John: All aboard the magical mystery bus: keeping them on the bus - Jotter Pad: A Teacher's Notes https://jotterpadteachersnotes.blogspot.com/2019/04/all-aboard-magical-mystery-tour-keeping.html  

Pete and John return feeling not-so refreshed after the break, then open with some somewhat disputable Tips to Teachers.  Pete then looks at some of the ways we as teachers build a focus on self-improvement of our students, through allowing multiple test takes. Without falling into the trap of students outsmarting us and falsely inflating their marks.  John tries to find the middle ground when it comes to differentiation. Trying to find something that supports all learners in the class, without labelling students or burdening teachers with an unsustainable workload.      Pete: Allowing Test Retakes - Without Getting Gamed - Stephen Merrill @smerrill777 https://www.edutopia.org/article/allowing-test-retakes-without-getting-gamed   John: All aboard the magical mystery bus: keeping them on the bus - Jotter Pad: A Teacher's Notes https://jotterpadteachersnotes.blogspot.com/2019/04/all-aboard-magical-mystery-tour-keeping.html  

A weekly podcast about programming, development, and design through the lens of amazing books, chapter-by-chapter. A System for Growth Dealing with complicated models John: How / Why do they grow? Needs change: John: All the different use cases for a user John: "When you need to implement password recovery, and do not have a clear, single place to put the logic, it will still find its way into your code. It will spread itself across existing classes, usually making those classes harder to read and use.” Example problem: Want to send a welcome email when a user is created via a public form but not when an admin creates a user via a backend interface Fat models == missing classes don't actively look for an AR class, look for new classes to contain new logic A home for interaction specific code Core models should only have the absolute minimum to exist: set of validations to enforce data integrity definitions for associations (belongs_to, has_many) universally useful convenience methods to find or manipulate records (scopes) Core models should NOT have these things: (these things belong in multiple, interaction-specific form models) virtual attributes that don't map 1:1 with db callbacks to fire for a particular screen or use case (i.e. form signup) we want the perks of AR models with AR. solution: inheritance class User::AsSignUp < User validates :password, presence: true, confirmation: true after_create :send_welcome_email private def send_welcome_email; end end John: Note the "AsSignup" pattern - "AsFacebookAuth" Extracting service objects (lol) probably a good indicator of a service object is when you find yourself using class methods. i.e. def self.something John: Didn't we just move code around? - "what used to be a monolithic blob of intertwined logic is now separated into multiple, loosely coupled components.” Better maintainability, testing, and reuse. Organizing large codebases with namespaces class Invoice < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :items end class Item < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to:invoice end Why not just: class Invoice::Item < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to:invoice end and move the file to: app/models/invoice/item.rb core domain at a glance John: Pros- Namespaces have an inherent hierarchy - Encourages more objects, clear path for them. Taming Stylesheets The recommendations are a lot like BEM - A front-end development methodology - learn more at: http://getbem.com/ John - Recommend a Readme.md for front-end specific code, or having front end specific guides in the readme. John - Have a process, and document your process. Have a system. John - Contractor (Frank Hock) - Recommended a very specific folder structure: Abstracts (Sizing, Boarders, Spacing)Base (Grid, Colors, images, Typography)Components (Buttons, Cards, Alerts)Page Specific CSS Picks: John: Elasticsearch with Bonsai - Such a great experience and amazing performance so far. JP: https://github.com/kelseyhightower/nocode

Chapter 8 - Pragmatic Projects Season 2 - Episode 13 - Chapter 8 Part 1 John: Welcome to Iteration: A weekly podcast about programming, development, and design through the lens of amazing books, chapter-by-chapter. JP: This is part 1 of Chapter 8 John: This chapter is all about "Pragmatic Projects" - Teams, Automation, Testing, Documentation Code quality and more. 60 - Organize teams around functionality Don't separate designers from coders, testers from data modelers. Build teams the way you would build code. JP: It's a mistake to think that the activities of a project - analysis, design, coding, and testing - can happen in isolation. i.e. Offers V2 at OL. Leaders of a team: needs at least 1 technical and 1 administrative personnel. Always think of the business goals John: It's nice to have lots of full stack devs - They can focus more on a "Module" than a specific tech or "side" of the project. 61 - Don't use manual procedures At the dawn of the age of automobiles, the instructions for starting a Model-T Ford were more than two pages long. With modern cars, you just turn the key—the starting procedure is automatic and foolproof. John: We are developers! Why would we do ANY tedious work? Example: Github's API pulls in PR's and notes. A shell script or batch file will execute the same instructions, in the same order, time after time JP: "We may have to build the starter and fuel injector from scratch, but once it's done, we can just turn the key from then on" i.e. deploys Let the computer do the repetitious, the mundane—it will do a better job of it than we would. 62 - Test early. Test often. Test automatically Tests that run with every build are much more effective than test plans that sit on the shelf. JP: In the Smalltalk world, they say, "Code a little, test a little" -> Get those small wins and make incremental changes John: Write tests to help guide design. 63 - Coding ain't done till all the tests run 'Nuff said JP: Keeping your feature branch green! John: ALL the tests - unit, integration, performance, staging, usability, QA 64 - Use saboteurs to test your testing Introduce bugs on purpose in a separate copy of the source to verify that testing will catch them. JP: After you have written a test to find a particular bug, cause the bug on purpose to make sure the test complains John: Code coverage analysis tools are very helpful Picks JP: Husky on NPM John: Hound - It's a service

In May 2014, mountaineer and scientist John All fell into a 70-foot crevasse near Everest. Though badly injured—fifteen broken bones, internal bleeding, and a severely dislocated shoulder—he took a series of videos as he struggled to climb out through the ice and snow. They went viral, appearing in newscasts all over the world and on media websites from People Magazine to National Geographic. NPR called him “a badass for science.” Yet this is only one of many adventures this Western Washington environmental science professor shares in his new book, Icefall. His stories include outrunning a wild hyena, stepping on a black mamba in the African bush, and scaling Everest, all in pursuit of his passionate exploration of the impact of global warming. More than just an adventure story, Dr. All provides dispatches from the most extreme posts on earth and lessons for how humans will need to adjust as our world continues to change beneath our feet. Buy the book Recorded live at Town Hall Seattle Monday, March 13, 2017

