The Power of Franchises

Recently I had coffee with David Brahm of Action International (a business coaching company) and the topic of franchises came up. It reminded me of the value of this business model.

He pointed out that, within four years, 80% of newly created businesses usually fail. Meanwhile, franchises have almost the exact opposite failure/success rate. I've known this for years, but I'm always impressed when I hear it again. Why do franchises enjoy such a high likelihood of positive results?

* Because franchises are built on years of experience, many of the bugs that take expensive trial and error are eliminated.

* Marketing -- the blood of any business -- is unique to every business. The marketing system in franchises is crucial in their success.

* Franchises have much larger buying power than other small businesses, thus they often buy things at lower prices than their competitors and are often able to resale accordingly.

These are just a few of the reasons why I encourage people who are interested in pursuing their entrepreneurial passions to consider purchasing a franchise. I also want to recommend they visit with Adrienne Leigh of FranNet for an initial consultation. She has been a Business Show Advisor for several months and offers an excellent free booklet on seeing if purchasing a franchise makes sense for an individual.

I don't usually use this space for such blatant advertising for a business associate, but with my conversation with David, this just seemed a great opportunity to match the many out there looking for a franchise with someone who can help guide them through that process.

Blog Entries That Didn't Make It

I was curious to research how many blog entries I have created that didn't get posted. First of all, I was excited to see that I'm approaching 100 after only doing this for a few months. Furthermore, I was also pleased to see how few of my blog entries I deemed unworthy of submitting. However, any that are listed and weren't posted are a source of frustration for me because they seem to reflect wasted effort. So here is a list of some of them and why I didn't post them:

* The Unforgivable Sin in Business. I actually think I rewrote this one with a different name and title, or I concluded I was just too angry to post it. It came after I had dealt with some people who simply fell off the earth (didn't return calls, etc.). This kind of passive aggressive behavior drives me crazy.

* When Failure is a Good Thing. Don't be surprised if you see this get posted. I'm a big advocate on the value of failure. In fact, one of the main reasons I have my kids in competitive sports activities is so they can occasionally lose and hopefully do so enough times to overcome a fear of failure. I didn't post it because I got distracted by more "urgent" items, but this is an important topic.

* Too Many Celebrities. With Rachael Ray coming to national TV and her being depicted as a virtual rock star, I had just about reached my limits. In the old days (I can see my kids yawn), there were far fewer TV shows and other media, and, thus fewer celebrities. Now, with hundreds of channels, thousands of websites, and untold other media there are now thousands of so-called celebrities. I think we, as a culture, have suffered from "celebrity inflation." With the sheer volume of wannabes that often get a massive media platform, the quality of entertainment has certainly declined. I'm not sure why I didn't post this, but I feel better having had got it off of my chest here.

These are just a few of the dozen or so that didn't make it, but I think that all of them had merit at the time. I'm sure I will review more in the days to come.

Parents vs. Referees, Rangel vs. Fair Tax

Recently I received an email from a friend of mine who is involved in a group called FairTax.org. Simply put, this organization wishes to replace income tax with a sales tax because it is more efficient, moral, and would have a profoundly positive impact on the economy. It would eliminate tax on wealth creation, wipe out tax avoidance, and have everyone contributing to the government budget, regardless of their citizenship. Obviously I generally support this organization's objectives. However, I worry about it's future in light of the following post from a Fair Tax message board representing the leadership of the organization:

"Rep. Charles Rangel, the new Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has recently made media appearances where he has stated that under his leadership Congress will develop a tax policy that is "fair."

While not advocating the "Fair Tax," he has said it is important that our federal tax system be fair. As we all know, our reform proposal meets his definition and can appeal to the vast majority of taxpayers who know the income tax system is beyond mere "tinkering."

Here is our chance to powerfully make our views known to the new chairman of the tax writing Ways and Means Committee and to offer an important Democratic House leader the chance to fundamentally reform federal tax policy."

This is a nice sentiment, but here is the fundamental problem. Liberal Democrats have a completely different definition of "fairness" than the rest of the population. It is as different as a parent might sort out fairness compared to a referee in a sporting event.

Mom and dad tries hard to be fair, but invariably the little one will get more slack than the older one, or the parent might remember how one got something the other didn't receive and they will make up for it now. Fundamentally, most parents won't allow one child to have disproportionately more than another child. They would want to make things more "equal", not only in action, but results. Referees, on the other hand, could care less if a score is 110 to nothing, but whether each side was treated in a completely fair fashion in action. They are only looking for equal treatment, not results. Fair tax is looking for equal treatment, Rangel is looking for equal results. The two entities are essentially speaking different languages.

People like Charles Rangel essentially see government as the strong parent and we are the children. Those of us who have been successful, watch out.

I appreciate the efforts of groups like Fair Tax to frame the issue, which is what the post above is trying to do. But a better result would come if groups like Fair Tax committed resources educating potential supporters of the differences between conservatives and liberals when it comes to "fairness" and develop appropriate strategies that reflect such understanding. Other wise this organization and its members will face nothing other than frustration.

