Money or Efficiency? Know Where to Place Your Focus

Somehow, society has been perverted to the point that we think crap can be turned to gold, so long as it makes money. Worse, the venture capital and corporate acquisition culture has brainwashed us all into thinking that in the end, the payoff justifies the means.

That’s all bullshit, people. There are no substitutes for efficiency and sustainability, and nature proves this time and time again. For some reason, humanity continually repeats its mistakes of the past by going against the rules of nature, but in the end, these rules always prevail.

Better to know the truth and to act on it than to be misguided by the prevailing trends of the current age, don’t you think?

Take the Next Step!

  1. Share this on Twitter:
  2. Share this on Facebook:

48 comments… read them below or add one

Ava October 23, 2009

To paraphrase, “efficiency” is measured by return on investment (or did I miss the point?).

During the early startup phase, this would mean that most businesses are inefficient (eg. Google, Twitter, Mint, etc.); however, some of these “inefficient” businesses are able to raise large sums of capital.

We could reason that this is caused by expectations of future growth or the potential of untapped revenue streams (via a risk/return analysis). As “expectations” are embedded in human nature, it’s not likely that speculative investments will vanish any time soon.

Generally, outside of human beings, nature does not work on such assumptions. Therefore, the most successful human beings are either lucky or have greater abilities than the rest of us, or both. I would conclude that efficiency is actually a byproduct of both luck and individual ability.

wow, did I just write a school paper? what’s my grade professor?…put simply, you’re correct, all anyone can do to improve their chances for success is to work harder and work smarter.


Chris Pearson October 23, 2009

Ava — You totally missed the point. Did you even watch the video?


david October 23, 2009

These videos (yesterday’s, today’s, the beater one) feel like you’re swimming beyond your depth. It’s not that I think you’re wrong about these topics, but that I don’t *feel* you know what you’re talking about. Every example you cite in favor of your argument feels superficial and one-sided. Perhaps you’re omitting carefully-considered opposing points for punchiness, but the affect is, well, kinda douchey.

God knows ignorant douchiness doesn’t stop people from making money, or being the president, or whatever it is a person aspires to, but I’m always put off by it strongly. Taking a few breaks from the object of your thought to consider how others might see it is always a worthy exercise.

(On that note, I thought about canceling this, but decided that it too accurately reflected my first impression to waste it. I’d certainly understand if you mark it as spam and decided I was an a-hole.)


Chris Pearson October 23, 2009

David — Think what you like, but I have a track record that shows success at every turn. I’m not saying I have specific answers to all the problems out there, but I am saying that I’m dedicated to always pursuing better answers.

Also, I’ve accepted the fact that other people are going to view my output as “douchey,” over-the-top, incendiary, and maybe even annoying. I’m not here to please anyone other than myself, and the only way I can do that is by continuing to learn as much as I can about the world around us.


Ben Bleikamp October 23, 2009

Twitter would not have acquired millions of users as quickly as they have without giving away free accounts. They’re only relevant because they gave away those accounts.

DIYThemes has thousands of users and you started out charging, but if you had given away a theme of equal value, you’d have hundreds of thousands of blogs using the theme by now.

Obviously the analogy doesn’t work perfectly because a WordPress theme doesn’t need millions of users to be relevant to the people who use it, but a service like Twitter does. If I wasn’t able to follow the 70-100 people I am interested in because they weren’t willing to pay for Twitter, I wouldn’t pay either. Yes, I find Twitter useful now and yes, I would pay now, but I wouldn’t have learned that if I couldn’t have signed up for free.

You end up with the chicken and the egg problem and that’s much easier to solve if it’s free to sign up.

I agree that companies need to operate efficiently, but Twitter charging for users initially would have never worked for them; just look at the initial posts at tech blogs writing off the service as irrelevant, calling Evan Williams ‘crazy,’ etc.

Also, I don’t think their scaling problems are linear, each user does not effect the system equally – adding one more spammer is not as hard on their infrastructure as adding one more user with 25,000 followers. Figuring out which users to push a Tweet to is hard, pushing a tweet to no one or a single person (as in an @ reply) is easier.


Jez Liberty October 23, 2009

Sounds like you are quite angry…
I would not be on twitter if this was not for free. I dont care about their exit though and I treat spam as on email – I ignore it. And I dont want email to be paying either.


david October 23, 2009

Chris — Probably a more dignified response than I would have mustered to something like what I said. My primary point, though, is that you seem to be blind to the reasons that things aren’t how you want them to be.

Big organizations are inherently less efficient than small or one-man shops because of losses to scale: the need for communication between all the disparate parts takes time and assure some consistent (moderately-high) standard among them complicates that more. The reason the American Airlines website sucks isn’t that none of the guys working there are good designers, but because they have to offer consistent service that doesn’t upset their massive established clientele AND convince the people running the company that some new design is really as better for the company as a single designer believes it to be.