Episode 175 “Veiny 2.0” 0:15  We're Live! Yay. John talks about a video of a father burning his kids XBox. John talks about reasons why Derick might not be showing up for the master mind call. EntreProgrammers talk about destroying their video games consoles.  2:45  John updates us on his fitness levels and goals, and cracking the diet 2.0. John talks about dropping weigh after cutting all sugar, including fructose and artificial sweeteners. Josh chimes in a what he has notice about John’s calorie intake and what he burns during exercise.  6:00 John talks about a v02 max test, and the off the charts performance. John says his new diet is about  insulin resistance. John talks about possible producing a program on the science of this  diet. 10:00 Chuck mentions that he has lost 12lbs on the Ketogenic diet. Chuck talks about going to a new doctor and getting his meds changed. Josh talks about his fasting. John ask about the medication Chuck is taking.  17:00 John talks about what is happening to your body on the Keto diet, but also taking diabetic medication. Josh talks about his small carb intake right before workouts. Basically, tricking the brain into thinking it is getting carbs.  20:00 John talks about his experiment with his diet, with pre and post intake. John gives Chuck some  suggestions on cutting out artificial sweeteners.  25:00 Josh talks about an on going debate about fitness he had with John. Josh talks about flipping a switch with his diet. Josh talks about the math of a diet and how it works, after his crash diet.  30:00 John talks about how Josh’s diet is causing insulin levels to be low and not spike. John mention reading the Obesity Code .  35:00 Chuck says that everyone’s metabolism is different. Chuck changes the subject to business and talks about his business and cashflow. Chuck talks about setting a KPI or key performance indicator.  40:00 Johns talks about how he want finding out where and how to manually find sponsors. Chuck talks about how his VA, Gerald is helping him out. Chuck talks she using LinkedIn to reach out.  45:00 Chuck talks about doing cold out reaching for sponsors. John talks about wanting to find someone to do out reach for sponsorship.  Chuck shares how he is doing out reach, and shares his Asana broad. 48:00 Josh says he sees a lot of the companies he wants to reach out to as well on Chuck’s task board. Chuck show his sponsorship package.  Chuck talks about his plan and how that sponsorships work for the client. John talks about a re sign up clause for the sponsorship plans.  53:00 Chuck talks about selling a solution, not a product. John talks about ROI with selling sponsorships. Josh mentions then interest levels and getting people to understand when a sponsorship actually works for a client. Chuck says he see away out of it.  1:02:00 Chuck talks about helping  find sponsorship for other people’s shows. John announces a new EntreProgrammers subgroup. John says this could lead to an event or conference as some point.  Thoughts for the Week! Josh - Setting your goals for the week. Chuck - Just stick too it. Make a list of things to quit.  John - All labels are bad.   

John Sekevitch, President of CyberSolutions.io, joins me, Jen Spencer to discuss, conflict between direct and indirect sales, making your partners money, customer experience ownership and more on this episode of The Allbound Podcast.   Jen: Hi, everybody, welcome to The Allbound Podcast. I'm Jen Spencer. And today I'm joined by John Sekevitch, who is President of CyberSolutions.io. Welcome, John.   John: Thanks, Jen. It's good to be here. Hi, everybody.   Jen: It's great to have you here. And before we dig into sales leadership and channel, tell me a little bit about Cyber Solutions and what that organization is.   John: Well, Cyber Solutions is a channel. Right now there's roughly a thousand companies representing about 5,000 different offerings in the cyber security space. And each one of them wants to have access to cheap information, like the security officers of major banks and financial services, organizations, large retailers, and other high tech companies with intellectual property to protect. And as a result of the challenges that these companies are having in going to market and getting access to their targeted executives, they work with channel partners such as I in terms of bringing their products to market.   So right now, I'm representing a couple of application security companies, a threat and vulnerability management company, risk management company, one involved with threat intelligence sharing, and finally, another associated with risk scoring and security scoring for cyber insurance purposes. I think what's going on is it's very difficult for new companies to get access to the market. So more and more companies are going right to channel partners rather than trying to field a direct organization first, and then expand into the channels. And I'm sure we'll probably get into some of that later.   For the most part right now what I'm doing is helping these companies and representing their offerings to roughly 100 of those types of companies. So I have established strong relationships over the past 20 years, and I can get them into places they wouldn't be able to get into themselves. And I think that's typically why companies are looking for their channel partners.   Jen: Well, this is a real treat for us. Typically on the podcast, I'm interviewing channel executives who represent a vendor and they're talking about their best practices, and their triumphs and challenges in engaging a channel of partners to help them achieve their revenue goals. And so, what's so great is you bring the perspective of the channel partner, which is a really powerful voice that many of our listeners need to hear. So I'm excited. This is going to be great.   John: Yeah, I've also been on both sides. So I've definitely been that head of sales and marketing who was looking to expand my direct team into places where they weren't able to get into, or to just scale to the market opportunity. So I have recruited and worked with channel partners, and not only in this situation of my own company, but prior to that being a channel partner of IBM and being a channel partner of Oracle, which are two of the biggest that work with channel partners and have a lot of the best practices in the space. So I'm happy to share my perspectives from both sides of the table.   Jen: That's exactly what I wanted to dig into next. Looking at your background, you've had these executive leadership positions that you've held over the last 20 years, companies like IBM, like Net SPI. You've worked directly in sales and marketing like you mentioned. So you have a vast amount of business experience, and so I imagine you understand what works and what doesn't when it comes to channel, but also really business in general. Channel is just one aspect of an entire business. I'd love to hear, what are some of the biggest changes that you've seen in channel sales and marketing?   John: Well, I think the biggest change I've seen is more and more companies starting with the channel, rather than starting with their own direct sales organization. I think that's just symptomatic of what's happening out in the marketplace, which is, it's very difficult to do direct sales these days without spending a lot of money on marketing. For the most part, in my experience everybody's kind of focused on a handful of executives, and those executives don't answer their phone and they don't respond to emails. They get their insights from their relationships, their trusted relationships.   