What's It All About?

I suppose this is the post with which I should have started this blog.

The intended audience of this blog is really myself, and it's main role will be for personal accountability and motivation, with my thoughts on various topics now and again as they come up. If you're reading it, you are welcome to continue if you're so inclined.

To be more specific, what I have in mind is a IBO version of JohnStoneFitness. For those not familiar with the site, in January of 2003, John Stone, who had been athletic most of his young life, had gotten less active with married life and had become disgusted with his physical condition. He committed himself to a fitness regimine, of which he began posting daily, along with a photo of himself. Over time, with persistant and consistant adherence to his fitness plan, he literally transformed. His site now offers an animated image which compiles all his daily photos, and the transformation is nothing short of amazing and inspiring.

As an aside, now that he has a proven track record of achievement, people frequent the site for fitness information and that "subscriber base" has generated enough traffic to drive towards suppliers of fitness equipment and nutritional products, which he has contracted with to (*gasp!*) sell from his site. According to Quixtar critics' logic, it should not be ethical for him to profit from the wisdom of his personal expertise and it apparently calls into question whether he's really physically fit or if he's "just making money from the flow of info and tools" for fitness training. (Interestingly enough, John has received critics on his site who question both the legitimacy of his fitness-- i.e. steroid accusations-- and his sales of products. I guess for every accomplished person there's 20 people ready to throw stones at that person.) Heh... but I digress.

His original motive was not to hawk food supplements and weights... it was to become physically fit, and making his goals and progress known to the world was his personal motivation to continue, knowing that others would be watching and commenting.

Likewise, my motive for this site is not to hawk products, tools or opportunity. It is to keep myself accountable and motivated by tracking my progress via a publicly visible medium. As the saying goes, the secret to one's future lies in their daily habits. So I will be posting my daily adherence (or lack thereof) to the 9 CORE steps as prescribed by World Wide DreamBuilders. Due to the nature of the steps, not all 9 steps are able to be accomplished every day, so I will do a weekly and monthly review as well.

Unlike John Stone, I obviously cannot mark my progress with a daily photo. With a business, the measuring stick is profit. The logical key criteria for measuring profit with this business model seem to be revenue, expenses, time investment, and Out-Of-Pocket Expenses, i.e. expenses that must come from the IBO's personal budget rather than his/her business revenue-- this seems to be of key interest to both IBO and critic (not to mention my wife.)

Some critics contend that as an IBO franchises or duplicates themselves to sponsor other IBOs, these criteria should be extended to account for all time, all expenses, and all revenue incurred by all sponsored IBOs to be an accurate picture of how efficient or profitable their business is. This is a clever but inherently fallacious argument, because of the independent nature of each business, regardless of their Line Of Sponsorship (LOS) affiliation.
To use the familiar analogy, an IBO's role is like a McDonald's franchisee, with regards to his/her own "store" (the "first circle" of personal use, retail clients, and wholesale clients under 100 PV) and the accounting of revenue, expenses and time are appropriate specific to those aspects. However, in his/her role related to any IBO(s) sponsored they are operating as a franchisor, and the accounting thereof should be measured like McDonald's Corp would: When is that last time you saw the payroll expenses for thousands of teenage cashiers and fry machine operators show up on McDonald's Corp quarterly reports? You haven't, because those are expenses for each individual franchisee.
Nice try though... Thank you, drive through.

So, like any business, I will account for my monthly, quarterly, and annual financials. Those familiar with running a business understand that financials are generally jealously guarded, except for publicly traded companies for whom disclosure is required for transparency toward their investors-- and even then, disclosure outside of any circumstance other than quarterly/annual reports is rare.

This otherwise wholesale security risk on my part is understandably the reason for my anonymity. Otherwise, if this were to be just an IBO rantblog, I would not have bothered.
(For those who seem to value disclosure of identity so much, I invite you to provide on-going full financial disclosure of your endeavor(s), at which point I will consider disclosing my identity. Heh-- I won't hold my breath...)

I suppose it may have occured to some by now that this will effectively provide a real-world example of the return on investment (ROI) of time, money and tools possible for an independant business owner affiliated with Quixtar and World Wide Dreambuilders.
Two caveats: First, it should be obvious that the investment is necessary before the return, and that the return is proportional to the investment. My hypothesis is that over time, this blog will demonstrate that principle. Second, in order to fairly and accurately gauge that ROI, a present snapshot of my business will be necessary. Unfortunately, I've run out of time, and as this post is rather long already, the snapshot will have to wait for another post. The sort of accountability regime I've layed out here will take a bit more organization than I've previously had, so I won't start the daily accounting until I'm organizationally prepared to do so consistantly.