None of that really applies to Twitter, which you seem really bothered by for reasons I don’t understand. Twitter recently announced that Microsoft and Google are paying for access to their giant firehose. God knows how favorably this deal compares with venture spending, but neither of them would be spending that money if Twitter was instead the small walled garden you seem to want it to be.

Your tax/”yay rich people” rant aside though, I think you make good points. What you’ve done in the WordPress/web design world is impressive and the reason I still follow you and all your tweets about your dog, economics you might not understand, and guacamole. But that doesn’t mean that every business needs to work the way you do. (A point Ben makes very well.)


Chris Pearson October 23, 2009

Ben — First, let’s clear up one thing: I never said that Twitter should have charged from the get-go, and I never made the assertion that they would be where they are now without offering a free service.

If you want a practical solution, then consider this—Twitter should put ridiculous limits on the free accounts. Something like 5 tweets per day and the ability to follow and be followed by no more than 20 people unless you have a paid account.

Obviously, my little company and Twitter cannot be compared in any way; we do completely different things and offer solutions that exist in different sectors of the marketplace. The underlying point here is that due to its size, Twitter (and every other company wielding a big stick and tons of funding) has a responsibility to operate as efficiently as possible.

In nature, “free” doesn’t even exist. On the Internet, “free” creates inefficiencies and epic amounts of instability. Every single transaction (involving money, time, or whatever else) affects our overall economy, and unfortunately for the big boys, their inefficiencies are extremely important to the overall economic balance.

In other words, Twitter’s mistakes are far worse than those made by a company like DIYthemes, simply because the economy of scale applies to these mistakes.

“Bubbles” are never considered to be real until after a crash has occurred, but the truth is that bubbles exist all over the place—you just have to know how to spot ’em. Like it or not, large companies dumping tons of money in their vain chase to make an unnatural idea “work” is a bubble.

The educated public should be outraged when large companies have glaring inefficiencies and mismanage huge sums of money. This is precisely how the dot-com bust of the late ’90s happened, and things are not going to change unless we start to realize—and defend—the truth on a scale equal to that attained by these bogus “free” services.


Chris Pearson October 23, 2009

David — Good points, but I could say the same about you… Why is it hard to grasp that free is no different than putting the cart before the horse?

Yes, free gets you users. And in this insidious tech space that is flush with cash, greed, and uninformed opinions, free can even get you a big payday.

The truth, however, is that free does not solve problems. It is not sustainable.


Apurva January 18, 2010

A very interesting post Chris, and congratulations for same.
I think you summarized you post best, in the sentence, “The truth, however, is that free does not solve problems. It is not sustainable.”

If the service is free and even whimsically useful then it generates a big user-base. Which as you seem to have argued, leads the unimaginative ignoramuses (venture capitalists) to infer great profit.
Though this might be true sometimes if the user-base is successfully monetized, but fails most of the time, as Internet is considered synonymous with “FREE”. Nobody wants to pay for something which was originally free (eg. email).

Now the service originally offered, must be pretty value-less, as majority of the services on the Internet are. If it was offered for free to a big user base, means that the only input required for the service is code, server, electricity and the owner’s fantasies about choking on cash.

Hence if this service goes paid, then its a guaranteed fail. Another service provider will offer those services for “FREE”, and we know why. Ah, how deluded he must be too!
Since referral sales and adsense do not amount to business, they can be ignored from consideration.

Thus, problems can not be solved by free services. Problems can not be solved for free. Also, there is nothing “FREE” in real life. People seem to have forgotten that business exist in real life. Even the so called online businesses, do not exist as mere code in some server as the Internet, is merely a facilitator for business.

As only stuff on the internet can be free, and not in real life, hence by implication, “It is impossible that any business can be done for free” (unless you are selling from amazon and getting paid to tweet while you scout mechanical turk for that simple looking translation job).

* I have started to wonder if its worthwhile to render tediously a point which seems to have a very commonsense construction. So I am going to stop :) *



david October 23, 2009

Chris — For Twitter (and thus the world) the argument could easily be made that free solved a problem we didn’t know we had. The ability of individual people to break news and share it with the world, illustrated most vividly in the wake of the Iranian election, is genuinely new. Suddenly, through the democratic nature of free, millions of people were informed be a few wired-up dissidents.

Now, I hate terms like “web 2.0” or the “real-time web” but free is the reason that you can get a reasonable sense of how many people noticed a flub in a politician’s speech or how many people think A-Rod is the new Mr. October without having to wait for traditional information spreaders to get around to noticing these things and confirming them for us. It was getting faster on the web, but Twitter has made it instant. And without the massive user base that free has bought them, that simply wouldn’t be the case.

