A Business / Organizational Question to Answer

USC should have won! Early in the first quarter of the game the replay booth didn't call a play where Vince Young was clearly down. Shit happens, I geuss (how very Machiavellian of me).

Post 61

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 8:36am

Great football game, now back to the subject of the thread.

My reasoning on saturation for an answer to Phil's question(and I don't know if this is how Phil came to it or not) is as follows: When I posted "slicing the pie" I included "if I wanted the site to be either profitable or self-supporting". If it was my intention to only spread Objectivism then I may decide that is not of primary importance, but in this case I assumed it would be an objective of the site.

Although I am in complete agreement with the idea Objectivism has much untapped potential, at the same time I must be aware of the *existent* market and how many sites there already are which people participate in.

It may well be my product in the same market is better(I think) presented or with more attractive features, but it will still take time even if this is true to develop a following and if the market is heavily saturated now I should be reasonable enough to understand "self-supporting" or "profitable" may be a long way down the road. This is where Luke's "under-capitalization" comes in.

While everyone had good ideas of things to consider and what may be secondary to one person might well be of primacy to another, for myself how heavily the market is now saturated will figure heavily into whether I believe it is worth the time and money to launch a new business or not.

There is one thing to remember and that is just because we may like a certain thing or believe in a certain thing does not translate into the reality of whether or not it is a good business venture; I can wish with all my might that the world would quickly embrace my product or ideas, but when I am looking for monetary return I very well better be prepared for what *is*.

Post 62

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 10:13am

Thank you, LW, for pitching in. (It's tiring to fight these debates against six different people alone, and I don't have time or energy to post that many times...and without onlist support, my enthusiasm for making the effort lessens.)

Post 63

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 1:55pm

Your most welcome Phil, it's a pleasure to interact with others who use their brains for more than padding between their ears and intelligence seems to be in abundance around here.

Post 64

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 7:32pm

Yes, there is a good mix from teenagers who have just read their first Rand novel and twenty or thirty year veterans who have read every book and taken every course. Interests and questions vary among such a group as they should.

Post 65

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 8:50pm

> Before one develops a project or a battle plan which is either addressed to or relies on the Objectivist market to support it, there is a preliminary business question one needs to ask. What is it? An entrepreneur or a business school student, could answer this question. [Post 0 condensed]

Let's start by looking at business examples: If I am an entrepreneur or venture capitalist thinking of starting a low-fare airline or a pizza parlor in a small town, or a national department store, even before examining how motivated and competent are the people who want to run and start up this business, one key issue I need to ask address first if I have business sense is: How Many Entrants Can This Market Support? There is a point at which there are too many entrants trying to divide up the pie (think of any business in which there has been a "shakeout", such as the dot com bubble when more many people had ideas for internet ventures or software products than there were customers who wanted them.

Now you might say, well can't the pie be expanded? Can't there be many more Objectivists or those interested in philosophy? Can't there be more people converted to having an interest in doing business on the internet, or buying pizza in this one small town, or in patronizing department stores, or flying for $150 coast to coast rather than $350? Yes. But the point is that these changes usually happen -slowly- (even the expansion of commerce on the internet didn't happen in a year or two...and in fact had to undergo a collapse and shakeout in the nineties). In the case of buying a pizza or something from EBay, the changes can happen faster than adopting a new philosophy.

And so you have to ask, not what is the size of the market two or five or ten years from now, but how big is the market right now...the one you will be dealing with for a while.

And here is where we get to Objectivist "projects" over the decades:

> ...ARI...TOC...during the nineties, Carolyn Ray's "Enlightenment" project...the Daily Objectivist...wetheliving.com...Aristos...Full Context.

The problem the smaller of these undertakings had is that the number of actual, committed Objectivists is small and it takes a long time to create an Objectivist. So when your total current population of potential supporters and customes in only a few thousand, that limits the number of activists, excellent writers, potential 'fat cats', great organizers that exist. And many of them are too busy, or don't get along with you...or are working more closely with another competitor.

The small projects I mentioned all ended up, like the "Capitalism" website I posted about with too small an audience, too few really good writers, too little activity. They fell behind schedule, fell silent, slipped away, closed down.

All because of a failure to "Run the Numbers". If I publish a magazine that has 100 paying subscribers or a website that has the same 20 people always doing all the posting or 5 people doing all the activism, is that going to work for me? How long before I run out of patience or capital?