As a bit of blog housekeeping details, I do enjoy intellectually honest and mature discussion, so I will leave comments open. However, I reserve the right to edit or delete comments based on my own discretionary criteria of propriety. But I will not likely have the time or inclination for editing unless you are being blatently offensive, hostile or moronic. Any free time spent blogging is obviously taking away from other activities, so don't expect indepth exchanges from me, as my purpose in blogging is not debate or discussion.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,


Blips On The Radar

It's come to my attention... that I've come to your attention.

For Dave (on the Road), I appreciate the feedback.. your blog was inspiration for mine. For Dave (and for Ty "Passport" Tribble in comments) there's a specific purpose in my anonymity, with which I would not have bothered otherwise (I'm quite comfortable blogging my own thoughts as myself) and that purpose may be more obvious as I get more than 4.5 posts under my belt. It appears that The IBO Chronicles (HT: Dave) are on a similar vein as what I intend to pursue-- perhaps we both made the same New Years' Resolution.
For "Mikey" (in Dave's comments) it's not clear to me which blog/site you are associated with, so I can't say whether I've been there or not... but being an IBO, I am certainly pro-IBO-- or rather, I'm in support of IBOs who are diligently, professionally working to build an honest, ethical, profitable business in a manner that is consistant with the way conventional business is done (except of course, that the model itself and corresponding compensation plan is unconventional-- in a good way, of course.)


Technorati Tags: , , , ,


What Went Wrong?

Good Evening, I'm Anon Ibo.
In this edition of UE, we bring you an investigation of what happens when a good business model goes bad in the hands of the wrong independent Business Owner (or IBO).

One of the biggest points of criticism or skepticism towards unconventional business models is that those who engage in them conduct themselves in a flaky, goofy, unprofessional or even an outright deceptive manner. Unfortunately this is the nature of more accessible business models, and the good and the ethical have to work that much harder to rise above the stigma. Conventional business is often prohibitive in its requirements of licensing, fees, specialized education, excessive startup capital, etc. Hence the lowering of the entry level in unconventional business models to make it more accessible to the average person.

While this should be considered a positive, to those on the receiving end of an experience with untrained or unethical business owners don't regard it so highly.

Case in point:
In our ultra-in depth research for the creation of this blog, we came across Webchicky's weblog rant on what she calls "Quixtar Quacks". (Nice alliteration in the title, incidentally, and "quack" fits nicely in "poultry" theme of her blog... but I digress.)
Her description of the encounter is probably illustrative of a typical person's reaction and is interesting to read from that standpoint.

But for those of us who are engaged in a similar enterprise, what is more interesting is the lessons that can be learned from deconstructing this encounter, with the purpose of avoiding such encounters ourselves.

So let's go to Chuck and Bob for the replay and analysis. Chuck?