I think Ava made this point (which you summarily dismissed), but most businesses lose money when they start. And they lose money because they’re depending on a certain scale. Google wouldn’t have been able to get widely used without first having the money to index most of the web and serve that indexed content at a reasonable (in their case impressive) speed. It was only then that they were able to be consistently profitable by the standard you desire.

I would absolutely not dispute that a lot of crazy ideas that will clearly never be profitable get VC funding. Getting by without funding I can see how you would think this is silly, or outrageous, or insulting, but it doesn’t mean all VC-funded free services are shit. Even if “90% of everything is crap” some people will inevitably take those odds. The people who took those odds on Google won big.

I make no guarantees, but I wouldn’t be shocked if Twitter turned out to be a similar story.


Chris Pearson October 23, 2009

David — As I said in my previous video, I love Twitter, and I am probably one of the most ardent advocates of its benefits (which you took the time to spell out in your comment). That said, I also see that their current model is completely unsustainable.

In 1969, the United States did something unprecedented and remarkable—we sent a crew of brave astronauts to the freakin’ moon! As incredible and awe-inspiring as this event was, it was also unsustainable. Over the following years, we made a few repeat visits to our lunar buddy, but ultimately, the cost-to-benefit ratio of going to the moon proved to be Apollo’s undoing.

Under the current circumstances, Twitter will suffer the same fate (as will any other service whose open-door policy leads to a necessary scaling of hardware).


Manuel March 23, 2010

The fact that you consider going to the moon as an economic activity makes me doubt about your reasoning. Sometimes things are done for reasons other than money. For example: political reasons, scientific reasons. vanity, glory… Man does not live by bread alone.


david October 23, 2009

Um, Google always has been and sustainably remains free… no?

That a single (barely analogous) anecdote exists to the contrary doesn’t nullify the possibility that it *can* work.

If your arguments is that to guarantee sustainability they need to balance revenue and operating expenditures I agree. If your argument is that they can’t be sustainable without immediately changing tack, I dissent. And if you’re saying Twitter will necessarily die because it’s currently (probably) operating at a loss, you’re insane.


Chris Pearson October 23, 2009

David — Google isn’t free by any stretch of the imagination—they are an ad-supported business (and at this point, Twitter is not). Further, they practice arbitrage on a huge scale (Twitter doesn’t do this, either).


Jermaine Maree October 23, 2009

There are so many factors that come into play once a company reaches the level of growth Twitter has. Without knowing the full situation it is difficult to judge the decisions they make. Somewhere there has to be tons of internal discussion on how the company can operate more efficiently and generate revenue. Although, when you grow at the rate they did you spend a lot of time catching up before you can begin to address many of those problems.

Companies do have the responsibility to operate efficiently but the complexity of doing so becomes significantly more difficult with each new employee that you hire and each additional user that you acquire. I still think Twitter has some time to figure things, but it needs to start happening now. I would like to assume that this is their top priority.

If the company fails down the road, the trickle down effect grows each month the company is in business. Many new services and business models are popping up everyday that rely on Twitter. It cannot continue to operate without generating revenue or reducing costs by operating more efficiently.

Eventually someone is going to stop paying the bill. And if that happens all those companies dependent upon Twitter go belly up as well.

Great video!


Jez Liberty October 24, 2009

wow Chris, I think you should read more about economics…
I suggest Austrian Economics.

I think that you just have an axe to grind (about twitter spammers?), that you do not really understand how a large economy works at a macro scale and how it always self-correct in an efficient way (I would add that the timescale for this depends on government intervention – but this would be getting too politically involved…)

Would the mild success experienced by DIYThemes have gotten to your head?
If so I’d suggest reading Fooled by Randomness and The Drunkard’s Walk to make you realise that your success is much more the works of chance than you can even imagine…

BTW Google IS free in the same way that twitter is free or facebook is free – they just have different “monetisation” strategies.
One could easily argue that twitter monetisation will come later when a HUGE user base has been built (offering the service completely free) – maybe making twitter as ubiquituous as email – which surely in the long run, would make the service more efficient (think: economies of scale, being able to contact everybody on twitter, etc.).
Efficiency should be measured in the long run! But once again, short-term efficiency is the widely adopted short-sighted approach of our western culture which you might have succombed to, it seems.

David’s point on being free (web 2.0 etc.) and the emergence of alternative info channels is also very important.

I also think you need to revise your internet economy economics: Google was completely free and with no revenue generating activity for quite a few years – still having to sustain a huge growth and scaling their hardware accordingly. Only then did they introduce a money-making machine!
There is still a lot of spam in google but, oh boy, does google add to the overall internet and wider economy efficiency!!