And so more and more, hiring a sales guy just because they have the ability to sell isn't enough anymore. What you're looking for is potentially getting a channel partner who already has those trusted relationships. In the cyber security space for instance, there's a company called Opto, and Opto has relationships with most of the top banks and financial services, organizations and large retailers. So as a result, everybody wants to get their attention so that their products are being represented. What's interesting is that now the channel partner is in power, because of the fact that they have these relationships, and they can try to exact a pound of flesh out of the product or offering provider.   So what's interesting is you'll see things like big commission payouts for the direct side being in the 5% to 10% range, and on the channel side being in the 20% to 25% range, regardless of whether or not they're selling at this price or not. So I'm seeing starting with the channel rather than the direct, and also the power of the channel to be able to dictate economic terms, which hasn't been the situation in the past.   Jen: Well, working for Allbound, where we believe in the power of selling with partners, I'm definitely biased, but we started our own channel partner program very, very early on. It was one of the first things we did as an organization, and I love my partner leads. I talk frequently about how they're my favorite leads, because like you said, they're coming from a trusted adviser. So when I get a lead from one of my agency partners, that is not just a lead, that is somebody who is coming to us because someone that they trust and work with on a regular basis recommended me to them. So it's the warmest hand-off that you can possibly get in sales. I think that's part of why we're seeing these organizations starting those channel partner programs earlier and earlier on in their business.   John: Right. But there's also a lot of challenges in an effective channel program. For instance, you were just mentioning getting those channel leads. Well, one of the things that has to be managed is the channel conflict between the direct organization and the channel. Who has what responsibilities? What account responsibilities? What happens if the channel's not getting the traction that you were hoping to get out of a particular territory? How do you get a channel partner to support all of the sales reps rather than just one or two sales reps? And so these are all things that obviously you need to have executive leadership over. You always need to have somebody who wakes up in the morning caring about whether those deals are being done by the channel or being direct.   I've always had situations where I ran sales and marketing and had responsibility for the whole number. However, I always had somebody who was responsible for that channel. To think that that person who has responsibility for the total can also be the person who has responsibility for the channel number, is just not going to work because they can always get their number with the big number, rather than working through the channel. So you need to have deal headquarters, if you will, to make sure that everybody knows what's going on. And you've got to have trust in the partners to be able to share access to your salesforce.com or whatever CRM system that you're using, and also to have content that's relevant to the channel and not just for yourself.   So one of the things that companies are struggling with is the fact that they barely have enough content to support their own people, much less what's needed by the channel. At the end of the day, the channel still needs to have content. They might have relationships and that might get them access, but they need to have content to be able to share with their relationships to advance the value propositions that they're trying to represent out there.   Jen: Absolutely. They're your volunteer salespeople. They're out there selling on your behalf. They need to be empowered and enabled. So my next question I was going to ask you was, really, how do you determine if and when a company is ready to build a channel partner program? You mentioned a couple of things, you mentioned having a leader who is responsible for that revenue. You mentioned making sure they figured out some of those internal processes to avoid conflict. You mentioned content. So are those really hard and fast signs and if you don't have those three or four things, then you really can't launch a partner program? Is there anything else? What do you think is really the bare minimum for an organization to really start selling through and with channel partners?   John: Well, I mean, if you start with a channel partner program, then you don't have to worry about channel conflict. You're just going through the partner.   Jen: This is true, yeah.   John: So when you hire a person who has that experience, it'd be a different person than you would if you're going to hire the head of an internal sales organization, if you will. The other thing is what are you going to do about leads? Are you going to develop leads for your channel? A lot of companies are looking for both sides. So I remember working as a channel partner for Oracle, and we were a systems integrator for their e-commerce solution, and for a while, that company lived on business given to them by Oracle. But then came to the point where Oracle was expecting them to be bringing business to them. So there's got to be that give and take, if you will. So I would say that, if you're going to start with just a channel, be prepared to use your marketing and inbound resources, and perhaps even some of the inside sales resources to feed the channel, not just looking for the channel to feed you.   Jen: That's really great advice. I think about that, and I think about some of the mistakes that I've seen organizations make mostly around being under-resourced. So an organization, maybe that's been selling direct and then decides to build out a channel partner program, that group decides, "All right, we're going to hire this one person to really spearhead this and own it", except that person might be an operations type of individual, or a sales type of person...   John: Yeah, typically.   Jen: Right. Or maybe marketing but...   John: They're moving the paperwork, they're not moving the market. And that's a mistake. I'm glad you mentioned it.   Jen: Right.   John: I mean, naturally it is important to have somebody who moves the paper because of the fact that these people need to be paid. And if they're not being paid and if it's not worth their while, they won't put the work into it, and that's bad because sometimes you've given them exclusive territories, and they're not making any money on it, and they decide to walk away from the commitment so then nobody's pursuing these opportunities. So you got to be concerned about whether or not the channel's making money, because if they're not making money you're eventually going to lose them.   