Major Retailers Wage Havoc on Traditional Pharmacies

Recently Wal-Mart, Target, and HEB surprised consumers and business critics alike by making hundreds of generic drugs available at $4 to $5 per 30 day order. The only requirement, in most cases, being that the person be uninsured. This is good news for consumers and will likely lead to the attraction of many more customers to these retail giants. The action was motivated for several factors, including as a possible response to the criticism waged by health activist organizations who believe big businesses are failing to do enough. A more likely reason is an amazing marketing ploy that will have little effect on the bottom line of these businesses, but will devestate traditional pharmacies.

After the announcement of the change in policy, one of my sons asked me if CVS or Walgreens would soon be following the example of the big retail giants. I told him no and the affect will likely be devestating, because Walgreens, CVS and other pharmacies actually need their drug business -- every penny of it. Wal-mart and HEB can actually afford their pharmacies to be revenue neutral, because they can make money off of all the other purchases people will make while waiting for their subscriptions. Although the traditional pharmacies offer other items, their price margins and ability to operate in a large volume is so small compared to the major retailers, they simply can't compete in this arena.

The success of this policy by the major retailers will force the traditional pharmacies to increase its focus on the senior population who are largely insured and shop out of habit. However, as Baby Boomers age and continue to get their "cheap" drugs from the large retailers, it is likely they will continue to shop there when they become seniors, because they believed they were served better by them. Eventually, the traditional pharmacies will run out of customers or have to change their business model.

The Quest for Good News

Recently I saw a story on TV, I believe on CBS, discussing about how difficult it is to find "good news" and how that has contributed to the decline of newspapers. It was interesting to watch the reporter go through shelf after shelf of old newspapers in the search of good news stories. Eventually she found a few, but I thought it greatly demonstrated the continued decline of old media. It wasn't that the newspapers only have bad news (certainly largely true), it is that the search of any stories are so inefficient in newspapers.

When I want to find good news, I simply put in "good news" in Google and I am impressed by what I find. One directory made by Google provided virtually all the good news stories a person would need -- or even want (it came on a little thick). There I found heroic stories, happy stories, positive news, and more. It was as simple as putting two words in my Google search engine.

Time is of the essence and the Internet is one of the most powerful tools used to redeem time. The problem of print media in our day and time isn't mere bad news, but inefficiently delivered information. It is just one more example of how the Internet is changing everything.

Sizing Up Black Friday

Black Friday. Without knowing what this phrase means, the possibility for confusion is high. I recently did an unscientific survey, asking the question, "what is Black Friday?" Most seem to know it had to do with shopping and the holiday season, few, however, were familiar with the details. Here are a few responses:

* "It is the day sales clerks lose their sanity," spoken by a an employee at Wal-mart. Very possible, but I think it has a wider meaning than that.

* "It is the day retailers run out of the things you actually want to buy." Probably true too.

* My personal favorite, "it is the day comsumers go into the red in mass." Also probably true, but not quite there.

Black Friday is the day when most retail businesses finally enter the black. Hard to believe they can stay in business from January until late November without making a serious profit, but that's the case for many, if not most, retail businesses. Approximately half of all retail sales are between Thanksgiving and Christmas -- approximately a month. Therefore, the Friday after is very important.

So how did we do in 2006? Actually it takes a few weeks to get the hard numbers in, but if you look at the headlines of newspapers around the country, such as The Mercury News, the Philadelphia Daily News, the Washington Post, and many others, this will be a very profitable season indeed! Of course, in order to pass the muster the economy critics have developed of a successful holiday season, they will have to blow last years high numbers out of the water. That's just the way it is in our cynical world of business today.

So What are You Thankful For?

Every year at this time most of us think about the fact that life will largely be disrupted between now and the first of the new year. On the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, particularly in the evening as it is now as I write this, we think about what we forgot to get in anticipation of this major holiday.

However, in spite of the hustle and bustle of the season, I always like to take a little time to reflect on the many things that make me thankful.

I'm grateful for a healthy and strong family and all the many activities that keep me on my feet.

I'm grateful for a growing business that gives me a great deal of personal and professional satisfaction. It continues to grow in many ways.

I'm incredibly grateful for living in the United States. Although I find myself critical of things that take place in this land of ours, I will take America's problems over other countries any day of the week. I'm in awe of the people who are willing to volunteer to protect our country on the other side of the world and keeping the war "over there" and not in New York, Chicago, Houston, or any other part of this land of ours.

I'm grateful for this blog that gives me a great place to vent.

I'm grateful for readers of this blog, readers of my e-zine, and listeners of the Houston Business Show on CNN 650.

I've got a lot of things to be grateful, how about you? By the way, Happy Thanksgiving.

Democrats Learn it is Easier to Criticize than Govern

Theodore Roosevelt is credited with saying "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

Since the Democrats won back the Congress we have members declaring that we need to reinstate the draft (like Charles Rangel), while others like Murtha has said we need to get out of Dodge. Rangel has said "let's raise taxes!" while others have said, not so fast. The same seems to be case with energy, education, and a list of other policies. The Democrats are finding it easier to criticize than govern. Then again, we shouldn't be surprised. The Democrats never actually offered an alternative to the Republicans, they simply were opposed to the GOP. The Democrats are going to have to realize that they have a very short window in which to figure out how to lead or be displaced.

