Name (required):

  E-mail address (optional):

Type your message here:
>I haven’t read or listened to Jim Collins’s latest >book “How the Mighty Fall” yet. I’ve read & heard a >little about it. In that book, Jim Collins wrote about >some issues people have—like yours. > >Peter Galuszka had/has some questions about the >validity of Jim Collins’s insights. He wrote about it. >Here’s a URL for what he wrote: >http://blogs.bnet.com/ceo/?p=1518 >I’m not judging if what he wrote is accurate, I'm just >including it for your information. > >I'm not trying to criticize what you wrote; I'm just >acknowledging & answering it. >I'm glad you’ve used the archives & the post about >Elvis Presley & clues fits this subject well. > >A reporter asked Elvis, Do you feel you were lucky or >do you have something other people don't have? Maybe >the reporter was trying to bait Elvis into saying >something seemingly immodest or easy to quote >out-of-context. > >Elvis said, "I was lucky. I came along at a time when >there was no trend. I came along just in time." > >Accurate, yes. The whole answer, no. > >We all have something – talents, physical abilities, >knowledge, etc. -- other people don't have. We all >have positive things to offer to others. They may not >seem so exciting or special to us or to our >acquaintances. > >Despite their unique attributes, people in the “great” >firms Collins wrote about attribute much of their >success to good luck. People in the comparison firms >blame bad luck & other problems for their lack of >success. > >Success & good luck tend to happen when people are >prepared for opportunities they find. They’re prepared >to recognize opportunities & develop what they find. > >Often, instead of finding opportunities, they make >their opportunities, success & good luck. Some bad >luck happens to people who do their best to prepare >for success. They may do their best with their current >resources. Maybe their current resources would’ve been >enough if their situations hadn’t changed. > >Sometimes, the people & businesses that are least >prepared for opportunities are those who have a lot of >resources, but their resources are optimal for the >past, not the present or future. It’s like the cliché >of fighting a war with equipment from the previous >war. > >When somebody is too wrapped in their past success, >they don’t acknowledge what’s changing around them. >They may actively deny reality & fight it. They may >waste more resources when they try to resist change >than they’d have to invest to profit from the change. >That waste is besides mounting inventory people won’t >buy. > >It’s like the formerly successful walk toward a cliff, >but they deny it. Others, who are becoming successful, >are those who didn’t do what the highly successful >people or businesses did or the others have stopped & >changed directions. > >Highly successful people or businesses may continue as >if success will always be guaranteed. They act as if >(& maybe believe) what they successfully sold will >always be valuable to those who bought it before. > >When they stop producing what fills new gaps in >people’s current lives, businesses stop producing >value. > >I hope it's not a hard-sell getting you to believe you >can be very successful. It can happen by finding out >what's missing. > >Warning- Prospective customers may not realize >something is "missing." YOU may need to educate them >so they realize they have legitimate needs & desires. >It can cost a lot of money & time to do this. > >Some businesses have strong starts, then fade away or >flame out. They sell what people & businesses >need/want for a short time. Sometimes, they can barely >keep up with demand. A potential reason for some to >fail after a big success is they stopped offering >what’s missing in people’s lives & businesses. > >Because of life cycles & changes in business >situations, a product/service may be less efficient & >effective than other options or it could be completely >obsolete. > >Maybe a firm still offers what can solve or prevent >current problems, but it does more than solve a >problem. In that case, it overshoots what people >want/need, so it probably costs more than people are >willing to spend. A competitor probably offers—or soon >will—what provides an adequate & less expensive >solution. > >Dana Blankenhorn said, having a clue isn't permanent. >People & companies who have a clue now, may be >clueless later. Those who are clueless now, may get a >clue. > >Dana has a bit about being successful by doing what >others refuse to do. It works in other ways also. "The >secret to a successful mass-market Web site lies in >doing what 99% of companies avoid like the plague." >You can read it all after clicking on - >http://www.a-clue.com/archive/02/cl021202.htm > >Some “success” can be attributed to competitors being >more clueless than those are “successful”. > >Many of my prospective clients compete with Walmart & >Shopko. But I have a clue for them & you, Sears, >Roebuck, Montgomery Ward & Kmart were big & very >successful (seemed to have a clue). Montgomery Ward is >gone. Sears & Kmart merged to avoid possible >bankruptcy. But it doesn't mean they have a clue. > >Whether it’s knowledge, products or services, having >what people & businesses highly value doesn’t >guarantee future success. Needs & desires can change >in less than 24 hours. So, success can end in less >than 24 hours. > >Bonus Insight: >People sometimes refuse to buy what they want because >they think/know others will disapprove. Your marketing >messages should help people internally justify buying >what you offer & help them rationalize to others why >they buy what you offer. > >Dennis S. Vogel >thrivingbusiness@email.com >Marketing strategies and tactics are long-term issues, >but you shouldn't have to wait long for sales. Please >use these URL to get free information. >http://www.lakefield.net/~thrivingbusiness/ >http://www.voy.com/31049/

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.