I really don’t like to hate.  But there is one thing in particular that I just hate that I love.  It is: Diet Coke. 

I admit, I love Diet Coke. I love the brand.  I love sipping it in the afternoon (especially around the 3 o’clock hour); often I even love it with breakfast.  I love the Olympics for which they are a sponsor.  I love the sound of the can opening.  I love the feel of the plastic 20 ounce bottles. I love the red color in the logo.  I love it over ice.  I could go on and on… 

On the other hand, what I hate about Diet Coke is knowing that the ingredients aren’t particularly healthful, though the industry claims they aren’t particularly dangerous either.  I hate the claims that Diet Coke can potentially even cause weight gain; that its ingredients affect calcium absorption;  and that the articfical sweeteners can have adverse affects in our bodies, though the American Diabetes Association and American Heart Association don’t seem to have any problems with the product.  I hate that it is addictive.  I hate that it’s an expensive vending machine habit.  I hate that I still love it anyway. 

At the same time, I have been successful in some self-imposed spans of abstinence, from which I have often relapsed, too.  Currently I’m off it again, trying to stay away from sources of caffeine to sleep better. 

But then again, considering the movie, “Thank You for Smoking”, I can’t say that I would fight to have the product banned either.  That movie nicely supports the message that we all have a choice.  That we can’t blame an industry for making profits by offering a product that we can perfectly well choose not to consume. 

I could probably write a whole book about the pros and cons of Diet Coke.  (If you’d be interested in reading it, just let me know since I’d love to write it.)  But for now, I’ll close with the following thought which was sparked by these two articles I just came across: 

• “Plain Old Soda Gets a New Pop in a Down Economy” – Time
• “Coca-Cola CFO: Industry must fight soda taxes”  – The Boston Globe

Consider this fact:  Carbonated beverage sales in the latest 12 months ending May 2010 totalled $18.7 billion.  That’s almost as much as BP is putting into its uncapped oil cleanup escrow fund. 

That’s a lot of money that we as consumers (collectively) spend in a year for a little bit of enjoyment.

So….what do you hate that you love?

There were some recent news reports that the board game, Scrabble, was changing the rules of the game to now allow Proper Nouns.  

But, before anyone, who hasn’t yet heard the whole story, gets overly excited about nothing, be comforted to know that any kind of sacrilegious move like that would not apply to the Classic version, but would only apply to an upcoming Family Friendly version of the game.

While Scrabble really is “just a game”, our first knee-jerk reaction to the initial news reports does tell us something about ourselves. 

Probably the more outraged people are either really serious players or simply very rules-based people, as opposed to the more casual player who is happy to play to any set of agreed-upon rules.  Which are you?

Maybe you are the type that takes comfort in traditions?

Or, maybe you are someone who has worked hard to master the strategy of the game by memorizing the right words to take advantage of those double and triple letter/word scores?

Personally, I enjoy finding long words which surprisingly amount to very few points compared to those strategically placed short high-point combinations.  For some reason, I don’t seem to want to change my ways in order to get more points?  What does that say about me?

Or, maybe you are the rule-breaker who would be the first one to get your friends to agree to not play by the official rules anyway?

Could we even go so far as to suggest that if you experienced a strong adverse reaction to the initial news reports, that perhaps this reaction may have to do with more than just the Scrabble game, but might reflect how you feel about the need to follow rules in other areas of your life?  …and vice versa?

I don’t know.  What do you think? Is it okay to mess with the Classics?

I’m sure you’ve probably heard the saying:  “Less is More“.  I would agree that, at times, saying too much, doing too much, giving too many details can take away more than it adds. 

Sometimes leaving space for someone else to fill in the blanks can be truly magical.  And, often, summarizing ”key take-aways” gets your point across much more effectively than losing someone’s attention half-way through.

The tricky part is knowing when to leave “well enough” alone.  There is often that desire to add or give just a little bit more.  It isn’t always clear when too much is simply too much, or when not enough is not enough. 

