Controversy and Collusion

Some people are controversial. Whether it’s what they say, what they do, what they believe or what they think.

The thing to understand is by definition, controversial people are…controversial.

Some people might love their views and others might have them. Some might disagree but support their rights and others might think they have no rights at all.

It’s important for everyone to understand that there are ramifications for being controversial.

Dr Martin Luther King, Jr was controversial and was admired by many, hated by many others and it cost him his life.

Abraham Lincoln was controversial and it cost him his life.

Sitting Bull was controversial and it cost him his life.

Some people might then come to the conclusion that there was some form of collusion amongst the people who killed these controversial people but when you realize the difference in decades/centuries and causes you would quickly conclude that this would be a foolish conclusion.

Instead of collusion, this is the type of thing a controversial person has to be aware of.

The typical person doesn’t want controversy. They want normalcy. They want stability. They want the same old same old and if you bring something different (whether good or bad) you have to understand there might be ramifications. In most cases the ramifications are dramatically less severe than death but they are still there.

I was thinking about this when reading an article about the football player Colin Kaepernick who decided to kneel down during the playing of the National Anthem prior to his games. He was taking a stand (I guess technically he was doing the opposite) and had to know there would be consequences. In his particular case he had evolved into a backup quarterback for a low level NFL team and while he had a good deal of success earlier in his career, he chose to take this controversial stand at a time when he wasn’t in demand. Now as a free agent, no team wants to sign him.

The article I was reading was making the claim that the fact that no teams have signed him is evidence of collusion amongst the owners.

If I were an owner and I was looking for a backup quarterback (which is the level he has played at the past couple of years) I would probably pass on him as well, not because of his stance but rather because I wouldn’t want a controversial player on my team who wasn’t going to be a game changer.

As an example, if it was Tom Brady who has won multiple MVP’s and Super Bowls who made the controversial move, I would accept it because he will help me win games so I would be willing to accept the controversy (whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant). If it was Tim Tebow, I wouldn’t be willing to accept the controversy and circus type environment because he isn’t going to win my team games and deep down, that is a big part of what this is all about.

The fact that 32 owners/teams feel this way doesn’t mean it’s collusion it simply means the pain associated with the controversy isn’t offset by the perceived reward.

Have a great day!


Old dogs

We all know the adage that you can’t teach old dogs new tricks. Especially when dealing with technology this seems to be quite true.

The alternative to getting people to change is to find new people. Open up your market, create a new market, merge with a different market etc..

There are so many markets out there, why keep banging your head working on the same old market if it’s failing?

Have a great day!


It’s a secret

The problem with secrets is if you can’t deal with them yourself, no one else can either (because they don’t know about them).

Rather than keeping your great ideas a secret, share them with people you trust and you might be surprised at how many people can help you.

Just a thought.

Have a great day!


Would sales help?

The other day I met with a company that said they needed a lot of help. This is a 50 year old family business that has seen a significant downturn in their financials in recent years.

They said they needed help with their technology, marketing and sales as well as funding.

This is an industry where generating sales would not be difficult at all. Building the technology would not be difficult either.

I asked what I thought was a simple question which was “if we provide the technology to support sales and then help you increase your revenue significantly, would that solve your problems?”

It was surprising to get a response of “we don’t know”. This 50 year old business doesn’t know it’s margins enough or it’s financials well enough to know whether they can be saved by increased profits (at no upfront cost to them).

If increased revenue and profits can’t save a company….is it worth trying to save?

Have a great day!