Should I blame the Objectivist movement for being apathetic...or is it just a business fact that if there are say, 10K committed Objectivists, over ninety percent are going to be i) working with a competitor, ii) incredibly busy, iii) don't have any skills, iv) have no interest in Objectivist activism or publications or debates?

By comparison, the committed Libertarian-to-Classical Liberal movement is an order of magnitude larger than the Objectivist Movement ( please don't nitpick on this but ~100K vs ~10K). They can support a political party, two major publications with subscribership over ten thousand and thus on newstands (Reason=outreach, Liberty=inreach), and a nationwide (and now global network of think-tanks and foundations). And the Conservative Movement is an order of magnitude larger than that. It can support -thousands- of full time people who write NYT best sellers, have talk radio shows, full time jobs in Washington.

I want to conclude on a positive note. It is always darkest before the dawn. We have better ideas and there is no reason we can't reach these heights. But you have to start by running the numbers, being aware of WHY projects have failed in the past, and having a battle plan based on these grim facts.

Nor grandious, adolescent fantasies which are ignorant of context or history. So, how do we make ARI, TOC, Solo, RoR, Atlasphere, or whatever shakes out of their "pie-splitting" work?

Who can project how we do it in a way that is realistic given the above facts? How do we get steady growth? How did the -past- tiny movements (like conservatism, like Christianity) do it?

I have many ideas on this, but I don't want to be the only one on this thread. (Again, that's a problem of numbers...many people are not reading this or on this board who might be able to engage and construct something.)

Phil

Post 66

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 12:35am

I have many ideas on this, but I don't want to be the only one on this thread.

You need only say your ideas, and if they are good ones, then by word of mouth, everyone will find it in their self interest to come and read them. Produce something of value to them, and they will come.

Post 67

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 1:39am

If you build it, they will come...

//;-)

Michael

Post 68

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 10:19am

Phil noted:

... it takes a long time to create an Objectivist.

Is this really true?

Let us assume a person took some time every day for a month to read, in sequence, the non-fiction essays by Ayn Rand listed at ARI in its "Suggested Reading List." Let us assume further that we offered a chapter-a-day workbook that examined each essay and included some exercises to help the reader to practice the core principles involved. This approach would have some similarities to the wildy successful religious guidebook The Purpose-Driven Life by Rick Warren. Let us assume further that we broke the workbook down into sections addressing the four basic needs:

Let the numbers represent days. Obviously the introduction could only offer a thumbnail sketch of the novels and would leave it to the reader to read those after the completion of the other exercises. The same goes for the epilogue.

Introduction

1. The Fountainhead

2. Atlas Shrugged

Write your dreams list. If you had no limits, what would you become, contribute, create, or own? Where would you travel? Do you see any common themes in these dreams?

Spirit (Self and Vision)

3. "Philosophy: Who Needs It" in Philosophy: Who Needs It

Write some principles by which you live today.

4. "Philosophy and Sense of Life" in The Romantic Manifesto

How have those principles affected your sense of life?

5. "For the New Intellectual" in For the New Intellectual

Do you identify with the Attila, the Witch Doctor, the Businessman, or some other archetype?

6. "Introduction" and "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness

If the principles you identified on Day 3 included a "Higher Cause" than yourself, what would happen if you named yourself as your own highest cause?

7. "The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made" in Philosophy: Who Needs It

Have you been struggling to change the unchangeable? Have you resigned yourself to situations that you actually have the power to change?
Look at your dreams list. Write a brief statement of your vision for yourself -- what you would ultimately like to become -- your ideal Self.

Emotions (Self-Esteem)

8. "Causality versus Duty" in Philosophy: Who Needs It

Have you been pursuing goals that you want or that someone else wants for you?

9. "The Ethics of Emergencies" in The Virtue of Selfishness

Have you been playing "rescuer" or "enabler" for a moocher in your life?

10. "The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests" in The Virtue of Selfishness

Have you found yourself conflicted with another in your life for valid or invalid reasons?

11. "Doesn't Life Require Compromise?" in The Virtue of Selfishness

Have you been compromising on common ground with another in your life, or have you been sacrificing your good to their evil?
Look at your dreams list and vision statement. Write a brief statement of your governing values for yourself -- your most highly valued emotions that you seek to experience on a regular basis, the quest for which governs how you act. Note some of the causes of these emotions.