Lately I’ve been starting to see how the Goldilocks principle of ”just right” can be nicely applied to embarking on new endeavors.  Consider these examples:

1. While it’s great to have both quality and quantity, sometimes having just the right amount of ”quality quantity” can create the more unique experience.  For example:  Having over 100 people leave comments on an article would be great, but who would really read them all?  isn’t reading through a list of less than 20 comments much more do-able and satisfying?
2. Sometimes paraphrasing thoughts gives just enough info to point someone in the direction of where you’d like them to explore further.  I like how Josh Hanagarne achieves that is this post he wrote on Victor Frankl.
3. Sometimes quick and simple is all that people need or have time for.  For example: A “How To” guide on how to do something quickly probably shouldn’t be lengthy and detailed.
4. Then again, small or “less” is relative.  Someone else’s “sporadic” behavior might be another person’s regular or peak level.
5. Either way, I’m sure we can agree that doing something, no matter how big or how small,  is better than doing nothing.  For example:  Isn’t any reply (or acknowledgement) to a comment or request better than ”the sound of crickets chirping“?
6. Starting small is often the best and only first step.  For example, earning that first dollar in any business pursuit is a great initial goal, as explained in this: Tony Robbins/John Reese interview.

 

In the end, it does depend on what you are looking for.  For me, I’ve been finding that sometimes when I look too much for only big things, I can under-appreciate or overlook those smaller things that can be exactly enough, too.

Can you think of other examples where “Less is More”? or, perhaps the opposite, when “More is Better”?  If so, please share below.  Thanks!

Recently another couple of people I know unexpectedly lost their jobs and joined the ranks of the temporarily unemployed, not by choice, nor due to poor performance, but quite simply due to their company’s decision to re-organize its structure and strategy.

True, it really isn’t anything new that companies reorganize or merge or go out of business.  It really does happen all the time. Unfortunately, we just happen to be in a time when a lot of this is happening to a lot of people at the same time, thus making it that much more noticeable to everyone.

Losing a job (that you may or may not have loved) no longer seems to be something that only happens to other people.  The possibility of this happening to any one of us, or to someone we know, just seems to be that much more of a real possibility than ever before.

This makes me think of a favorite Mary Engelbreit artwork quote of mine:  
“Life is 10% what happens to you and
90% what you do with what happens to you.”

Yet, even to those not directly experiencing a job loss, seeing others go through this has an effect.  You may feel like you want to do something to help, but you may not know what to offer, or you may be too worried about your own situation to even really be much help to anyone else anyway.

Either way, I’ve found it invaluable to look at our current economic and political environment as a time to re-evaluate — a mid-life crisis of sorts, regardless of whether it is truly mid-life for me or not.

Another favorite Mary Engelbreit artwork quote to consider is:
“I don’t really care if my glass is ½ full or ½ empty –
I’m just happy to have a glass.”

For me, it’s become a good time to ask:  Do I want more of the same or do I want to take things in a completely different direction?  Is status quo going to cut it for me in the long run?  And, of course, the ultimate follow-up question is then figuring out a realistic and achievable route to then pursue.

To those currently employed, my best advice to you is to: keep yourself marketable, and always have a plan for the unexpected.

For those currently seeking new income opportunities, consider the following resources for ideas and inspiration:

• For top career news (including freelance, entrepreneurial, full- or part-time employment, etc) check out: career.alltop.com. (Note: Find your favorite blogs there & create your own customized My Alltop page.)
• In addition to the traditional job search engines of: CareerBuilder.com, Yahoo! HotJobs.com, and Monster.com, also try the job aggregation site: Indeed.com.
• For good books about non-traditional career paths, consider:
  • Career Renegade by Jonathan Fields, @jonathanfields
  • Fired to Hired by Tory Johnson, @toryjohnson
  • Escape from Cubicle Nation by Pamela Slim, @pamslim
  • Escape from Corporate America by Pamela Skillings
• Career planning goes hand-in-hand with good financial planning, my favorites for great free financial advice include: Liz Weston @lizweston (of MSN.com) and Suze Orman (of CNBC) @suzeormanshow. (Remember: As Suze Orman says, “Plan for the worst, but hope for the best.”)

I hope that you find this information helpful for yourself, and/or for sharing with those you care about. 

If you know of additional sources of reliable career or financial advice, please add them in a comment below.  Thanks in advance!

The current financial crisis has certainly made many people re-think their way of doing things. I would expect that those hardest hit by a sudden, severe, and unexpected shock would most likely be the first to change their ways.  But, for how long?

The degree and amount of change will certainly depend on how hard hit such individuals and their loved ones have been by this financial crisis, as well as their ability to recover from it, what and how much has been lost, and what is still at risk of being lost.

And, what about those of us that are still in pretty good financial shape and are not being forced to change due to circumstance, will we still change some of our habits based on a reawakened awareness to the realities of risk and uncertainty?