Jen: Are there any glaring mistakes that you've seen executives make in the channel? You don't you have to tell us who they are, or what companies they were. Just wondering if in your experience you've seen any like big failures that maybe, our listeners who are either building channel programs or nurturing them can learn from?   John: Well, there might be some people on the line that are familiar with this company, IBM for instance. So IBM pays 20% to 25% commission to their channel partners. The caveat is the fact that they pay 20% to 25% based on a deal that sold at list price. So the thing is that when it isn't sold at list price, and those of you on the podcast probably understand that there's never an IBM product that gets sold at list price. So consequently, these channel partners are making 5% to 10% instead of 20% to 25% because of the market realities that these IBM products need to be sold at a discount in order to be competitively priced.   So consequently, they lose a lot of the channel traction that they could be getting because even though the 20% to 25% seems like it's a reasonable commission to be paid, it's not actually being paid, and the result is the channel's not making any money, and they eventually lose some of that traction. So that's probably the most glaring example, other than just flat out, taking all the cherry accounts as in-house, and leaving the dogs and cats to the channel. That's again, not paying attention to whether or not the channel's making money. So you may be able to get somebody interested in it to begin with, but when the results don't stand up to their expectations, you eventually lose a channel, and I've seen that happen on a number of occasions.   Then the other thing is that you have to be continually diligent about whose account it is. On the one hand, it's the channel's account, but they're buying your product. And so consequently, you have to have a way of being able to stay involved so that they end up being a happy client. Because when they throw you out, you're going to get the black eye, not necessarily the channel partners. So something that needs to be coordinated is how do you maintain some degree of account ownership and ownership of the customer experience when there's a channel partner involved.   Jen: That's a really great point. That's something that we're seeing grow in importance, particularly in this as a service subscription economy that we're in, and where buyers have more choice than ever before to move from one product to one solution to another. Gosh, I mean, making sure that if you're a vendor you have the ability to easily collaborate with your channel partners or vice versa, so that you could ultimately take care of the customer, because that's what's most critical to your business. I think that's really, really great advice.   John: This is becoming a complication nowadays, because as customers move towards annual subscriptions versus perpetual licenses for many of these solutions, we're talking about paying commissions off of smaller numbers, or you're paying commissions off of just the first year rather than years two and three, type of thing. Again, this is all related to asking “Is my channel making money?” You can imagine if you got a $100,000 deal for a one year deal, and you're getting 25% of it, what do you get? You get a $25,000 doesn't go very far, but if you can pay them up front 25% of a $300,000 deal for instance, now you've got a bigger hit.   However, you don't get your money until years two and three. So you just have to figure out how to do that. So maybe instead of offering 25%, you offer 20%, but you pay the full three years upfront, that type of thing. These are all things that, again, focus on is my channel making money? If your channel's making money, you're going to be successful. If your channel's not making money, you won't be successful.   Jen: I couldn't agree more. It's perfect, perfect mic drop. Before I let you go, a lot of listeners of The Allbound Podcast are in their partner program infancy, and they're not the IBMs and the Oracles of the world. They are maybe some smaller mid-market SaaS companies that are really setting out to to build a partner program for the first time. Do you have some tips that you could share with folks like them, maybe the CEOs of those types of organizations? What do you recommend they do to really get started? Maybe it's even things they need to think about.   John: Well, I think what you're kind of describing is somebody who's already got a direct sales organization and now they're looking to expand into a channel, because otherwise, if you started with the channel you'd already have it there, so it's a little bit different. So let's assume that there is a direct sales organization, and now you're going to supplement that with the channel. So the first thing I would do is get somebody and invest in that person who is going to worry about the channel. Who's going to work with your inside teams to feed the channel? Who's going to set up the deal center to be able to manage channel conflict? Which accounts are the channel's? Which accounts are the inside team? Who's going to manage that? Who's going to put together the compensation plan that's going to be attractive to the channel, and still help the product company make money?   And then the other thing from a customer experience, is how are you going to share ownership of your mutual client? What are the expectations that you're going to have for your clients, for your channel's clients, and what are the expectations? How are you going to be participating in it? So I think if you take care of who's feeding the channel, who's compensating the channel, and how, and then also, how are you going to manage your mutual client? I think those are the three things that are most important to have a successful channel on your hands.   Jen: Excellent. Excellent advice. Well, this has been so great getting a chance to talk with you. Gosh, I could probably stay on the line even longer, and just pick your brain, but I won't. But before I really truly let you go, John, at the end of all of our podcasts, I have a little bit of a speed round of more personal questions, just four simple questions that I'd like to ask you. Are you open and ready for it?   John: Sure, sure.   Jen: All right. All right.   John: They're all related to channel, right?   Jen: No. They're actually not all related to channel. They're all related to you. So the first question is what is your favorite city?   John: My favorite city is Los Angeles. I like the ocean, and I like warm weather, and it's got a buzz to it. So I'm a Los Angeles type of guy, as compared to all my compatriots who seem to be Silicon Valley guys. So I'm a Los Angeles guy.   Jen: Southern California, awesome. Second question for you, are you an animal lover?   John: I am an animal lover. We have had cocker spaniels for years, and they live a long time, very painful to see them leave. We just had one that passed in the last few months. And so my wife is now in the process of getting a Saint Charles, I think is the type of cocker that she's expecting to get next, so we'll have one soon.   Jen: Aw! Those are so adorable. Will this be a puppy?   John: Oh, it will be a puppy, yeah. We always start from scratch and go through all that pain. But cockers are a lot of work, I'm telling you. So if you're looking for a puppy or a dog that is not a lot of work, I would not recommend cocker spaniels.   Jen: I don't think I've met a puppy that's not a lot of work. So if anyone out there on the internet knows of puppies that are easy, let me know. Okay, question number three, Mac or PC?   