Libertarians on Sales Tax

I am involved in a group that advocates the elimination of an income tax to be replaced by a sales tax and recently they have gotten frustrated with the lack of support they have received from libertarians, and the Mises Institute in particular. Many libertarians are puritans when it comes to their approach to government and this is definitely the case when it comes to Mises.

I pointed out that terms like "realistic" and "Mises Institute" simply don't belong together. In the 1980s I was with the National Center for Public Policy Research, in the 90s I was the Executive Director of the Free Enterprise Institute, a Senior Fellow with the American Economic Foundation, and listed in the Heritage Foundation's Guide to Public Policy Experts. I dealt with the Mises Institute on several issues and found it very difficult to get any of them to be interested in any pragmatic approaches to solving our problems. I knew they were libertarians, but these people are real libertarians.

I believe they see their purpose is to set a philosophical benchmark of the right way of approaching government and a free society. They would argue that the bigger problem is spending and would be right. But we would also be right in saying that no one is going to want to eliminate income taxes without something to replace it. The policy will be changed in the real world and that world requires trade offs. Many strong libertarians have gotten very enthusiastic about sales taxes because it taxes consumption rather than investment and it gets government out of the social engineering business when it comes to taxes. Hopefully our friends at Mises will agree to wage this battle in a way where we can win. A sales tax instead of a tax on prosperity would be a huge victory on the side of liberty.

I'm glad there are people who think like those at Mises. I just wish they would be more willing to do what is necessary to move many of their sound principles into the public arena.

So Will MySpace Be a Good Deal in the Long Run?

I have a unique advantage in market research that the great -- and I mean that sincerely -- Rupert Murdoch doesn't have: 5 kids and 3 step children (but most of them are all grown). My kids range in age from 8 to 20 and they continuously keep me abreast of what is going on in youth culture and the very fickled youth market. There has been much discussion in my home about the $500 million plus that Fox paid for MySpace.com. Just recently it has been described as "under priced" in light of the huge amount of traffic it has received and the thousands of new subscribers it receives every day. In fact, some are saying it was probably worth $2 Billion. Hmm, I have my doubts.

In my house my smaller kids, who are not nearly as economically powerful as my teens, are now wandering on to MySpace. I'm watching them closely as they add their content and I'm looking at the dismay on the faces of my teens who are saying that this might be the kiss of death. When you are a kid, everyone wants to do what the big brother or sister does, no one wants to do what the little sibling does. MySpace is beginning to suffer from that very problem.

Second, there is nothing that changes quicker than the tastes of our teens. Even without bothersome siblings, teens tastes are always going to change. Murdoch buying MySpace for all those kids, may have been the equivalent of buying a pet rock for your kid in the 1970s -- it was so hot at the time.

How will MySpace remain relevant? By developing MySpaces for different age groups. They need one for younger kids and they should have high school and college students qualify for their participation. It needs to raise user feedback to new levels and increase the ability of users to tell MySpace what it wants. Finally, in that classic Rupert Murdch fashion, MySpace needs to move swiftly. In the hands of anyone else, I would worry about the future of MySpace. My gut tells me that Murdoch will figure out how to keep it a huge success.

The Secret to a Successful Blog: First in a Series

This is it! The secret to a successful blog. The tool you have been looking for to drive huge numbers of people to your site in order to read your opinions. This is a compendium of my extensive research and vast experience of several years (okay, actually a few months) of writing a blog. I did this research for the very simple reason that I want a successful blog. So what is the secret? I don't know, I was hoping you would tell me. Seriously though, here are a few important suggestions based on my experience. These observations are based on reviewing blogs deemed by others who are more informed than me as extremely popular. Sites that are receiving massive volumes of hits or have huge number links connected to it.

• Successful sites are really busy. It appears that blogs are made for really ADHD personalities. I say this as one who suffers a little from such myself, but appears not enough for some of the most popular blogs, such as engadget.
• Successful sites have many pictures. Business Plus had virtually none until recently, but every popular blog I have seen had pictures. This is why I finally gave in and forced myself to find a picture like the one in this entry. Life is tough at times (you will see why I chose this below).
• Successful blogs ride on the popularity of other sites. Such sites decry other sites such as PayPal or ride on the popularity of other sites such as this on Wikipedia.
• Successful blogs often focus on beautiful people, such as this on Maria Sharapova (see above). Do you blame them?
• Successful blogs entries are usually quite short. My articles tend to be too long still, I'm afraid. It is that dang liberal arts education and career as a writer. I'm too used to being paid by the word. However, I'm working on it.
• Successful blogs are updated regularly. This goes hand and hand with my last point I'm afraid. If you write often, you will likely keep it brief.
• Finally, successful blogs claim to do great things, like tell you the "secret of successful blogs" and outrageous claims like that. I don't think I will ever have the stomach to go that far.