How many people are now re-assessing, or no longer putting off, serious planning for: retirement; long-term health care; emergency funds for unexpected expenses, including car repairs or necessary home repairs (e.g., plumbing; electricity; heating) or major appliance replacements; etc.?

To what degree will we see a re-emergence of the suburban survivalist and the do-it-yourself industry? For how long will we pay for more things with cash and less with credit? What changes will we see in sales pitches, incentives, rewards, penalties, bonuses, interest rates (on savings, on debt, on loans.), role models, and the behaviors of our neighbors or friends?

Have some of us become more grateful for what we do have and what we haven’t lost or put at risk?

How many of us will instead choose anger and resentment towards those that have recklessly or negligently put the system and taxpayer money at risk?
And, how many others of us will make no changes at all, believing that these kinds of things only happen to other people and that the environment around them hasn’t significantly changed much at all?

In the end, it’s important to know how our behaviors will change collectively, but regardless of what everyone else is doing, it is most important for us to look out for and do what’s best for ourselves.

That’s why I most align myself with the following Denis Waitley quote:

Expect the best, plan for the worst, and prepare to be surprised.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Getting out of Debt: Putting your foot down (lukascoaching.com)
• Getting out of Debt: Expect the unexpected (lukascoaching.com)

Do we really need to hire someone to regularly clean our homes or take care of our lawns, have a personal assistant or personal shopper, pay frequent visits to a chiropractor, get pedicures and manicures, or massages, or attend expensive seminars, multiple times per year?

Once we are used to the convenience (and benefits) of these kinds of service-sector amenities, and we see our neighbors and co-workers indulging in them, they are hard to give up. Plus, these things are important for the health of our service-sector economy, too, right?

What if we can learn to be happy with or without spending money? Maybe knowing that we could easily give up those kinds of things, if necessary, would be a good skill to acquire? As Suze Orman has suggested, what if we only spend money on things that we can truly afford to and not spend money when are only able to afford things on a paycheck-to-paycheck basis?

After watching Cruise Inc. Big Money On the High Seas, where we hear how cruise ship profits are earned from on-board spending (in particular, drinking and gambling) and are not from cabin fares (which include free food and shows), I thought of an interesting experiment to test….

Could you go on a cruise at the heavily discounted rate of $35 per night, with a simple inside cabin with no views, and not spend any additional money, AND still have a great time?

I would assume that most people probably can’t.  Then, try adding this additional twist to the experiment:

How much do you think you could charge people for a frugal cruise course that teaches them how to have fun without spending money?

How dependent are you on the service-sector for your happiness?

Related articles by Zemanta

• In Praise of Suze Orman (portfolio.com)
• Hey Baby, Good Credit Score? Let’s Date (abcnews.go.com)
• The ‘frugal consumer’ era could bring major changes to the US economy (dailyfinance.com)
• Are you turning into a traveling stereotype? Find out here. (gadling.com)

Just as there are two main political parties in the U.S., so, too, does there seem to be two main income-earning paths that people pursue:  (1) be an employee, or (2) be an entrepreneur. 

Of course, there are the Switchers, those who leave the “safety” of employment for the “risk” of self-employment.  The Switchers have been more of the minority to date.  But, what if that tide is turning?  Will our current economic crisis create a larger percentage of  employees or entrepreneurs? 

I hear more and more how “the Depression Era created more millionaires than any other time”, that “this financial crisis is our biggest break“.  Now is also a time of much rightly placed mistrust and suspicion. And, we are again and again reminded that what appears ”too good to be true” probably is.  What are we to make of all this well-meaning advice? 

Isn’t pursuing our dreams ”risky”?  If people don’t pursue their “dreams” because they don’t know how (or are afraid they won’t be able) to make a profitable living at it, is that really an unwise decision?  Living the life of the stereotypical “starving artist” doesn’t make society a better place for anyone, right?

When some people talk about the reticent workforce and the gullible populace/citizenry, a.k.a.  “sheeple“, i.e. the masses that don’t (or are afraid to) question authority while expecting “nose wipes” from their government, it is usually meant derogatorily.  To me, it implies that more people believe in the Madness of Crowds than the Wisdom of Crowds.

Add to that the assessment that:  “our current educational system trains people to be employees not entrepreneurs.”   While I agree with that to a point, I must admit that I also somewhat take offense to it, too. 

