Just a quick comment on the people who're hating on the Rules of Success Bob Parsons has put up and on GoDaddy
* If one of the things he recommends turns out be of great value to you.
Then does it really matter whether or not he objectifies women or does a hard sell?
*
It seems that we as geeks tend to love people who pretend to be all goody-goody like Google and open source people but if someone has the balls to be politically incorrect then it automatically means that the strategy they are using must be bullshit.
He shot an elephant != His advice is not good.
Here's a little story about 'When you're ready to quit you're closer than you think.
One of my sites got closed down by a hosting company. Some stupid reason. I was thinking about closing down the other site hosted by that hosting company too - Didn't, Stuck with it and that site has ended up making me $440K over the last two years.
At the moment when it seemed most hopeless i.e. the bigger site is just nuked and what's the point in sticking with the fledgling site -> sticking with it ended up being a great decision.
That's just one example.
Perhaps rather than applying your ethics and morals filter it might help to consider his advice on its own (i.e. separate from the person). Does it stand up - are there examples in your own life that prove that?
*
A Colombian Cocaine Warlord might figure out the same strategic magic that Jack Welch does (perhaps something like - If you don't have a competitive advantage, don't compete).
The reason one should be careful of who they listen to (even when listening with a critical mind) is groupthink. Here's what happens when you listen to someone:
- You agree with the things you have reason to agree with
- You disagree with the things you have reason to disagree with
- Everything else they say gets an uptick of social proof
There a bunch of stuff that you're totally ignorant about, and you have just absorbed a tiny bit of this guy's opinions about it. The stuff you know is safe, but the stuff you don't know is polluted.
I try to pretty actively prune the communities I pay attention to. I have serious misgivings about spending so much time on Hacker News. I'm relatively ignorant about business: there are things I don't even know that I don't know about. And on Hacker News I'm getting a bunch of brainwashing on those topics without being able to critically evaluate it. With respect to those things I'd be better off hashing stuff out on my own like a pre-school toddler, building up lived experience with which I can evaluate what people are saying.
But on the other hand, I learn lots of cool tricks here, so I've decided it's worth the risk.
And personally, I decided it was worth the risk to look at what Barr has to say. But I think the risk is clear and present.
I tend to ignore advice from people who I consider unethical because I generally find that their advice runs counter to my personal goals, my approach to work, and (obviously) my ethics.
Take your advice, for example:
One of my sites got closed down by a hosting company. Some stupid reason. I was thinking about closing down the other site hosted by that hosting company too - Didn't, Stuck with it and that site has ended up making me $440K over the last two years.
I've never had a site closed down by a hosting company. I don't even know why I would have a site closed down by a hosting company. I also don't know why I'd walk away from a product I'd developed if it was shut down by a hosting company.
To me, it appears that you (and Bob Parsons) have VERY different ideas about personal fulfillment, and as such, your advice (and his) don't really seem to apply to me, outside of the fortune cookies style generalisms ("don't quit", "push yourself").
It was shut down by the hosting company for nothing illegal. It was just one of those - we had something very specific in our terms which you didn't read - type of things.
Nothing like gambling or illegal or porn or anything. Just a minor technicality.
I find it interesting that you would attack me or to be precise assume that I'm supporting Bob Parsons' ethical or moral fiber.
All I'm saying is -> Good strategy is good strategy.
It seems to you like a platitude. It seems to this billionaire like reality.
Perhaps you should try it before you write it off.
Besides, the stuff he writes aren't fortune cooke type generalisms. When you most want to quit is usually when you are closest to success - that's a remarkably accurate statement.
Look back at your own life and if you've mastered any skills you'll see the truth in it.
Seriously, try to imagine what you would think of the points if they were written by someone who fell into your 'good person' bucket and think about whether they hold true or not.
>When you most want to quit is usually when you are closest to success - that's a remarkably accurate statement.
Accurate in the sense that a broken clock is right twice a day. As you accumulate failures, your motivation flags and your desire to quit increases. Now, this might meant that you're about to make a breakthrough that will turn your business into the next Google. It also might mean that you're bashing your head into a brick wall and you need to pivot in order to become successful. Your desire to quit gives you no information as to what your strategy should be, and, therefore, is totally useless as a decision-making strategy.
tl;dr; Your desire to quit is also greatest right before you go totally bankrupt and wreck your life.
quanticle,
This is the thing that I think people don't realize. Even the most successful people failed a ton before they got big success.