Chuck: Thanks, Anon. Bob and I are here in the setting of a North Carolina grocery store, the fish department, on a November Sunday evening. Bob, your thoughts on choice of the venue?
Bob: Well Chuck, this kind of public arena can be a tricky if not handled carefully. A lot depends on the reasons for the choice of venue, the intent of the business owner, and whether their people skills are such that will enable them to establish a legitimate friendship or sense of connection, however fledgling.
Chuck: Tricky indeed, Bob. You said a lot depends on the reasons for the choice of venue and the intent of the business owner, can you elaborate on that for our audience?
Bob: Well, quite simply, it's whether they chose this arena specifically for the activity known as "Prospecting," that is, going to a highly populated area for the purpose of finding potential prospects for business partners or clients; or whether they are just going about their lives as they would normally do, and just being more friendly and aware of others than the average person, with the mindset of finding a need their business can fill in the lives of those they meet.
Chuck: That's an important distinction, because it sounds like two different IBOs could engage in very similar activities yet have totally different result in the minds of the people they engage with.
Bob: Right Chuck, that's why rookie or unethical players often get this wrong.
Chuck: And speaking of our players, let's introduce them. Bob, do we know their names?
Bob: Our sources didn't provide names, Chuck, but the subjects are described as a "young couple (dressed nicely, very pleasant and polite)." Let's call them Joe & Mary to give them names.
Chuck: Well, it sounds like a good enough first impression. Bob, do you have any feedback at this pre-game phase?
Bob: The overall first impression is good, and I gotta say, Chuck, my hat's off to this couple for making the effort. This is an intimidating undertaking by any standards, and the average person wouldn't go far enough out of their comfort zone on a volunteer basis to do it.
Chuck: Good point.
Bob: On the other hand, our sources in retrospect couldn't recall Joe & Mary having a shopping basket or any grocery items. That doesn't bode well.
Chuck: No indeed, Bob. Of course, in this game, much of the outcome depends on the potential prospect right?
Bob: That's right, Chuck, hence the saying that you can't say the wrong thing to the right person and you can't say the right thing to the wrong person.
Chuck: And what about in this case? Are they the "right" persons?
Bob: It's hard to say, Chuck; there's mixed signals. The potential* prospects are Stacey (Webchicky) & Mike (husband). Both employed in industries with burgeoning technologies (wireless, web development), so not only are they comfortable with online and mobile business transactions, they're also entrepreneurial, picking up extra work outside their regular jobs, including their own web development/consulting business. Mike is excited about his prospects after getting his MBA in 2007, and from his blog, seems concerned about the costs of commuting and gas. Both are interested in personal fitness, particularly Stacey, who works with a personal trainer, takes vitamins, and keeps herself accountable to her goals weekly on her blog.
Chuck: And we know enough about Stacey in particular to say that she shows a lot of positive qualities that make a good entrepreneur: Goal setting, accountability, evaluation, and re-setting; a commitment to personal development; a willingness to be trained and mentored--
Bob: And most obviously, her and her husband already have an entrepreneurial venture going.
Chuck: And as you know Bob, it's often the busiest people who already out accomplishing a lot who have the time management skills to succeed in an additional endeavor.
Bob: Right.
Chuck: So there are apparently a lot of potential upsides for this couple, what are the liabilities?
Bob: Well Chuck, Mike & Stacey are coming into this game already with an unfavorable impression of Quixtar--
Chuck: Excuse me Bob, but let me clarify-- Quixtar is essentially just a supplier, isn't it?
Bob: That's right.
Chuck: So when you say they have an unfavorable impression of Quixtar, it's unlikely that they've ever had interactions with the contracting company, the supplier itself, right?
Bob: That's right Chuck, what people usually actually mean when they say they have a bad impression is that they've had encounters with individuals-- independent business owners contracted with the supplier, and for whatever reason, that encounter doesn't go well. So yes, it would be more accurate to say they've had unfavorable encounters with persons who all happen to contract with the same company.
Chuck: Most people have a horror story about a dentist, but they don't swear off dentistry altogether.
Bob: Exactly.
Chuck: OK, so in Mike & Stacey's case, what do we know about these previous experiences?
Bob: Our sources indicate that there have been family members--
Chuck: And as the saying goes, "No man is a prophet in his own town."
Bob: Right, especially not with his own family. What we often see with rookie players is that they get trained to present a professional image of their business--
Chuck: Which is common sense to do for any business--
Bob: Yes, every good business person will do it. Even with the business Mike and Stacey run, you don't see any indication from their business website that it's any less than a full-fledged web development, design and consulting firm.
Chuck: As it should be, if they want to attract any business.