John: Mac for sure.   Jen: And last question...   Jen: What's that?   John: The only way I made much affordable, however, is every time I bought one, I bought a share of Apple stock. And so it's been able to keep up.   Jen: There you go. All right, my last question. Let's say I was able to offer you an all-expenses paid trip, where would it be to?   John: All-expenses paid trip would have to be someplace in the US. I'm a US guy. Where have I not been? I've not been to Charleston, South Carolina. And I think I need to go there. My wife and I have thought about doing that and it's like, it never gets to be the right time to go to Charleston, South Carolina. But if you were going to pay for it, I'd go.   Jen: That's the first time that someone has picked Charleston, South Carolina as their destination of choice. So I need to ask you a fifth question which is, what is so amazing about Charleston, South Carolina that I am missing?   John: I think it's just the architecture. They've kind of kept their hands on the old, while still having all of the modern conveniences.   Jen: All right.   John: And it's warm.   Jen: And it's warm, and it's warm. Well, lovely. Thank you. Thanks so much for sharing your time with me today John, talking about channel, talking about South Carolina. If any of our listeners would like to reach out to you personally and just connect with you, what's the best way for them to do so?   John: Just my corporate email's fine. Its jsekevitch, S-E-K-E, V like Victor I-T-C-H@cybersolutions.io.   Jen: Wonderful. Again, thank you so much for your time. And thank you everybody else for tuning in. And I hope you'll join us next week for an all new episode of The Allbound Podcast.   Announcer: Thanks for tuning in to The Allbound Podcast. For past episodes and additional resources, visit the resource center at allbound.com. And remember, never sell alone.   Intro: Effective selling takes an ecosystem. Join host Jen Spencer as she explores how to supercharge your sales and master the art of never selling alone. Welcome to The Allbound Podcast, the fundamentals of accelerating growth with partners.

John All by Deep Science Radio

In this episode we discuss some truly rare albums, which were originally released in 100 copies or less, making some of them highly sought-after and very pricey (if you ever get a chance to see a copy). Besides the rarity they also contain some quality psychedelic music that spans most of its subgenres, from acid-folk, psych-pop to garage and heavy psych. We touch upon many subjects, such as the elusive and murky tax-scam business and discuss one of its top records, Stonewall. We also pay a visit to the UK underground scene and listen to the great homemade recordings of Complex and Tony, Caro and John. Also included in the episode are music from the two (singer-) songwriters John Michael Roch and Gary Osborne as well as the lo-fi Northwest garage band Brigade. Complex-s/t (1970) -Norwegian Butterfly Brigade-Last Laugh (Band n´ Vocal 1970) -Self-made God Stonewall-s/t (Tiger Lily 1976) -Outer Spaced Gary Osborne (Kinney Music 1971) -Grass Tony, Caro and John-All on the First Day (1972) -Sargasso Sea John Michael Roch-Wish You In My Arms (1976) -Memories

We're going to deliver, today, how you can build a meaningful audience for yourself. If you're looking to become a self-sustaining entrepreneur, who has a viable business and multiple streams of revenue, you need that. Building the Right Audience for You We, in this day and age, have a great opportunity.  We can produce content, and we can produce content in many forms.  Of course, we have video, audio, written content, and great social media channels, like SnapChat, Instagram, Facebook, you name it...Fill in the blanks.  There are all these different content-producing platforms. So, if you want to build, not just any audience but the right audience for you, you've got to come up with a content marketing plan.  Like, how are you going to deliver free, valuable, and consistent content to an audience? That's then going to become your audience because they are going to know and trust you for providing that free, valuable, and consistent content. Once you have started to build that audience, and have gotten that consistent momentum, it's all about, "Hey, how can I communicate with this audience?  How can I actually reach out and say, 'Daniel, can you jump on a quick Skype call, or a quick 10-minute Google Hangout, so that I can just ask you  little more about yourself?'"  Where are you coming from, why are listening to my content, why are you reading my content, what are you struggling with right now?  That way, Daniel can tell you all of their pain points, his challenges, and his struggles. Then I, the person Daniel likes and trusts, because of that content I've been producing and they have been consuming, can create a solution for them in the form of a product, a service, a community, and/or all three.  That's the beauty of creating that marketing content and that, again, free, valuable, and consistent manner.  And, if you build that audience, that audience will sustain you for years to come. Coming Up with a Content Marketing Plan If you want to come up with a content marketing plan, you're going to say, "What's the medium that I resonate with?"  Back in 2012, I was like, "I don't like to write.  I'm not a good writer."  I personally don't think talking head video is very valuable for anybody because, why am I going to stare at a screen where there's just two faces talking?  That was my mentality, so I said, "Why not just go for the audio content?  That resonates with me; I get it."  I like to consume content that makes sense for me, when I'm going on runs, when I'm driving my car, I can consume that type of content, and then I can build an audience around that as well.  So, I decided to go forward with the audio-only podcasting content. Frankly, it was a rough start because I wasn't good.  I didn't know what I was doing.  I had no interview skills.  I had no podcasting, broadcasting, entrepreneurial skills, whatsoever.  But, I was putting myself in the right position every single day, to do that thing, to get a little bit better. I can even say a couple of years ago I made that same commitment to writing.  I was never a good writer.  That's why back four years ago I didn't start with a blog.  I started with a podcast.  But, once I nailed the systems down for that medium of podcasting, I started moving to writing next. Now I write an email every single day.  Some of the emails are long, and some of them are short, but a lot of people come back and say, "Wow John!  Who is your content guy?  Who writes these emails?"  And, I'm just like, "Wow!  Nobody has ever thought that I was a good writer before, and now a lot of people do, but it's only after writing 1,000 emails that I've gotten to this point." I wrote a lot of crappy ones and a lot of "okay" ones.  Then I wrote a lot of pretty good ones, until every now and then, I do come across an idea where I am able to write a great email.  But, it always comes down to doing that thing, and that's been really important. Once you've found the content your resonate with, start working on the other area you're not as good at.  If that's what it takes to build the business you want.  I mean, maybe you get to that point where you've mastered that one medium, and then you look around and you say, "Wow, I have a great business!  