Fox Business News Channel?

Jon Fine, in a recent article in Business Week, asks the question as to whether Fox News is serious about pursuing a Business News channel in light of the problems that CNBC has had. He concluded that, in spite of how choppy the environment, Fox's philosophy and its multi-media approach, would make it a likely success.

I agree with him on all points. The future of business news -- in fact all news -- is on the Internet. Increasingly, TV, radio, and newspapers will become supports to the Web, in my opinion. Furthermore, the case is even more obvious when it comes to reaching the business interested demographic, a group I call the accumulators. These people worship at the alter of time -- they want what they want, when they want it -- and that is why the web is so important. Fox's growing Web presence is accommodating that need.

Furthermore, I believe that most business owners have a Fox News view of the world and Rupert Murdoch will not only attract many of the CNBC audience, he will also bring on many more who have been disinterested in the current business news options.

One thing I have come to believe is that it isn't smart to hedge your bets against Murdoch. I think Fox Business News, or whatever they call it, will do very well.

Milton Friedman (1912-2006)

One of my favorite economists, Milton Friedman, passed away today. He was 94.

I became exposed to Milton Friedman while a freshman in college, which was a time I was quickly developing my worldview. My parents were apathetic Liberals and with a President at that time like Jimmy Carter, I understood why. But seriously, my father was a Great Depression baby and told me stories about going to school barefoot and not being allowed to wear his shoes until he got there in order to prevent them from wearing out. He found in Franklin Roosevelt, optimism and hope for the future. Furthermore, he spent critical years of his life under that Presidency. Think about it. He was 12 when Roosevelt was elected and 24 when the President died. This is a pretty large part of a person's life. My mom was from England, right off the boat in fact. She was raised in Lancashire, which was a strong Labor stronghold. My mom was a socialist, but fortunately for me, not a very passionate one. Neither of my parents were very active, my mom never even became an US citizen. I don't recall my father voting until 1980 (although I'm sure he had before) and that only seemed to be because I informed him I was voting for Ronald Reagan (still the proudest vote of my life).

Becoming a Christian at 16 impacted my views and led me to study different approaches to government. By the time I was 18 I had gotten my hands on Friedman's classic, Capitalism and Freedom. This was republished in a much more mass market friendly book entitled, Free to Choose.

Friedman was a strong advocate of the Monetarism school, which argues that the money supply is the primary means in which economic activity is regulated. It was an answer to the Keynesian approach that used the pumping of money into the economy as a primary way of stimulating the economy, which led to the rampant inflation and unemployment, common in the 1970s.

Although his monetary theories were important, I was more impressed with his approach to freedom in general. He advocated innovative ideas towards retirement (privatizing Social Security), unemployment (negative income tax), and education (the promotion of private options) that took decades before they were tried and many have actually enjoyed success. He was largely responsible for the "Miracle of Chile" where several of his students implemented his economic reforms with cooperation of the government, making that country the biggest economic success in South America.

Friedman accurately argued that government was rarely the solution to our problems and was often the cause of them. I believe he was right and he articulated those views with great dignity and influence. He will be missed and the world is a better place because of him.

Senate Republicans Move Right

In spite of the on slaught of media stories telling us that the "middle" is the only safe place to be seen, as reflected on the cover of a recent Time Magazine, Republicans overwhelmingly choose Senators Mitch McConnell (KY) and Trent Lott (MS) to lead their party as Minority Leader and Whip respectively. Mitch, one of the most Conservative members of the Senate, won by 100 percent of his colleagues votes. Trent only won by one vote due to a challenge by much more moderate Lamar Alexander (TN). Trent, too, is one of the Senate's most Conservative members.

I believe many Senate Republicans, who have long been more moderate than their House colleagues, believe that their party's defeat this month was due to abandoning Conservative principles and have reiterated such a conviction in their choices of leadership. Also strong is their choice of Southeners (even in the defeated challenger) as leaders, which likely reflects the geographic future of the Republican party for the Presidency as well, in my opinion.

Motown Singing the Blues

The home of soul is singing the blues and they are doing it at the White House. The execs of the so-called big three of automobiles -- GM, DaimlerChrysler, and Ford -- came to the President of the United States looking for help. This after a year of pursuing the President without response. The President finally allowed the big three to make a visit a week after the Democrats took over the Congress.

Like the sudden resignation of Donald Rumsfeld the day after the election, many view this move as another step by the President to show an interest in the Democrats' priorities. Ironically, those who believe that Republicans only represent the interests of big business should know that the automobile industry in the US (and not just the labor unions) generally support Democrats. The auto markers are salivating at the opportunity of having John Dingell Chair the important House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Executives from the auto makers are arguing that foreign competition enjoys unfair advantages over "health care, trade and currency manipulation." Although they claim to be arguing that they don't need a bail out, they are seeking help in these specific areas.

On health care, many are asking for the government to actually provide a single pay system (in other words, socialized medicine) in order to make up for the high costs. Others are looking for huge tax credits to at least create more fairness. Either way, there will be a cost to taxpayers, although one (the latter) is clearly better than the other in terms of quality of care and costs.