I am a product of our educational system.   I have been an employee for many years.  I have dreams of more, too.  I’ve also walked on fire and heard all of the empowerment talks.  I’ve bought and read the books: ”Do What You Love and the Money Will Follow“  and “What Color is Your Parachute?”  There seemed to always still be some elusive missing ingredient to having a dream life.

A new wave of this type of book is now surfacing that may soon overtake those older “classics”, they include:  ”Escape From Corporate America“, “I Don’t Know What I Want, but I Know It’s Not This”, and the new-to-be-released “Career Renegade“, the latter of which looks to address this very issue of “passion and prosperity.”

I believe, or maybe it’s a hope, that there is a layer of people that have appeared to lie dormant for far too many years that are now awakening to a need to change the status quo.  Can the upcoming unprecedented economic crisis create a societal shift in our expectations for our working environments and income opportunities?

At the same time, this reminds me of one of my favorite thought-provoking quotes from my Twitter buddy, Blair Warren:

Can society really change?

Seth Godin, in his book, “Tribes“,  also talks about a related concept of “Sheepwalking”, i.e., employees that have been raised to be obedient and fearful, afraid to speak up and challenge the status quo.

I believe that this fear isn’t always misplaced.  People aren’t going to risk their livelihoods for something they aren’t passionate about.   

However, sheepwalking certainly does become a tragedy when there are ideas worth fighting for that aren’t fought for because of a misplaced and unproductive fear. 

Another online-friend of mine, Jim Kukral, recently spoke about how he looks at fear.  He does not have a fear of failure as an entrepreneur because his incentive to succeed is his fear of having to get a job where a boss yells at him all the time.

Have the past twenty years, which created our current financial crisis, also created an environment that has made people become more curious and passionate about changing the status quo?  As quoted from “Tribes“: 

“It’s easy to underestimate how difficult it is for someone to become curious.  For seven, ten, or even fifteen years of school, you are required to not be curious.  Over and over and over again, the curious are punished …. It’s more about a five- or ten- or fifteen-year process where you start finding your voice, and finally you begin to realize that the safest thing you can do feels risky and the riskiest thing you can do is play it safe.” (Tribes, p 64)

Might we now be at the point where an awakening is brewing?  I want to add, too, that I don’t believe this is a trend that is being lead by the Millennials, though they are clearly a part of it.  I think this is a concept that is finally ripe and ready to be enjoyed by those that have dreamed of it for so long.

Maybe we can create more jobs through a changing of the guard.   As one layer of “sheepwalkers” awaken and become entrepreneurs or leaders of change, the jobs they leave behind can be filled by the currently unemployed that need to get back on their feet.

Either way, as “risk”, “fear”, and “safety”  take on new meanings, I mostly want to suggest that we not underestimate the potential of the people which can too easily be written off and assumed to be “sheeple” — they might not be (or remain) as fearful and unaware as some may assume.

Often the most important advice given to bloggers, writers, or anyone in social media (and probably in business, too)  is to be helpful.  

Whether you believe in good karma or not, it is not often disputed that if you are helpful to others without expecting anything in return, you’ll be surprised at what does come back to you in return.  If your intent is the opposite, you may still get results, but more than likely not the same as if you did otherwise.

For me, the tricky part is in knowing what other people find helpful.  Being helpful means different things to different people.  There are many ways to be helpful. 

I would say that the extremes on the ’scale of helpfulness’, if you will, would probably range from being totally selfless to being totally selfish.   If helpfulness were put on a scale, I would put the following fifteen ticks on that ruler (generally ranked here from better to worse, though I’m sure some of you might re-arrange  the order somewhat):

• Selflessness: Giving all of yourself for the benefit of others, e.g., Mother Teresa
• Philanthropy: Gifting others something that is of high value to you and to them
• Teaching Someone to Fish: Showing someone how to become self-sufficient
• Being a Pebble in the Pond: Giving assistance to others who then Pay It Forward
• Doing Something For Others: Helping in non-financial ways e.g., Habitat For Humanity
• Matching Program:  Enhancing the contributions of others
• Contributions: Helping in a hands-off way e.g. making a financial donation
• Goodwill: Donating something that has more value to someone else than to you
• Reciprocity: Helping others who then want to help you in return for the favor
• Offering Temporary Assistance: Loaning someone something of value
• Bettering Yourself:  Becoming  self-sufficient, no longer relying on others
• Quid Pro Quo: Helping others in exchange for them helping you
• Enabling Others: Helping others to continue to be dependent on you or others
• Providing Entitlements: Providing subsistence to people who expect, demand, or don’t appreciate it
• Helping With the Expectation of Payback

Good determinants to keep in mind when deciding how helpful you want or are able to be to others is to consider the following:

• Why are you helping others?
• What Effort is required?  How much is needed and what can you afford?
• What are the Costs and Benefits  to you and/or others for helping or not helping?