Bob: Right, but what happens is, with a web-powered home-based business model where the actual business is fairly invisible, particularly for a rookie, if they try too hard to present a professional image to their family, who already know them well and don't visibly see anything different, it's not going to make sense to them and the first impression is that their family member got roped into something goofy and possibly fraudulent.
Chuck: Not to mention the feeling of the friend or family member abusing the relationship for their own advantage.
Bob: Again, that depends on the approach. As the saying goes, "Find a need and fill it." If a business person can't genuinely show the value of their products or services to convince that family member that they have a need to buy it, they have no right to expect the family member to support their business. The same applies to the opportunity aspect of the business model.
Chuck: Well, and that really applies to any potential client or partner, doesn't it?
Bob: Yes, but with close friends and family, the relationship is already established, and the participation of friends and family are often taken for granted, which causes the bad feelings. Establishing a need is key in this game, which we will see.
Chuck: Now what's this about their run-ins with fellow church members? Stacey's comments seem to indicate she's particularly negative towards that.
Bob: First of all, any person conducting an honest business in an ethical manner should have no qualms about sharing a worthwhile product, service or opportunity to anyone. Secondly, the business model is structured so that one must first help others make a profit before making a profit themselves, and most religions already teach that we are to help and uplift one another, put others before ourselves, etc.
Chuck: So there's no conflict of interest there. On the other hand, talking business in the meeting house on a worship day; using church membership directories as a prospecting resource; or inferring a greater religious or spiritual duty or mission is somehow dependent on their involvement is crossing the line to impropriety.
Bob: Definitely.
Chuck: What about the comparison to lotteries or pyramid schemes?
Bob: Well, we don't have time for a point-by-point discussion here, but to put it briefly, these are uninformed mischaracterizations, really a misunderstanding or ignorance of the actual business model. The fact that no money is made from simply registering another person and no money is made unless an actual product or service is moved negates the lottery or "get-rich-quick" mentality. And the fact that no referral fees are paid to a sponsor or "upline" unless they help their registered business partners actually move a significant volume of product invalidates any "pyramid" comparison.
Chuck: Unlike a corporate or government job, where someone else has to quit, get fired or die in order for someone else to advance to their position.
Bob: Especially at the higher management and executive levels where the opportunities are significantly more narrow than the wide entry-level spots at the base.
Chuck: If you want to talk triangular shapes, one doesn't need to look further than a corporate or government structure.
Bob: Indeed.
Chuck: So with our potential prospects, it looks like there's some positive characteristics, some compatible interests, and some bad experiences and perceptions. Definitely a mixed bag. Our subjects Joe & Mary have their work cut out for them.
Bob: The concept of finding a need and filling it will be key here, Chuck. Let's move go to the game and see how they perform.
Chuck: Here's the kickoff with our subject making an icebreaker: Our ambitious couple asks Mike and Stacey something to the effect of, "Hey, have you bought fish here before?" Bob, how's this for an icebreaker?
Bob: Chuck, the icebreaker is never an easy thing to do and make it seem natural. Unfortunately, whether you're a single person looking for a date or a business person looking for a lead, when it comes to expanding your circle of influence, there's really no way around it. You've got to get to know people you don't yet know, and communication is the only way to start that. Icebreakers are never going to be profound, just functional. Any icebreaker that gets a polite conversation started is good enough, but obviously the more natural the better. This one isn't really natural.
Chuck: I'd guess it's easier to start a conversation in, say, the checkout line than the fish section.
Bob: That would be more natural. Again, anything that one does while just going through your life normally with an extra awareness of others and an extra effort to be friendly with others is going to be more natural.
Chuck: Looks like our potential prospects have a sense that it isn't natural, but they're politely going along with it. Good for them.
Bob: Chuck, IBM salesmen historically were taught the concept of "Ladder-Building" in sales and relationship studies; and good business-building practices still rely on the same principles: for each effort a business person makes in attempt to establish a rapport with a potential client, the client self-screens their qualification as a client by whether or not they respond in kind to the effort.
Chuck: I say hello, they say hello back? That kind of thing?
Bob: Exactly, and the completion of each exchange by both parties is considered adding another "rung" of a ladder. The studies showed that only after several successful exchanges-- say, 5 or 6 "rungs"-- does a potential client feel enough trust or connection to consider entering a business relationship.
Chuck: OK, then, following the icebreaker comes an introduction-- our subjects are exchanging names and handshakes, and Mike & Stacey reciprocate.