On trade, they want foreign countries to stop using quotas or tariffs against US cars. Many are saying we should retaliate. The last time (back in the 1970s) we made it difficult for imports it led to a massive decline in our auto industry's quality. Further, consumers had to pay more for foreign cars. Again, punishing the rest of the country in higher costs and poorer quality.

Finally, currency manipulation. In other words, they are making their currency cheaper and it more affordable to buy there goods. Frankly, ever sense the Gold Standard came to an end in 1972, every country, including the US has manipulated its currency. Some times the government prints more money in order to pay government debts (it is politically easier than raising taxes, although it becomes a form of sales tax in higher prices), some times it loosens credit in order to encourage home buying. In any case it is manipulation and we are hypocrites to criticize other countries.

The Democrats and the industry's solution to the auto crisis constitutes a bailout, regardless of the euphemisms they use. Socialized medicine, limiting the number of imports, or charging a fee for those automobiles that come in will equal the taking of the money from taxpayers (or consumers) to benefit the big auto companies. And if they take measures that "protect" the auto industry, US companies will become less competitive in the long run.

There needs to be reforms to help the auto industry, in fact to help all industry, but those are in the area of regulation and taxation, not in subsidy. Hopefully we will avoid such dangerous and short sighted policies.

Meet the Accumulators and How to Reach Them

The economy and market place are changing rapidly. The growth of the Internet are making consumers more demanding than ever. As a result, marketers have begun to identify a class of people that is quickly being defined as the "Accumulator Class." This group is one of two major trends in marketing that this article will focus on and it has has the following unique characteristics:

• Typically, they are in their mid 30s to early 50s.
• They are one of the top income generating groups. They are affluent or are optimistic in their ability to be affluent and want to leverage their time towards that objective.
• They are at the point in their careers where earning income for their families and future are among their greatest goals.
• They have come to realize that the leveraging of their time is the most important thing they can do to increase their wealth. Therefore, unlike earlier generations that would be inclined to do it themselves, this group realizes it makes more sense to pay someone else to do it (whatever "it" is). They tend to center their lives around convenience and are very demanding.
• This group takes control over as much of their time as possible. No longer do they read stale weeklies with yesterday's news or agree to meet Brian Williams or even Katie Couric at a specific time for information. Many go to the web and tie a few video or audio programs into their own, customized, news broadcast (or podcast). In fact, the average viewer of nightly news is 60 years old. This group is still comfortable with being where its told to be to get the information they want, but they are of little interest to most marketers.
• If you are interested in reaching this group of Accumulators, you are going to have to design your marketing towards meeting the specific demands of these drivers.
  

A second major trend after recognizing the accumulators is the rise of educational marketing. In many respects, this is the corollary to the first point. People have grown impatient with advertising and will usually only trade their time for information. Currently, radio stations are trying to persuade listeners to stay with so-called free radio rather than paying for it. Currently, approximately 10 million Americans, most in the demanding Accumulator Class, have made the shift to XM or Sirius. They are willing to pay not to hear advertising. So how are advertisers reaching a reluctant audience? The following are a few examples:

• They are sponsoring shows and putting their name on it, like the old days.
• They are requiring the audience to look at advertising before they can get their information. Apparently, busy consumers are willing to make a trade off, since recent data has shown that the fastest growing way for getting news is through on-demand resources.
• Increasingly, businesses are buying air time in order to convey information, rather than merely doing an infomercial. Many of the radio and TV shows you now see are far more sophisticated than their infomercial ancestors. They know that people will not watch a 30 minute commercial any more than a 30 second one.
• These same sources take a multi-informational approach. They provide free newsletters, have programs on TV and/or radio, and virtually always have a website.
• Virtually every business is developing innovative ways to use educational marketing and find it essential to their future success.

In sum, highly sophisticated consumers are forcing advertisers to give them what they want, the way they want it, and when they want it. These individuals drive the new marketing environment. The only businesses that will thrive are those who develop a marketing plan that acknowledges such.

Truth or Delusion? A Book by Ivan Misner

After weeks of focusing almost entirely on politics, I thought it would be refreshing to cover something purely business related and there are few things more important in business than networking. Dr. Ivan Misner, President and Founder of Business Network International has co-written an excellent book entitled Truth or Delusion. It is not a difficult read, in fact it can be finished in a few short sittings, but it is full of helpful insights in understanding successful business networking.

In a very easy to read style, the authors examine several common beliefs about business networking and challenges the reader as to whether they are true or not. Here are a few excellent examples:

• It is best to limit the number of networking groups you join. This is very true, if you are a member to too many, you won't be in a position to help others in any of them because of being over extended. Being able to give is as important as receiving when it comes to networking.
• To be successful at networking you have to be a real "people person." Delusion. Networking isn't merely back slapping and hand shaking, it is a commitment to listening to the needs of others, providing viable contacts you know, and being open to receiving leads. These attributes are important to people regardless of their personality traits.
• There is an unlimited supply of referrals. This is true. This is why we should be willing to share leads when we get them, because there is plenty more where they came from. This is also why you don't need to over extend yourself with too many organizations. One group of 20 members can provide all the leads you need as long as you reciprocate.
• You should apply the Golden Rule -- do unto others as you would have others do unto you -- in your networking. This is probably the most common of all errors. This is a great Biblical principle, but not necessarily a great business one. Instead, we should apply the platinum Rule, do unto others as they would have you do unto them. In other words, treat others the way they want to be treated. This takes a little more work than the Golden Rule, but is well worth the effort.