Keep in mind the difference between a ten dollar donation from a Rich man versus a ten dollar donation from a Poor Man.  In the end, it’s still a ten dollar donation.  However, the intent and sacrifice can be totally different for each (whether someone is around to see it or not). 

Helping others doesn’t have to involve major sacrifices on anyone’s part.  Small changes add up.  Start by simply being that pebble that ripples through the pond.  What you can do today will probably be different from what you can do at a future point in your life.  And, don’t forget that improving yourself helps others (your family, friends, and society) in the long run, too.

So, how helpful are you to others?  How helpful can others be to you?   And, please feel free to let me know what I can do to be helpful to you?

HAPPY HELPING!!!!!

I’ve been intrigued lately by a new section of books in the Barnes & Noble bookstore that I frequent.  It is a grouping of books labelled “Thought-Provoking”.  

Clearly ”Thought-Provoking” isn’t a subject that one can easily build a business idea or a keyword strategy around.  People aren’t likely to go to a store or to Google looking for something “Thought Provoking”.

Either way, ”Thought-Provoking” seems to be a viable and growing category of books which might include a mix of psychology, sociology, philosophy and science.  Such books are perhaps just as likely show up in the Self-Improvement section as in the Business section of a bookstore.

Perhaps this new category has been spurred by Malcolm Gladwell’s success with his books, Blink and Tipping Point.  As a recent article from Timesonline.co.uk entitled, “The 10 secrets of Malcolm Gladwell’s success“, suggests, the popularity of “arcane” books like his might be due to a “sociological transformation of the past 25 years”.  An interesting premise.  Could there be a “more intellectually curious” business-mindset developing out there?

Are we at a turning point?  As the economy slows down and people pull back to take the time to rebuild their net worth and adjust to potentially widespread structural changes, will a new mindset and new work ethic arise, too?

Might not the next ten years be a time when a new set of successes show up to challenge Gladwell’s assertion that there’s not a shortage of talent in the world but that there’s a shortage of people willing to put in the 10,000 hours it takes to become successful?  Could these “Thought Provoking” books be a sign of something new to come….

Generally when we hear of a “win-win” solution, we probably think it refers to something good, right?  I know I did.  I didn’t realize that win-wins can actually be placed on a “scale”, ranging from “good” win-wins all the way over to ”not-so-good” win-wins.

It’s common knowledge that, often, negotiations include some degree of compromise where each party gives in on some points and as a result gets something that they value in exchange.  If the “gives” and the “gets” are perceived as comparable (and along with the big assumption that the negotiation was conducted in “good faith”), the outcome is usually considered to be a good deal.  Maybe throw in a little face-saving for good measure, too.

I think the difficulty and disappointments come when not all people involved in the negotiations are working towards the same outcome.  One example of this is in the recent deal between The Sierra Club and Clorox. As the FastCompany articles points out, the Sierra Club went from “rock throwers to deal makers.”  The ultimate intent might have been positive and honorable, as the article explains, The Sierra Club is in the tricky transitional period of wanting to “strike a balance between keeping the club members happy and reaching a much broader audience.“  Both sides achieved a benefit from the cross-advertising deal, but at what cost.  Each side is clearly using the other for advertising their messages.  So, this shows me that win-wins are relative.

I’m fairly certain that the Sierra-Clorox win-win would not be an acceptable solution for Greenpeace in the their protesting and outting of the “green-washing” of Kleenex. 

Makes one think:  when is some agreement better than no agreement?  Then again, in the case of the recent Wall Street bailout plan, some agreement does seem to be better than no agreement.  Again, it’s all relative.  Maybe the complexities of today’s issues just don’t lend themselves to simple solutions anymore.

That takes me to a new description that I recently came across for win-win. (Unfortunately, I can’t seem to find the exact reference to link to at the moment, but either way, that shouldn’t lessen the idea.)  The concept is that the best kind of win-win is when the solution benefits more than just the parties involved, i.e., that is also benefits the greater good or society as well.  Hopefully we’ll see the day when this type of win-win-win becomes a more common occurrence despite the increasing complexity of our lives, our institutions, and our global environment.