Big Failures = some people who let failure become bigger than them and destroy them + some people who learn from it and succeed big down the line.
When you write:
tl;dr; Your desire to quit is also greatest right before you go totally bankrupt and wreck your life.
*
You're exaggerating the consequences.
There's the type of failure where you take on bank loans and have to go bankrupt and there's the type of failure where you run out of your own money and have to start from scratch - perhaps with a new venture, or perhaps take up a job and then come back to entrepreneurship after a while.
The former is what you're assuming. The latter is reality - provided you don't go overboard in where you get money.
Just out of curisoity - what would the Color guys qualify as. It looks like they might fail. Would that be 'wrecking their lives'?
Here's the interesting part:
1) If you always give up right when you feel things are bleakest -> You'll never go bankrupt or to be more precise never experience total failure.
2) At the same time - you'll never experience the best possible success you could have. Because if everything is easy and guaranteed that probably means you never did the maximum you could and never pushed yourself.
*
Again, the first point he says - Stay outside of your comfort zone.
Is it a bit of a cliche? Yes.
However, lots of people who you would probably quantify as 'not evil like Bob Parsons' succeeded precisely for this reason. They pushed out of their comfort zone.
I think entreprenuership pretty much means getting out of your comfort zone, getting other people out of their comfort zone and changing things - for the better, or, if you are not inclined that way, for money.
>Even the most successful people failed a ton before they got big success.
That's just survivorship bias[1]. Yes, the big successes failed a lot. But so did the big failures. When all you see are Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., its easy to ignore all the little companies that failed and bankrupted all who were involved. For an example of the downside, see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOOw2yWMSfk. Can you really, honestly say that Mark Griffin hasn't ruined his life?
You ask about the founders of Color. The cannot be failures. Why not? They've already succeeded at least once. The entire reason Color is as hyped as it is right now is because of its "supergroup" status. The only thing distinguishing it is the fact that it was designed and built by programmers and designers that were extremely successfull at other companies. Without that cachet, its simply just another photo-sharing app.
>If you always give up right when you feel things are bleakest -> You'll never go bankrupt or to be more precise never experience total failure.
>At the same time - you'll never experience the best possible success you could have. Because if everything is easy and guaranteed that probably means you never did the maximum you could and never pushed yourself.
That's true. But, before you go all-in, you should ask yourself, "Can I afford this?" Yes, its easy to say yes if you're a 25 year-old with no family, no mortgage, and no debt. But, if you're a 40 year-old with obligations? Do you really want to put your dependents through the stress and hardship of a default? Before you attempt to beat the odds, make sure you can survive the odds beating you [2].
"the stuff he writes aren't fortune cooke type generalisms. When you most want to quit is usually when you are closest to success - that's a remarkably accurate statement."
Accurate or not it would still fit admirably in to a fortune cookie.
Back when there were such things as used book stores, you could get yourself a stack of books chock full of cliches like this for a couple of bucks.
The advantage of listening to people you dislike is you are more critical of their advice. Blindly following people's advice, just because you admire their public persona, can be dangerous.
ha! That cracked me up as I had the same reaction. I'll add that, while I agree with the gist of athst's comment, the advice was much better than the average for this kind of article.
> He forgot to mention the whole part about objectifying women
(Rolls eyes) Yes, these poor, naive women aren't intelligent enough to determine that they are being "objectified". Do you feel the same pity for the I'm on a horse, Old Spice guy?
In fairness to GoDaddy, I doubt there's a significant portion of its historical customer base that has "fallen for it," i.e., bought products or services from the company solely or primarily because of its scantily clad models.
GoDaddy got to where it is today because it was -- at least for a long period of time -- the cheapest provider of domain registration widely known to the general public. Say what you will about its upsell tactics, or its spotty service level, or its arguably shady subscription terms. But the sticker price of $2.99 per domain was a monumental proposition back when GoDaddy first came onto the scene.
Do its ad campaigns objectify women? Yes. Are they cheesy, sleazy, and in questionable taste? Yes. But their purpose has always been simply to attract attention and traffic to the site. Now, that branding might get folks in the door, but it doesn't actually sell product. To claim that people have purchased GoDaddy registrations because they "fell for" the ad campaign is a bit of a stretch.
> While it is annoying, it is how he got to where he is.
Not necessarily. For years GoDaddy has had the cheapest non-promotional domain pricing. That's what made a lot of IT-savvy people use GoDaddy despite of its annoying user interface.