These are just a few of the many principles addressed in this short, but powerful book. I recommend it to networkers of all levels and backgrounds. It is must reading for anyone interested in relationships meant to build business.

Dr. Misner is going to be a guest on my radio show (the Houston Business Show, this Monday, 11/13 at 1 PM on CNN 650). I encourage you to tune in. Also, this show will be available online by the middle of next week (around November 15th). Meanwhile, order the book, it will be a great investment for you and those who work with you.

A Few Interesting Headlines

The news was full of interesting news stories today and I wanted to reflect on a couple of them.

Robert Rubin Calls for Tax Increases

It didn't take the Democrats long to announce their intent to pursue a tax increase and one of their more credible spoke persons, former Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin, is leading the charge. He indicated that he believed a tax increase wouldn't do any harm and would reverse harmful "revenue shortfalls." The problem is there are no shortfalls and revenues are at record highs because of tax cuts. So, the question I ask, is why raise taxes if not to raise money? The Democrats believe in "equality" and they believe that the redistribution of wealth is important for "fairness," no matter how counterproductive. Rubin and the Democrats shouldn't propose a tax increase because they wouldn't hurt, but because they would actually help. But they cannot make such an argument with any intellectual honesty.

al Qaeda Praises Democrat Win and Says they Will Destroy the White House

It also didn't take long for the terrorists to announce what many Republicans were quiet saying all along about the terrorists view of the elections.

• al Qaeda has declared, in recent chatter, that they are pleased that the Democrats have won the election (when Bush alluded to such, it was described as "irresponsible").
• They declared their intentions to destroy the White House -- literally.
• They have said that the US will soon surrender because the Democrats are naive and don't understand al Qaeda objectives.

The good news for us who support a war on terror is that this kind of insult on the Democratic party will likely force them to stay in the game longer and move them to come up with more realistic solutions. To cut and run now could eliminate their chances in '08 if it is interpreted as a Democratic failure.

Interesting news stories indeed.

Stalemate Optimism?

My daughter and I were watching the news this morning when it was announced that Sen. George Allen (R-VA) appeared to be conceeding the race to challenger Jim Webb, she said to me, "does that mean the Democrats won both the House and the Senate?" I answered yes and she said, "thank God for checks and balances." When it comes to politics, I have my kids fairly well trained.

It appears the Stock Market is taking a very similar view to my daughter, closing at a record high yesterday. This didn't happen because they were necessarily happy about the Congress going back to the Democrats, but simply remember how little government did during the Clinton years because of Republican majorities in the Congress. They see those as the "good old days."

It is true, and I discussed in yesterday's blog, that we can expect very little to be accomplished between now and '08 and I consider this to actually be a good thing in many respects (allowing the market to manage itself). But there are a few areas -- like the mentioned built in tax increases in yesterday's article -- that will make things rocky over the next few years, in my opinion.

I have to mention, as an aside, that I was part of a Yahoo Group supporting George Allen as a possible candidate for President in 2008. He was on the short list of serious Republican candidates because he was a former Governor (very important in modern Presidential politics), Conservative, from the South (also very important), and extremely popular. Well it appears the last point is now suspect. That demonstrates how big of a fall from grace the Republicans appeared to have had. I guess he might start to remind people that Jimmy Carter was defeated as Governor before he ran for President, but, then again, who wants to compare themselves to Jimmy Carter?

It appears the President could have served himself better by accepting Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld resignation before November 7th (every president requires such from each Cabinet member and senior staff when they begin their service). I'm sure it would have helped improve election results. But we have no time to dwell on yesterday, it is now time to focus on tomorrow.

On the domestic front, I join Wall Street in hoping that the next two years results in a whole lot of nothing. That is our best bet for economic opportunity and growth.

The Morning After

Well, with the elections over I wanted to take a moment to discuss the new Congress and what we can all expect. However, I want to mention that I predicted a narrow hold for Republicans in both Houses and I was clearly wrong (with the Democrats winning the House and the jury out at this time on the Senate). For those, however, who are wanting to speak in "historic terms," this election was anything, but. The number of seats lost in this 6th year of an incumbent are actually lower than historic averages. The only thing that is historic is that a President's party did so poorly in a year when the economy was performing so well. I hate to say it, but this has largely become a referendum on Iraq.

The Democrats, to this point, have had no plan when it comes to Iraq. So I have no idea how things will be done differently. Some, like Charles Rangel of New York has called for a draft, others like John Murtha of Pennsylvania has said it is time to cut and run. There is no Democratic strategy and it is easy to criticize anyone else's plans when you have none of your own. I predict a lot of talk on this subject to continue by Democrats, but I don't expect a cohesive strategy.