I get great revenue.  I want to continue to focus, and double-down, and dominate this medium in my industry, in my niche." Then you can just stay there.  You just stay in that zone with what you're in right there.  You don't have to bolt on this or that because a lot of times people do, and then they look back a year or two years later and say, "I just created exactly what I did not want.  This business that now consumes me, instead of me controlling the business." You know, I would be very intentional about bolting different things on.  For me, I made a very intentional decision, two years ago, to add writing as something that I wanted to improve upon.  I wanted to make that part of my business.  But, that was after a lot of thought, and we were already growing  a large audience in the podcasting area. Tips on Choosing the Right Content Platform You have to know who you are.  Again, I knew I wasn't a good writer.  So I said, "I'm not a good writer.  I don't like to write."  I'm not necessarily a good interviewer, but I do have a much easier time talking, and having conversations, and asking questions in a conversation-type format...in an audible type of format."  So I said, "Let's try podcasting." The funny thing is that if podcasting hadn't worked after a couple of months, I might have shifted and tried something different.  But, that was just the initial knowledge of the strengths that I had, even though, again, I wasn't strong as an interviewer or as a podcaster at the beginning, but I was stronger than as a writer, or a social media guru, or whatever else there might have been.  I just looked at something that I enjoyed and was stronger at than other areas, and I went forward with that.  I think that's a good place for people to start. Some people may ask, "Does it come down to persistence?" Persistence, actually, is a word that I would use with caution.  You can get into a position where you are digging in a whole.  Yeah, if you're persistently digging in that whole, you might strike gold in the end.  But, at the same time, you might just be digging a deeper hole, and there might be no gold underneath that.  So, you should be persistent to a level, to a degree, but you should always be evaluating every shovel of dirt that you are taking and asking, "Is this still the direction that I want to be digging?  Is this still the area that I want to be living in?"  If it's not, then step out of that whole, and shift, and go another direction. It's consistency that's key.  What are you consistently doing to produce content, to produce free, valuable and consistent content to an audience that you're growing?  And, that's in any form, in any medium.  Again, for a long time, I was being very consistent with Instagram and with Facebook, but I didn't get any of the traction that I got in those that I got immediately when Snapchat came to light, with their stories.  I immediately shifted from Facebook and Instagram, which was my main focus, to Snapchat.  And, that's where I've grown a really cool, awesome, large audience that watches my stories, and my rants, and my quotes on a day-to-day basis. Then, a couple of weeks ago, Instagram launched Instagram Story.  So, now I'm leveraging my knowledge of how to tell stories on Snapchat back into Instagram. Which before, to me, was not really a great platform because it just didn't allow me to communicate the way that I wanted to, which are in short 10-second bursts of content, ranting, and stuff like that.  To me, anybody can post a photo of a quote and get a bunch of likes, but that doesn't distinguish.  My distinguishing factor is my personality, my take, my thoughts, my rants, which  a lot of people love and agree with, and a lot of people hate and disagree with.  But, you know, it's that differentiator, and I'm able to be consistent with the producing of that content. Evaluate as You Go You always want to keep your finger on the pulse. And, "the finger on the pulse" in these scenarios that we're talking about is your audience.  It's the people that are consuming your content.  So, you need to be looking and interacting with the comments you're getting on Snapchat, with the social media mentions you're getting on your podcast, with the emails that you're receiving. You have to really have your finger on that pulse. A lot of people are scared to because, "I don't want to set the precedence that I'm going to be responding to individual comments, or emails, or this, or that, because that's not scalable, that's not leverage-able."  Well, that's not, but the information, and the knowledge, and the value that you get from those interactions is scalable.  It's what is going to allow you to create a product, a service, a community, that you can then do 5, 6, 7-figure launches with, like Podcasters' Paradise came to be.  It was because people were asking me so consistently about how they could create and monetize their own podcasts. I never would have thought to launch a podcast and community if I hadn't had my finger on that pulse, but I did, and that was 3 years ago.  Now we have over 3,000 members and over $4 million in revenue, and that was because I did the un-scalable, unleverage-able thing about having those conversations, about listening, about really caring about what my audience was saying.  So, that is always going to have to be part of the equation if you are looking to build a business in this content marketing arena. Next Step in Audience Building Now that you've created free, valuable, and consistent content, now that you've kept your finger on the pulse and heard what your audience is actually saying, you'll want to go ahead and say, "I've had the content produced for you.  You've listened to the content, you've engaged with the content, you've given me your pain points, your obstacles, your challenges, your struggles, and now it's me, as the person you know, like, and trust, to create the solution, to create the products, the services, or the communities that are going to solve these issues that you're telling me that you're having." Then you actually go ahead, and hopefully with the help of your audience, build out a product, a service, a community that's going to be of value to them.  That's how Podcasters' Paradise came to be, Webinar on Fire, The Freedom Journal.  That's how all of these products and services came to be.  It's because I listened to that audience who was telling me their pain points, their challenges, and their obstacles, and I just handed them the solution in the form of whatever I thought would be the best form to provide that solution.  And if it wasn't right for them at first iteration, I'd just pivot, adjust, and make that move until it was. Let's say you already have a platform built up, but you really want a massive audience. The step is...You already have that current audience, so you're not talking to them enough, because if you were talking to them enough, if you were doing things that didn't scale and didn't leverage, like scheduling 10 back-to-back 10-minute Skype calls with your audience on Skype, and asking them the real questions, then you would know how to build your audience more. You would know about where that audience heard about you, so you could amplify those areas to make sure they're working.  You would hear what they don't like about your show on a consistent basis, or you could, maybe, pivot or adjust that.  