Mind (Reason)

12. "How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?" in The Virtue of Selfishness

Do you have an immoral person in your life with whom you need to break ties to free yourself?

13. "The Cult of Moral Grayness" in The Virtue of Selfishness

Do you need to get totally clear on your values and how to articulate them assertively to those who wish to cloud your well-being?
Look at your governing values list. Do you see some emotional responses that might not align with reality?
Make a list of some of the roles you play in life. Note that you must apply reason in every aspect of your life.

Body (Purpose and Mission)

14. "Man's Rights" in The Virtue of Selfishness

Have you had your natural rights violated by government or even by those close to you?

15. "The Nature of Government" in The Virtue of Selfishness

Have you been campaigning for the wrong ideas in government policy?

16. "What is Capitalism?" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Have you felt misled by the culture about exactly what is capitalism? Do you feel like you have been hindered externally by some factors and internally by others?

17. "'Extremism,' or The Art of Smearing" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

18. "The Roots of War" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

19. "Conservatism: An Obituary" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

20. "Racism" in The Virtue of Selfishness

21. "The Cashing-in: The Student 'Rebellion'" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

22. "The Anti-Industrial Revolution" in Return of the Primitive:The Anti-Industrial Revolution

23. "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art" in The Romantic Manifesto

24. "Art and Sense of Life" in The Romantic Manifesto

(Questions for the remainder still to be determined.)

Look at your dreams list, vision statement, governing values list and roles list. Do you see a common theme? Make a brief statement of your life purpose based on this process of discovery -- your unifying mission statement. While your vision describes ideally what you want to be, your mission statement describes what you need to do to achieve what you ultimately want to be.

Epilogue (Putting It All Together)

25. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff

Continually refine your own Self toward your own vision using the three supreme and ruling values and experience the pride of accomplishment!

After doing this one month exercise, I would hope this would qualify the honest and diligent student as an entry-level Objectivist!

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/06, 12:28pm)

Post 69

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 10:43am

>You need only say your ideas, and if they are good ones, then by word of mouth, everyone will find it in their self interest to come and read them.

It's much more complicated that that which is why Objectivism hasn't conquered the world: marketing, capitalization, writing skill, and a hundred other things.

Post 70

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 10:47am

Luke,

I want to tag on something at the end of this. I first read Atlas Shrugged in a blinding flash of two days.

It took only two days to create a Randroid.

It then took years to undo that and create an Objectivist.

//;-)

Michael

Post 71

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 5:24pm

Phil asked:

Who can project how we do it in a way that is realistic given the above facts? How do we get steady growth? How did the -past- tiny movements (like conservatism, like Christianity) do it?

The C & Cs did it through a complicated mixture of shoe (sandel) leather, emotional persuasion, emotional coercion, lobbying, a sprinkling of fascism, politics, and brute force.

Luke wondered if this statement from Phil was true:

... it takes a long time to create an Objectivist.

When I first read this, I immediately wanted to modify it this way:

"It can take a long time to create a good Objectivist."

But that's probably my optimism showing through. Phil may be correct, I don't know.
All I know is I hate the idea of losing any ground, any ground at all.

Teresa
P.S.: by an unbelievable coincidence, I guy came into the shop today who can convert the old "Full Context" public access TV shows into a more manageable format. He's an independent film maker. I've got a meeting with him on Monday to discuss some other stuff. I urge local clubs to get involved with local access cable television and reclaim it from the religious muck swarming the screen and clouding the mind. Do it! Damn it! This has been a PSA from an aspiring activist.

Post 72

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 12:16am

... it takes a long time to create an Objectivist. When I first read this, I immediately wanted to modify it this way: "It can take a long time to create a good Objectivist."

Teresa, that's what I meant...I like to write in a terse, aphoristic style and sometimes the context is assumed. Sort of like my other favorite thing I like to say:

***The only thing wrong with Objectivism is the Objectivists***

Now obviously you have to supply a truckload of context and a couple grains of salt with that. But having done that, you can quote me :-)

I'm glad to hear of the "Full Context" TV shows possibilities. If they were anything like the periodical, I'm sure they are very good.

