Thanks for sharing.

laudable idea.

“A wandering generality instead of a meaningful specific”

Do one thing well. Don’t spread yourself too thin. This idea has its place, but is only valuable if your primary aim is to reach a broader market. It is predicated on the idea that to affect many people in a small way is somehow better than affecting a few people in a big way. For some businesses, this can be the best approach. But not all. A lot of people in business are miserable because they’ve set themselves this target of becoming “known” to many, when perhaps their business is better serving the needs of a few. Their “tribe” might be 10 people, or 100 people. Think about the parish minister who dreams of superchurch status. Advocating this approach does not allow for the humble family man whose most important role is to bring up his children.

The “purple cow” is just a clever way of saying the PR angle. This guy’s ‘purple cow’ is “1000 people can get you elected President” That’s the key idea that makes his points interesting: he lays on the line the idea that the momentum for mass-market success can be quantified in niche-market terminology. It’s an interesting theory, and certainly appealing given the concrete nature of the figure.

I appreciate this point: if you can get 1000 people interested enough, it’s an indication that you have something that will interest people across social, geographical and cultural boundaries. And if you can’t get 1000 people, the chances are that the core product isn’t that exciting. But the key is not getting that 1000 people, it’s in getting the core product. Tips on that?

The rest of what he says boils down to traditional intelligent marketing and public relations approaches executed correctly. Forgive me if I seem critical of the interview, but I think any charismatic, fast-talking, positive, energetic and intelligent person can make sliced bread seem like the best thing since sliced bread. And charisma and big-talking ain’t everything. It’s the legacy of your contribution.

The idea of “I reply to every email” is a clever misdirection. It sells people the idea that they can claim ownership of you and thus revel in the elevated status of having had interaction with you. Does anyone else cherish the email conversations they’ve had with significant “celebrities”? I know I do.

And you make a claim like that on a popular video, then you start getting 600 emails a day. you reply with a very pleasant and tailored auto-response that explains why you haven’t been able to respond properly (or get a friend to do it) and hey presto, you’ve got a new convert who has bought into the cult of your celebrity for every 2 or 3 with whom the autoresponder didn’t wash.

I have not read the guy’s book, so I’m basing these balancing thoughts purely on this video. I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m bashing him unfairly, but,as the interviewer’s responses show, people love a “guru”, and the internet is full of people who are full of themselves…