Then, you would have that idea of what you could create for them that could grow your product suite in the right direction. Then you produce the product, service, or the community, and you offer it to them for monetary retribution.  You say, "Hey guys, I created content for you.  You loved it, and you listened to it.  I asked you what you were struggling with, and you told me.  I came up with a solution for you, and now, here it is on a silver platter."  "You said you wanted it, and now here it is." Have them start engaging with that paid product, which is something that they have now actually financially invested in.  Now you're really going to be just working with the cream of the crop.  That real audience.  That 5 percentile of people who are your core audience, and that really do want to take things to the next level and get more access to you, or to your ideas, or to your courses, or to the communities that you're creating.  Then, you're going to be looking at them and saying, "Okay, how can I add to this?  How can I find more of these 5-percenters? People that actually bought?  How can I add more people to this buyer's pool while not focusing on the 95% of people that are just consuming the free stuff, but never upping into that next level?" Connecting with the 5% All we have is time as entrepreneurs.  So, we need to get to the point.  When we've done all of the steps that we've talked about thus far, then we're now identifying where our time is best spent.  Then, we allocate the vast majority of our time in those directions and taking that time, that we used to spend in other areas, that aren't the best use of it.  So, it comes down to an evaluating principle, and it's always tweaking, and adjusting, and pivoting, and trying new things, but learning every step of the way in order to get more efficient, more productive, and more focused on what works for you in your business. Connecting with John All the magic for us happens at EOFire.com.  We have great free podcasting courses at FreePodcastCourse.com.  We have free webinar courses.  We just have a lot of great free resources for entrepreneurs at EOFire.com, and the biggest success that I've seen entrepreneurs have are when they know how to set and accomplish goals.  So, my passion project, that's now live and available, is a physical, stunning, hardcover journal called The Freedom Journal:  Accomplish Your #1 Goal in 100 Days.  It became the 6th most-funded publishing campaign of all time at Kickstarter (Kickstarter.com) at $453K in just 33 days, and it continues to sell in massive amounts every single month.  You can check out more about how you can accomplish your #1 goal in 100 days at TheFreedomJournal.com. Resources John Lee Dumas - The Freedom Journal:  Accomplish Your #1 Goal in 100 Days John's Podcasting Community - Podcasters' Paradise Snapchat Instagram Story Real Fast Results Community If you are diggin’ on this stuff and really love what we’re doing here at Real Fast Results, would you please do me a favor? Head on over to iTunes, and make sure that you subscribe to this show, download it, and rate & review it. That would be an awesome thing. Of course, we also want to know your results. Please share those results with us at http://www.realfastresults.com/results. As always, go make results happen!

He thought he was dead, but somehow mountaineer Dr John All crawled to safety. He describes to Victoria Derbyshire how he fell into a crevasse in the Himalayas. His arm and ribs were broken and he was bleeding, but from a small ledge he inched his way out over several hours... filming as he did so.

John: Are those popular college majors really as good as they sound? Recently, a list of the top ten deceptive or in Chinese kengdie majors has been making its rounds on Weibo. Users have summed up the meaning of kengdie majors, majors which sound really awesome, but disappoint student after student after they initially enroll or after they spent four years and actually graduate. So, let’s take a look at this list, what are the top ten kengdie majors? ZHY: We’re looking at some pretty popular majors: computer technology, medicine, mathematics, chemical technology, communication engineering, law, art, a whole bunch of subjects that make me wonder are we just put much covering? John: All, everything? ZHY: Yes, everything, so you know, it’s a little confusing, but let’s look at some of the details then. As agreed with one of our listeners Yancy , I think that how you pronounce it: Law is definitely a big kengdie major for him or her, and a lot of people are saying the same because it seems like with the rapid expansion of enrollment that Chinese universities have carried out in the last decade, certain coveted degrees have become vastly devalued now, and law is one of them. Liu Yan: And also another popular kengdie major is medicine, and according to some netizens they say if you choose medicine then basically everyone in your life becomes guinea pigs, you know, but I have to say if you take a look at all these top ten kengdie majors, the overwhelming feeling that I got is that people are just getting lazier and lazier, they find reasons to complain, no matter what. John: Yeah, yeah, I do have to wonder if a lot of it… I mean because as you guys said we’re looking at pretty much, almost every single possibility when it comes to the major, I do have to wonder to what degree, is it the people just like, you know, like just sucks and so does my major, or it was you know they really were going in with pretty high expectations, and they found that life is just harder than they imagine it would be. ZHY: I think maybe they went in with really high expectations and also very limited information with what kind of content that they’re going to be learning and studying, it seems. A lot of the times people as a fresh graduate out of high school, they only look at the title, they haven’t really found of much about what the course is about, and then they just, you know, register for whatever is their available for them. LY: Yeah, I think it’s possibly one of the explanations. And some other people maybe they do have some basic information about those majors, and they possibly don’t want to choose one of these so called hot majors. However, due to parental pressure or peer pressure, they go to those areas anyway, so I think that’s also one of those reasons. John: Well, also I mean I think Zhou Heyang with kind of pointing at this before but really has lots due just major selection in general. Number one, you have to choose it before you’re even sure who you are or what you want to do. Number two, you are always going to be constrained. Even if… by your Gaokao score… even if its really high score, if you get a high score that means you really should, you almost have to go into, you know, a high score major. If you go into a lower major then you know, you just loose lot of face. LY: And people will think what’s wrong with you? That’s wasted, you know. John: Must be an idiot savant or something . ZHY: But also I think it has a lot to do with the quality of teaching as well, because a lot of people are really disappointed with the teaching that they get after they entered university, and again I think something to do with the fastest expansion of universities and not keeping the infrastructure and the teaching staff, you know, up to the standard. John: Yeah and no actual, real reform of the Gaokao system unfortunately.