Phil

Post 73

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 12:21am

Luke, I read your post too quickly and hadn't realized you were breaking down the readings by where you can find material on a particular *topic*. That's enormously useful to work to do.

Post 74

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 12:32am

I was hoping some people would comment on the substance of my post #65. It is long and dense with a lot of points that need some chewing.

I put a lot of work into it. My intention was that people would grapple with the hard issues.

In it, I compare the Objectivist movement to two larger movements and discuss a whole range of issues regarding i) mistakes we have made in the past, ii) some things to be aware of in order for us to become far more successful in the future.

I particularly was hoping that people would take up the challenge of offering some insight on the questions I asked at the end.

Post 75

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 6:20am

One should note that Christianity took centuries to become a power, and that gained power was because of political manuvering to quell opposition [the Constantine Gambit], not that it was by any means major at that time due to its factionalism [which was quelled internally thru the same mechanism as was worked against the other religions].

The Conservatives, however, strike me as more a 'last gasping of the olde horde', a momentary seizure of power by religionists that won't last.

Post 76

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 6:44am

Phil, with all due respect, I do not think you are putting the power of RoR to full advantage here. Your Post 65 on this thread does indeed bring important points to the forefront. I do note that you have stated in the past that you do not post full articles because of your perfectionist streak.

You need to overcome your perfectionist streak and post each point of Post 65 as a fully fleshed article.

Surely a man talented enough to teach courses in literature, etc. such as yourself can exercise enough internal self-mastery to overcome an "imperfection phobia" and post genuine articles. The professor's phrase, "Publish or perish!" applies to RoR as well. A whole new world will open to you when you do.

So, to get the feedback you desire, write Post 65 as a series of articles in a provocative fashion such that you can track feedback via the article discussion threads.

You have to sow before you can reap.

Post 77

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 9:28am

I don't agree with that, Luke...((also, I think any criticism of whether I write or not should be done privately by sending me an email, not on a public forum or on a thread I started to discuss Business and Organizational Principles. Don't follow Joe's example who is following Linz's who is following other Objectivists in this.))

I start threads to discuss certain points. If no one is willing to answer my posts or topic fully and in detail, they are not suddenly going to be willing to answer articles. Joe has written some excellent articles and they don't get as much intellectual engagement as I would like. Part of it has to do with the people who have left (or were driven out). The discussions were more incisive and substantive when Barbara was here, along with James K, Jennifer, etc. Now MSK has started another board...and Barbara posts there occasionally. But it is a small one. I wrote a post there which required a lot of thought, but got zero response.

So, yes, the number of entrants or factionalization does have an impact on quality in many ways, when we are already not large...discussion and articles quality among them!

That's not to say I won't write them now that Joe has indicated he would publlish them (presumably even though he doesn't agree with all my ideas), but I have other projects going...and there are other venues to write for. Objectivist and non. I've written an article for the Atlasphere on the press/media bias, but there is no response forum there so I have no feedback..and no one commented on it on Solo. But, I prefer posting as a style. I can amend, respond, edit and repost. Like Michael Newberry, I tend to prefer formal articles for permanent, hard-copy sources.

Also, I am working on something more permanent, book length, so while I enjoy immediate give and take, writing on tiny Oist websites where the quality of discussion to put it diplomatically....varies.... is time-consuming when I need to be sure that it has a good return on the time and intense effort writing requires of me to do it right.

Being a perfectionist and investing many hours is not a good idea in every sphere; it is in writing something.

(This is probably a longer answer than you needed, but it enables me to discuss several related issues.)

Post 78

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 10:19am

Phil wrote;

I think any criticism of whether I write or not should be done privately by sending me an email, not on a public forum or on a thread I started to discuss Business and Organizational Principles.

I disagree with that, Phil. I have no idea why you would say publicly that you do not write articles because of perfectionist streaks and then expect people not to address that streak in relevant public threads. I am trying to locate the exact post where you made that remark but have not found it yet. But I do specifically recall that you said it and that MSK called you on it. It has relevance to your thread and to the overall structure and intent of RoR, namely:

Why would you start a thread rather than an article about organizations in direct conflict with the intent designed into the organization of RoR?

I can see we will not come to an agreement, though. But to claim that people should not offer constructive criticism in a public forum in response to publicly stated personal shortcomings begs more questions than I can list here.

Post 79

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 10:43am