There has, it appears, to be immediate results on the part of the President to the election. CNBC is reporting, even as I write this blog entry, that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is resigning and he will be Replaced by Robert Gates (former CIA Director). If the President wanted Rumsfield to stay, there would be no resignation. That's my opinion at least.

So what can we expect over the next two years?

• Taxes will go up. Some items require both an act of Congress and the signing into law by the President. Since the tax cuts require an act of Congress each year to continue and the Democratic leadership has pledged their opposition to them, Congress simply has to fail to act for the tax cuts in order for them to go away. When we don't have tax cuts, we have tax increases for all practical purposes.
• There will be an immigration bill passed. There will largely be a stalemate in virtually every area of government with this new, divided, situation. However, the President's controversial bill to make a visiting workers program will likely easily fly through this House and has already received a positive nod from the Senate.
• Minimum wage will go up. Bush will likely sign this for appearances sake alone. It will do nothing to help employment, however.
• The world will become less safe. We have sent mixed messages to our enemies and I believe the Democrats will do all they can to hamper our ability to project a strong image to the rest of the world through investigations, attempted budget cuts, and other actions.
• The Democrats will likely actually suffer under their own rule. I know that sounds strange, but the Democrats are not likely to be able to hold up well under the pressure of saying they can do better than Republicans. The 12,000 mark Republicans achieved on the Stock exchange (the numbers are dropping even as I write), the record low 4.4 percent unemployment, and the continued expansion of the economy will not likely hold up, in my opinion, if the Democrats have their way. If we do not have comparable numbers in '08, Democrats are going to find themselves in a very difficult situation because the only thing that will be different -- between then and now -- will be their control of the House.

The up-side of this election is the likely stalemate factor. I always feel a little better about my wallet when it is unlikely government isn't going to get things accomplished.

So Who Did You Vote For?

I can't believe it, but I didn't vote this year until election day. I hate the lines and the waiting, but there I stood. On the way in I heard a man tell his wife that he voted for Kinky and a laundry list of other, more traditional, candidates. When I got in to the voting area and got my little receipt to vote, I had two lines to choose from. I went to the right and, sure enough a bystander whom I did not know commented, "never to the left, always to the right."

The turn out was surprisingly substantial and, rumor has it, that's good for Republicans. I'm not so sure, we will have to wait to see the returns. Whatever the results, I'm glad this election cycle is coming to a close, I have found it exhausting. I'm looking forward to writing again about pure business issues and to no longer being deluged with negative ads (which have found to be more effective than positive ads). So who did you vote for? If you are like me you made the best choices you could with what you had to consider. Who did you vote for is now history, it will be interesting to see how these people govern and to ponder who you will be voting for President in 08. I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Campaign Spending Reaches Record Highs

Fox News reports that campaign spending for this off-year election will reach levels that are roughly twice as high as it did four years ago. We are expecting spending at $3.1 billion and I'm sure the news networks are crying all the way to the bank. But they are not the only ones, the Internet has enjoyed an eight-fold increase in campaign spending in the same time frame. I find most of these commercials little more than irritating and largely full of half truths. When I was a kid, Halloween was a little scarey, but the political rhetoric we hear 24/7 during that time and a week or so later is a real nightmare.

I will certainly be glad when this election is over, it is one of the most negative and irresponsible ones I have seen in years. Furthermore, the expectations on the economy that the Democrats have made for the voters will likely haunt them for years. I always try to be as positive as possible about our future and there are plenty of things to be optimistic about, but I have great concerns about the future of electoral politics.

Some Surprises Need to be Exposed Before October

The recent exposing of the young evangelist in Colorado who is being accused of having a drug fueled homosexual affair, should have been brought to light long before this past week. Why? Because the people of that church and his family deserved to know long before now (although the exposure probably could have been done in a better way). Instead it became a part of an October surprise designed to destroy the efforts to prohibit gay marriages.

How about former Congressman Mark Foley, whom some people believed may have had inappropriate relationships with under age Congressional pages for years? Do they let a man accused of such activity continue to interact with these kids in order to wait for the best timing to destroy him and his party politically? If the accusations prove true, what of the young people destroyed during the delay?

Finally there is the story of the government website that inadvertently published the plans on how to build a nuclear bomb. These have been online for several weeks, it appears, and it is finally revealed they existed just days before an election. So what if terrorists get information on building a nuke? We have to destroy our political opponents and can't reveal this story too early.
In each of the above cases Republicans and Republican causes come across looking very bad. I also want it to be made clear that where punishment is necessary it should be doled out. However, I personally believe the people who withhold such information until it was politically expedient are just as bad or worse.

On the Campaign Trail, Republicans: Too Little, Too Late?

With election 2006 now coming down to hours and not days, I wanted to make a few observations about how the Republican Party did at campaigning and getting its message out.

First of all, it was a little late in telling voters that a vote for a Democratic House was a vote for a tax increase. Remember, the Bush tax cuts are not permanent and require a vote from the House to continue. Leadership in the Democratic party has made it clear that the tax cuts are the first thing they want to see go. An end to a tax cut equals a tax increase.