GoDaddy's problems go far beyond an annoying user interface.
In the early days of the internet boom GoDaddy was like AOL. Most people who used either didn't know any better.
Really tech savvy people avoided them like the plague, because they valued not being pestered with garbage, preferred to deal with companies they could respect and on whose service they could depend on.
I agree, this list doesn't sound all that insightful. But it did make me want to look him up on Wikipedia, and I found his history to be interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Parsons
He started out as a self-taught programmer in his late-20s and he founded his first business when he was 37. Also find it interesting that he came from a really humble background, along with a strong military background too. Reminds me of "the anatomy of determination".
... and worthless when it actually comes to running a business.
They may or may not be worthless, but I don't see how Bob Parson can even know this.
How many times has he become a billionaire that he (or anyone) can extract just those behaviors that in fact make a difference from those that are mere coincidence.
How do these "rules" stack up when examined in the context of people who don't become billionaires, or even reasonably successful?
As an example, I bet there are at least a few people who did quite well by sticking to what they knew and what they felt comfortable with and who would have not succeeded had they stepped out of their comfort zone.
I suppose everyone has to learn for themselves (it doesn't internalize from a list), but there is value in the lessons. It would probably stick better in story form.
For instance, I cannot tell you how many times success came after getting very close to giving up. I left college after one semester to find work, and taught myself basic SEO. After ranking my local pizza shop to number one to prove I could do it, I started cold calling the big businesses in my neighborhood to do work for them. My awkward self called thirty-ish businesses, on a list of thirty five, then gave up. My girlfriend encouraged me to try one more, and sure enough they bit. Without this experience my life track would have been substantially different.
I don't think the parent was saying "Don't give up" was bad advice, just that it was obvious "almost tautological in nature"
Anyone who has achieved any level of success in anything is going to have a "I almost gave up... then I succeeded! I am so glad I didn't give up." story. I have some.
Saying "Don't give up" is just not useful advice. I mean, it might be useful encouragement for some people; some people respond well to inspirational stories. but that's kindof a different thing than advice, if you ask me.
I am with you all about all the negative reasons why not to like GoDaddy and Bob Parsons. Just looking at the guy and his macho-posters I really do not feel like I would even want to hold a 5-minute conversation with him. It reeks of BS.
That said, I do have (or force myself to have) a lot of respect for the guy. Earning money is not easy. Building and maintaining your company is not easy. Establishing a brand is not easy. Being a billionaire is... whoa. I do think we have a lot to learn from him, despite the fact that we may not like him.
Always stay out of your comfort zone. Never give up. Never stop improving. Measure everything of significance.
It's not a quick fix or a cure all, but I think it's helpful to internalize whichever of these points resonates with you and actively apply it in your life. You have to execute and that's the hard part.
I would say it is even more important to try to apply those points that don't "resonate" with you. Those are the things that are more likely to help, since you probably already apply those you agree with, at least partially.
It is actually depressing to think that you can encapsulate success on ten easy steps/rules. Advise like this makes it seem like I'm being sold snake oil.
If everyone says it and the group is quite skeptical, and you know it has basis, then it seems the steps to becoming successful are actually useful. I'll call that common knowledge for lack of a better word.
What bothers me — far more than the banality of Bob's rules for success — is the WSJ's use of two spaces after a full stop. Do these guys think they're publishing with a typewriter?
* If one of the things he recommends turns out be of great value to you.
Then does it really matter whether or not he objectifies women or does a hard sell?
*
It seems that we as geeks tend to love people who pretend to be all goody-goody like Google and open source people but if someone has the balls to be politically incorrect then it automatically means that the strategy they are using must be bullshit.
He shot an elephant != His advice is not good.
Here's a little story about 'When you're ready to quit you're closer than you think.
One of my sites got closed down by a hosting company. Some stupid reason. I was thinking about closing down the other site hosted by that hosting company too - Didn't, Stuck with it and that site has ended up making me $440K over the last two years.
At the moment when it seemed most hopeless i.e. the bigger site is just nuked and what's the point in sticking with the fledgling site -> sticking with it ended up being a great decision.
That's just one example.
Perhaps rather than applying your ethics and morals filter it might help to consider his advice on its own (i.e. separate from the person). Does it stand up - are there examples in your own life that prove that?
*
A Colombian Cocaine Warlord might figure out the same strategic magic that Jack Welch does (perhaps something like - If you don't have a competitive advantage, don't compete).
It's still great strategy.