John Artman: With mobile devices becoming so popular, people joke that the distance between life and death isn't as far as the distance between people while staring at their phones. Increasingly, we see this happening even in college classrooms. To combat this rising tide of inattention, the Management Department of the Luoyang Institute of Engineering has taken matters into their own hands. Now, students must put their phones into storage bags before the class even starts. So before we look at what the Luoyang Institute of Engineering has done, how serious is the staring at your phone all the time of problem in universities? Amy Daml: I’m not sure this is so different from way it back in the day, when grandma Amy was in university and we used to do crossword puzzles and sudoku , you know, I think it’s exactly the same thing. John: Or doodle. I used to doodle a lot. Amy: You used to doodle? Okay. John: Not diddle, but doodle. Zhou Heyang: Oh god. Amy: I think everybody… college students always find a way to screw around with your time in class whether it’s… you know just have a perfect device helps you do it. ZHY: Yeah, totally, I think people daydream. They… well, college students they just don’t really want to just focus on the books any more since that’s what you have been doing all your life in China, I guess. John: But this isn’t the point that’s going to the university and going into the classrooms for to you to pay attention, I mean that you are paying for, right? ZHY: Totally, but a lot of the times when you are just imagining you in the shoes of a college student, often I think for Chinese college students, it’s just like freedom after years of being, you know, supervised by your teacher and parents all the time, now you have the freedom to do whatever you want. And then people just feel like they have the time to throw around. But that being said, when I first saw this, I just thought, why are we… are we talking about college students? I mean this should be something that high school students or teachers do, I think. I think we you are in college, you are a young adult. Shouldn’t you be, you know, grown up, more grown up than this? John: No! Amy: You’re a young adult, but just barely a young adult, a very young adult, I mean. I remember going to college, and I was like, “Woohoo! I’m out of my parents’ house, and finally I don’t have the try so hard, and I can do ever I want. My classes don’t even start until 11 o’clock, like if I’m gonna go them at all.” You know, it was like this world opened up to me. I had all these choices. And it takes you while as a young adult to be disciplined enough to choose the best thing for yourself. John: Well, also I think it’s a little bit different in terms of Chinese culture, especially with the relationship to technology. It does seem that in general, compared to the US, these new, newer technologies get picked up really, really quickly. And I think that, yeah portable screens, as my mother would call them, are becoming a problem around the world, but especially in China and other Asian cultures, to be honest, the portable screen is… it just kind of sucks people… sucks people’s soul away. They’re there, but they’re not really there. ZHY: But still you are a young adult, that’s, you know, getting your hands onto the device in the first place, and allowing themselves to get sucked into it. John: So blame the parents. Don’t buy the phone, right? Amy: Well, I mean, I would tend to agree with John. I think that this is much more of a technology focused culture than back in the States. At home, you know, we have like, come up with some social rules about when it acceptable to use your iPad, your iPhone or whatever, and so we know that when you go into a movie, you shut your phone off, when you go into class, you shut your phone off, you know, or at least you put it on silence so that the teacher doesn’t catch you to playing games. ZHY: Yeah, but do students actually do shut their phone off in American classrooms, I kind of doubt that. Amy: They put them on silent, I think. John: Well, I don’t know, I mean it’s been so long. Amy and I are so old now. But, seriously because when I was in university, I just had like a little crappy, you know, Samsung feature phone. ZHY: And it doesn’t stop you from texting. John: All you could do was play Snake on it. Amy: Yeah John: But so we’ve gone off on a bit tangent here, but to bring it back, let’s take a look at what the Luoyang Institute of Engineering has done. So again, you have to put your cell phone into a bag before class starts. Do you think this is going to work in terms of attention and getting them to focus on their school work? Amy: Well, so they started this project on April 3, it has even been a week yet, so there’s plenty of time for it to succeed or to fail, but basically, the idea is that they bought a big that I image like a shoe storage a kind of thing, and then you each got a pocket, and then you stick your phone in the pocket at the beginning of the class, you can get it back at the end of the class, but basically you have to voluntarily surrender your phone during class time. ZHY: So do you have to? I think if people who are willing to do so can have it done Yeah, so I guess for those already pretty disciplined, I would say, to be willing to give up their phone during class, then they can do it. I think that is a good way to just physically keep it away from you, then you kind of have to focus on whatever you should be doing. But that doesn’t always work, because for those who want to daydream, I don’t think put your phone away will stop you.

Is cloudstreet the best television drama creation to come out of Australia? Are David & Margaret taking out a court order against John? All of these questions may be answered.