Bob: That's 2 "rungs" on the ladder.
Chuck: Next up, Joe asks what Mike & Stacey do for a living. Mike reciprocates with an answer about their web/programming.
Bob: Chuck, that's a third "rung", but here's where the trouble starts: Joe volunteers information about his own business.
Chuck: What happened to building a ladder?
Bob: Apparently Joe's abandoned any more relationship building to get out his message.
Chuck: What happened to establishing a need?
Bob: It looks like Joe is only thinking about his own needs, Chuck.
Chuck: This is not looking good. Let's see if Joe can pull his act back together.
Bob: Mike isn't responding to Joe's need--
Chuck: And why should he?
Bob: ...he's backing off with the classic "No Time" objection, citing his impending MBA studies as the reason.
Chuck: Still no more "rungs" built. Is there a good response to the "No Time" objection?
Bob: Chuck, the "No Time" objection can only be dealt with if you've already helped establish a need, want or desire, and then it's possible to help the person realign their time management with their new priorities. Joe hasn't even established a need yet.
Chuck: Uh-oh, this looks like a foul-- Joe seems to have insinuated that Mike's MBA plans are a waste of time and that he should be working for himself.
Bob: Unbelievable! There should be penalty flags all over for this move, Chuck. One of the major rules for dealing with people is to never criticize or condemn. Second, he's continued to put HIS need for new business contacts first without finding out any of Mike's needs.
Chuck: ...Or that Mike already has some side projects of his own and probably understands the benefits of self-employment. Talk about a desperate play-- He's actually trying to convince Mike that Joe's needs should be his? Where's his professionalism?
Bob: It appears shot at this point, Chuck. I can't imagine making a recovery at this point.
Chuck: Looks like you're right, Bob... Mike & Stacey are awkwardly ending the conversation... can't blame them for not giving their number-- they're making a break for it.
Bob: But that's not the end of it-- Stacey is blogs the encounter, giving more ammunition for skeptics and critics worldwide.
Chuck: Oh! That's gotta hurt! It's a lose/lose situation all around. Bob, what might Joe have done instead?
Bob: First of all Chuck, Joe loses a lot of credibility by jumping in to volunteer what he does for a living if it's not asked-- it makes him look needy. Let the potential client ask-- if they don't ask, you haven't given them enough reason to care what you do. Second, as I said, one of the prime rules for dealing with people is to never criticize or condemn. In fact, sincere praise goes a lot further with people. Always leave people better than how you found them, whether they fit with what you're doing in life or not.
Chuck: That's not just good business advice, that's good life advice.
Bob: Right-- So no matter what people have going in life, find something about it to genuinely complement them on.
Chuck: Something like, "Wow, you must be pretty sharp to work in a competitive field like that"...?
Bob: Yes, or something like, "That's really a growing field, things must be going great for you." And if there's going to be anything negative said about Mike or Stacy's work/life situation, let them voice it, not you. If they don't voice it, either they don't recognize a need for opportunity now, or you haven't built enough legitimate trust for them to open up to you about it.
Chuck: So Joe fumbled that play in more ways than one.
Bob: He definitely has, Chuck.
Chuck: Bob, assuming Joe & Mary had better training, better people skills, how might this encounter have played gone differently? Best case scenario.
Bob: That's hard to say Chuck, but if they could have built a relationship with Mike & Stacey enough to learn their needs and interests, I can see a few potential needs that could have been filled. With their active lifestyle and love for coffee, a few free samples of XS Energy Drink flavors might have convinced them to switch their daily habit of choice for something that still tastes great but has no sugar, no or low carbs, low calories and a more natural boost of energy than high levels of sugar and caffeine. Not to mention the world's original multivitamin/multimineral food supplement, the great tasting low carb protein bars and shakes, and well-balanced meal replacement and energy bars.
Chuck: And as you know Bob, Health/Nutrition and Beauty is a key high profitability area for those contracted with Quixtar, being independently ranked as the #1 online seller in that category.
Bob: Not to mention Mike's concern with commuting costs-- Many people find the Freedom Fuel Additive to be no cost after calculating the improved gas mileage and the savings from being able to downgrade to a lower octane fuel often makes the Additive more than pay for itself.
Chuck: So there's quite a few products whose value becomes obvious from the first use... combine that with Joe's ability to provide incentives for ongoing loyalty, and that would have made both Joe & Mary and Mike & Stacey a winner here.
Bob: And the only question would have been whether Mike & Stacey wanted to pay retail and have it delivered; or pay wholesale and qualify for potential manufacturer kickbacks-- and referral fees if they talked their products up the way they already do with movies, restaurants and coffee stands.
Chuck: Not to mention savings from Partner Stores they probably already frequent.
Bob: Right. It's a shame, but it looks like Joe blew it for both parties.
Chuck: A shame indeed, and you witnessed it right here on UE. Back to you, Anon.