Second, they failed to really accentuate how important the tax cuts were. Yesterday it was announced that 95.6 percent of the population is employed (CNN). According to economists, when considering seasonal and other employment factors, this is zero unemployment. Interesting, Ireland, which also under went major tax cuts a few years back, has unemployment at 4.4, which is less than half of the unemployment in the European Community. Tax cuts, particularly geared towards those who earn the most, such as business, always stimulate economic growth and employment. They also increase revenues (similar to how Walmart earns more than other companies that charge more, because of increased economic activity), which are at record highs.

Third, the Republicans failed to challenge voters to ask the Democrats how they would do better than Republicans. Democrats are setting voters up for very high expectations by their constant criticism of a growing economy. Bush should be asking voters are we better off than four years ago economically. The answer is clearly yes, it would be virtually impossible for the Democrats to give us a better situation.

Fourth, the President needed to ask Americans -- over and over again -- where they want a theater for a war on terror to take place. On Sept. 11, 2001 it was in New York City. Today it is in the Middle East being conducted by professional soldiers who are volunteers. No one can say "we don't want a war." We are stuck with it, it is up to us now to finish it.

Fifth, the majority of Democrats in Congress (including John Kerry and Hillary Clinton) voted so support military action in Iraq. Like children with their hands in the cookie jar, they are trying to pass blame on someone else. If voters ask their elected officials how they voted, they will be surprised how these politicians transcend party lines. Today, the only ones with plans are the Republicans (even if inadequate), the Democrats have relegated themselves to criticism and this situation demands more than that. Most voters would appreciate that reminder.

There are several other major themes that, I believe, were neglected. I want to remind the reader that incumbent presidents on the sixth year in office lose 30 members of their party in House and six in the Senate, on average. Most of the pundits are expecting a performance of about half these numbers, at best. If the President had hit these above themes earlier, I believe he could have possibly seen a Republican mandate.

Oh, Oh, Oh! Christmas Commercialism Right Around the Corner

Before Halloween had come and gone, I saw my first Christmas commercial. I think it was for a car, I don't remember, but it may be the earliest commercial I have seen for this important holiday.

I believe I have a pretty realistic view of the past and I am fairly reasonable about not looking at my childhoodthrough romantic eyes, but I believe that commercials for Christmas didn't usually begin until a week before Thanksgiving. That has been creeping to an earlier date year after year to where, eventually, it will probably begin after Independence Day, bringing new meaning to Christmas in July.

I understand that Christmas is important. More consumer goods are bought between Thanksgiving and Christmas than any other time of the year. The more that is spent, the more fuel for the economic fire. However, I just want to encourage everyone to not forget the reason for this important holiday season.

John Kerry Apologizes, Sort Of

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) finally did exactly what he said he would not do. He apologized, sort of. Here are his exact remarks in their entirety:

"As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted (emphasis added) to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don’t want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops."
I say he apologized, "sort of" because he puts the burden of the actual error on those of us who heard what he said, rather than on the inappropriateness of his comments. To give him the benefit of the doubt, let's look at his actual comments that started the controversy a few days ago: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” You be the judge, did we misunderstand or did he say something he should regret?

His apology is better than nothing, but probably not much better.

Hey, Katie Couric, I Hate to Say I told You So

Hey Katie, I actually miss you on NBC's Today and wish we had you back. I'm also sorry to be right about my prediction shortly after you took the helm of CBS Nightly News that it wouldn't work out for you. But right I was, it appears. And although you may not be leaving your anchor spot any time soon, it appears you won't be raising your ratings much either.

The reasons why I said it wouldn't work back on Sept. 5 of 2006:

1) It isn't a real news program, but a mini version of a news magazine.

2) She isn't the right approach to reach the typical nightly news viewer who is 60 years old. She is too young and possibly too female, for the hard news crowd who tends to watch that type of programming (I believe viewers of such programs prefer an older son or the wise next door neighbor over a younger female).

3) Finally, that demographic (60 year olds) isn't even the group advertisers are trying to reach. Rather they are looking for the affluent and time crunched "Accumulators", who get the news when they want and it isn't at 6:30 Eastern.

She went from number 1 her first week as anchor when people tuned in out of curiosity and she is already down to number 3. CBS's $15 million lady may already be in trouble. But I think that was the case before she even did her first broadcast.

And the Troops Have A Better Sense of Humor Than Kerry Too

Following Kerry's ridiculous remarks about service people in Iraq being there because of their failure to be good students and thus lacking other options to exercise (see story below); he went on a campaign to defend his remarks, saying it was a poorly delivered joke about the President of the United States. Well, in addition to the fact that our troops are quite smart, which we know from both surveys and personal stories, it appears from this photo that they have a better sense of humor than him. Our suggestion to Kerry would be to stay away from comedy and stick to his day job at the US Senate. Than again, we all know his record there. Maybe we would all be better off if he lived off his wife's fortunes and left the governing to others.