Prost Productions

Morning or evening, be your own person

July 7th, 2010

A German university professor says his studies show that “morning people” are more proactive and take-charge, while “evening people” tend to be smarter, more creative and more outgoing.

Smarter and more creative? Sounds to me like evening people have the edge over early risers who are “just” more proactive. But biologist Christoph Randler tells the Harvard Business Review that evening people may still be at a disadvantage in the business world because they are “they’re out of sync with the typical corporate schedule.”

That’s right: You might be smarter and more creative than the woman in the next cubicle, but her career could go further simply because her biorhythms happen to be more in tune with those of the boss. Maybe HR people should just dispense with all the questions about experience and skill set, skipping right to what really matters: “What time do you wake up in the morning?”

I’m exaggerating, of course. But smart, creative people who peak later in the day are bound to chafe at the chronological conformity of the business world. Maybe that’s one reason that 43% of entrepreneurs in our latest SmartBrief poll described themselves as “evening people” — why conform to someone else’s schedule when you can find success on your own time?

Reading the political “tea” leaves

June 17th, 2010

As a recovering political junkie, I try to stay away these days from anything that suggests partisanship or political debate. Still, I’ve been struck by the rise of the Tea Party movement, and I wondered how it was viewed by practical, hard-working entrepreneurial types.

Fortunately, as contributing editor for SmartBrief on Entrepreneurs, I had a forum for asking that very question. Last week we polled our 35,000 readers, asking if they thought the Tea Party phenomenon was good or bad for small-business issues.

The results were unambiguous: 57% believe the movement is a good thing, compared to just 23% who see it as a negative. To me, the blowout numbers were shocking. I expected to see a much higher percentage of “not sure” responses, given that the Tea Party is relatively new, amorphous and untested.

Why are so many entrepreneurs drinking from this particular cup of tea? I think it’s largely a loss of faith in the current leadership of both parties, who are falling all over themselves to “help” their core constituencies with lavish, expensive government programs.

Case in point: Washington wants to help stimulate investment in small businesses, so what does Congress do? It passes a $3.5 billion incentive allowing investors a 100% exclusion on capital gains when they purchase stock in entrepreneurial enterprises.

But only if the stock purchase is made between March 15, 2010, and Jan. 1, 2012.

And only if the company is organized as a C corporation.

Oh, and if the business provides a service — think consulting firm, restaurant or inn — it doesn’t qualify.

Entrepreneurs all across the country will respond to this “stimulus” with a weary shrug, just like any number of SBA programs and tax incentives that came before. Who has time to jump through all the hoops required to qualify for the government’s “help”? We have business to run, sales to make, products to ship.

Government is about strings; entrepreneurs are about bootstraps. If they really want to help us, they need cut the strings and get out of the way so we can do our thing.

In its rhetoric, at least, the Tea Party movement seems to get it. Tea Party candidates promise to restore fiscal discipline, and entrepreneurs listen. Washington promises to help us, and entrepreneurs shrug.

Come November, things could get very interesting.

Dear Goliath: You’re the best. Love, David

May 26th, 2010

Google on Tuesday mounted a national dog-and-pony show to remind Americans that big can be beautiful. The search giant estimates its economic impact at $54 billion a year, and I’m proud to say that I might account for .00000000001% of that. (Just an estimate — I didn’t do the math.)

Without Google, thousands of lifestyle businesses wouldn’t exist. Before Google came along, many entrepreneurs simply couldn’t afford to launch a business. Advertising was expensive and inefficient, and media companies did everything in their power to keep it that way. Local businesses and niche businesses might need to reach just 1 person out of 1,000, but advertising rate cards were inevitably based on 1,000 pairs of eyeballs.

Then along comes Google with its search advertising model, and suddenly I can reach my best prospects for just pennies apiece. If I put enough time and effort into my site, I can even reach those people for free by improving my ranking in Google’s “natural” search results.

With the billions it earns on search, Google develops or improves on other technologies that make my business life easier: email, word processing, presentations, navigation, research, chat. Sure, those things existed before, but Google made them cheap — or free — thus making them accessible to bootstrapping startups.

I find it outrageous that Google had to defend its importance to the U.S. economy. This isn’t a case of spewing oil or uncontrolled acceleration. It’s a matter of envy, pure and simple. Google’s competitors want to say that the giant must be cut down to size. But those competitors are giants themselves — in many cases the very giants who made it so expensive to do business in the pre-Google world.

So please spare me the David-vs-Goliath storyline. I am David, and I’m proud to say I’m hooking up with Goliath.

Are lifestyle businesses the new Social Security?

May 25th, 2010

More than 900,000 Americans aged 65 and older were self-employed in December 2009 — a 29% jump from year-earlier figures. Entrepreneurship among 55-to-64-year-olds grew by “just” 5% during the same period, hitting almost 2 million.

Some bloggers have worried that this rapid growth in self-employment is a sign of economic duress among those who should be enjoying their golden years. “[I]t’s likely that, these days, many of them are choosing this path because they have to,” Anne Field writes. “They’re out of work and no one wants to hire them.”

There are some big assumptions in those two sentences, and Scott Shane of Case Western Reserve University offers some statistics to show that entrepreneurship among older Americans has always been a popular option, no matter what the economic environment.

Statistics are great, but leave it to McPaper to illuminate the issue through anecdotes. Sure, there are reluctant entrepreneurs like Bryan Goodman, who became a full-time eBay merchant after losing his job at age 53. But I’d bet for every Bryan Goodman, there are four or five Patrick Althizers, who loves the lifestyle afforded by his company, Photo Safari Yosemite.

Althizer toiled in finance for three decades before retirement finally gave him the time to pursue photography, a passion he abandoned when he got “diverted” by his career. Now he has a family business, work he actually enjoys doing, and a company that could become “a legacy for my family.”

That sounds a lot healthier than watching soap operas and waiting for the Social Security check — in the case of GenXers like me, a check that will probably never arrive.

What would life be like without lifestyle businesses?

May 20th, 2010

The conventional wisdom on lifestyle companies is that they enhance the lifestyle of their owners. That is, we forgo big bucks and big growth to do what we love.

That’s certainly true, but I think it misses a larger point: Lifestyle businesses make life better/more enjoyable/more fun for customers too.  Take Maia Josebachvili, for instance.  While studying engineering at Dartmouth, she recruited all her friends and acquaintances to go skydiving — because it was something she really wanted to try, and she couldn’t afford it. Based on that experience, she went on to found Urban Escapes, a weekend adventure company for young urban professionals in four cities.

All week long Josebachvili’s clients slave away in banks, law firms and the like. Then, on the weekend they get out and really enjoy life, thanks to a little lifestyle company and an entrepreneur who pursued her passion.

In the busy summer months, Josebachvili says she serves about 500 clients — not a huge number, and certainly not the kind of business model that would impress venture capitalists or proponents of “high potential” firms. But she’s earning a living, providing jobs and bringing a little bit of joy to her customers.

The point is, it takes someone with passion to provide the sort of product or service that may never “scale.” For a big, soulless corporation or venture-backed company, it’s simply not worth the time.

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Follow Us on Twitter