Thank you Chuck. Well there you have it: great potential foiled by what appears to be bad people skills and an overriding concern for self above others.

Of course, no coverage would be complete without the post-game interviews: Look for our interaction with Stacey in the comments section of her blog post, under the commenter alias nonsequitur. Our offices were unable to contact the unidentified Joe & Mary for their side of the story, but we hope that our broadcast will help you, our audience, from becoming like them.

For UE, this is Anon Ibo... signing out.

Until next time, make it practical and profitable, and most of all, make it real.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,


VCs & IBOs

Good evening. I'm Anon Ibo, and this is UE.

In reading the advice of Venture Capitalist (VC) David Cowen on writing a business plan, a few insights occurred to us in the UE newsroom:

First, it's interesting-- but not surprising-- that the World Wide DreamBuilders "Private Franchise" Review (PFR) sheet, along with the FTC reviewed financial sheet WSA4400, contains the important elements Mr. Cowen has advised, and mostly in similar sequence. . . It's almost like they know what they are doing!

Second, the act of presenting your business plan to a prospective partner is not unlike presenting to a VC-- after all, a VC is going to shoulder a great deal of the risk and essentially become a partner. For a prospective partner in a private franchise, what you're really presenting is their potential future business, based on your own and the track record of your upline mentoring team. As such, they will be shouldering a great deal of the time and effort capital, as well as the modest upstart capital that will be required to build their business.

Thirdly, however, most prospective partners do not think like a VC, or even a business owner (they think how they've been trained to think: a dutiful employee/consumer.)
While a VC has learned to instinctively look for the best long-term Return On Investment (ROI) and can be convinced to go out on a limb if the potential looks good enough, the average employee/consumer has learned to pay the cheapest price and get the quickest, most consistent (read: secure) paycheck.

Independent Business Owners (IBOs) are often criticized for doing what's often called "dream building" with a prospective partner. The inferrence is that, since the potential income has not been created, it does not exist, therefore they selling an nonexistent result, i.e. running a scam. Heck, even the act of pitching a business is considered by many critics as a negative.

For this display of blatant ignorance of business, IBOs must forgive their critics-- Pitching a business plan is a common activity for business owners, and projecting a future ROI is done in any good business plan.

The distinction an IBO must make with an untrained prospective partner is to help them translate how that ROI would impact their lives. Frankly, the employee/consumer mentality of most prospective partners has trained them to not expect much from their lives at all. A VC has no problem visualizing how the ROI of a good upstart will impact their lifestyle... they already live a sampling of it, know they want more of it, and associate regularly with the jet-set crowd living it. The average employee/consumer, on the other hand, doesn't have the budget for the economy fare of a commercial flight without significant advanced notice. So the dream-building doesn't function to immediately benefit the IBO who is "selling the dream"... it's to help overcome the self-image barriers of the prospective partner.

On the flip-side, the IBO does have a sponsoring role towards the prospective partner, so s/he must also think like a VC:
Specifically, you as an IBO may also be investing time and effort and potentially some money into this prospective partner's business, so you need to ensure that they are a fit.

Anyone you have to "talk into" participation will likely need a refill on their "talk into" every time activity is needed. If their self-esteem is too low, even if you can get them to comprehend and accept the potential of your business model, you may end up constantly propping up their self-esteem to get them to undertake any activity on their own behalf.

One of the real reasons for the criticism a private franchise model receives is actually due to the self image of the former-IBO-turned-critic who got him/her self "talked into" participation despite their own self-esteem issues, who then proceeded to find other non-threatening self-esteem-deficient individuals to "talk into" participation and then didn't have enough morale props to go around to their team because they needed all the props for themselves.

Since you must help partners generate an income before you receive your own ROI, both of you may be getting a much better ROI if you sponsor low self-esteem prospects as a Pro-Sumer rather than a business builder-- chances are they will settle into a Pro-Sumer or below level of activity anyway.

In summary, with the WWDB PFR and WSA4400, you have a business plan worth pitching to any competent VC. Keep in mind that your prospective partner is like a VC-- they'll need to know what the potential ROI is and why they should invest in it. But since they won't likely think like a VC, you'll need to translate that ROI into lifestyle so they can visualize it strongly enough to put down the clicker and get off the couch for something more significant than their next "cold one". Finally, you must think like a VC in ensuring a good ROI for you and them, by positioning prospective partners/clients in an activity level and role that their self-esteem will support.

That's all our time for tonight. For UE, this is Anon Ibo, signing out.

Until next time, make it practical and profitable, and most of all, make it real.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,