I think you just need to understand that there are several phases in building a business and that twitter is still in the loss-making early phase while Google or DIYThemes are in a more mature phase.


Chris Pearson October 24, 2009

Jez — You are clearly a master of the rhetoric, but I prefer to look at actual results. Here’s what’s happening right now if you try to visit Twitter:

Twitter: Focused on Results!


Matt Hart October 25, 2009

I had had intended to give some feedback on your video Chris, however… I am now reduced to flaming Jez.

Jez – Are you serious? Your comment is like a bad horror movie. As soon as the victim runs up the stairs, I start cheering the bad guy.

You clearly have no idea what your talking about, and suggesting he reads a few books (by the way if you haven’t read ‘The Boy that Harnessed the Wind’ I suggest you do, it will not help you with this discussion) to get his facts straight is just ridiculous. Chris is expressing his opinions. he could sit down and read us a book on macro economics and attempt to relate it to Twitter, but I for one wouldn’t listen.

I’ve read one of the books you mention, and your right, the economy will survive a little bit of inefficiency, but Twitter might not, and we will have lost a fantastic service simply because it wasn’t built to be sustainable.

wow, Jez I think you should read more about fishing, you need a new hobbie.

Chris – I’m not sure I buy into your comparisons with nature (I don’t really see what a Lion pays to down a gazelle), but I think I agree otherwise :)


John B October 28, 2009

I’m with you Chris. Nothing is free. What pisses me off even more than the inefficiencies are that users of “free” services are paying with their privacy.

The businesses of trading goods or services (for money or consideration) has been around as long as man. It is a social science called economics.

The business of trading goods or services for free has never been a sustainable model. This is a huge problem in today’s social science. The herd has never been larger. As such, it has never been this dangerous.

One day, enough of the herd will wake up and realize that they have paid and paid dearly with their privacy. The party will be over and the timeless traditional trading of goods and services for money will rise back to the top.

I could go on and on but it’s late.

Keep up the rational good thinking Chris!


Dave B October 28, 2009

Chris, I’ll forget the tax issue.

On a micro scale I’m assuming you’ve learned something from your Cutline experience. Build up a big user base (for free) and cash in when you sold it. I think that model can work for start up ideas because they need to build a base. Also you could take that capital for your first venture and ramp things up for the second one (Cutline to Thesis business model).

Twitter’s problem is that they were a small idea that just took off.


Frederik October 31, 2009

Chris – I had to watch this one twice to get the point. If I still miss the point, well, shame on me.

I’m not using Twitter very often and I guess that the overall chance of seeing a fat and ugly failwhale has been around 10% for me. That is a huge number and I am not exaggerating (while thinking that the true blackout count is about 20%). I often thought about Twitter as that very failwhale, dumped on some shore, free for all to pick some flesh and then let it die. I do also like to compare Twitter to Flickr. Same sound of name but big differences. Flickr charges for Pro accounts and is doing very well with this business model.

There are, however, free accounts at Flickr but you are regulated and censored in some way. The point is that censorship is not about WHAT you can do with your Flickr pics but HOW MANY images you are allowed to upload. That’s for sure a great idea. Scaling seems to be complicated but I believe it isn’t more difficult than uploading an image on Flickr.

I hate/love Twitter for many reasons. In the end I prefer something else which does not exist yet. In fact there won’t be anything comparable to Twitter because this huge bubble takes all the space already. Even if there existed an alternative to Twitter who would care at all? All those free accounts raised millions of billions of followers and nobody is ever going to switch his or her account just because somebody else from another company is doing a better job. Efficiency should be entering the game very soon…

I would love to use Twitter like I use other software – today it is still buggy and without being efficient it will stay the same until it is off the shore. You are perfectly right with your assumption of people thinking (and yelling) that it is okay for big companies to perform some big bullshit kind of work – just because they are not charging money for their crappy work. As you insist nothing is for free in nature. I agree.

I like your business model as it proves me 1) efficiency, 2) authority, 3) reason, 4) insert nice attribute. I was hanging around on your website for some days and then I bought Thesis 1.5 – it’s just the best theme available (trust me, I tried all them free ones).

Furthermore I already sold one of your Thesis copies and got rewarded with about 33% of the price I would have paid if I was lame enough to NOT pick the precious developer option ;-)

You are making money, I am making money – we are all happy. But, alas, I bet Twitter is offline so I cannot thank you for posting this video…


Kiran November 2, 2009

Everyone is in the money-making business. Period.


Rocky Garcia November 11, 2009

Of course efficiency because you can earn the money that you wanted if you have efficiency on what you are doing.

Focus on what you really want, where your passion is and never try to do things that is in but not in your passion.

Try to what you really want. If you already mastered it, your readers and competitors will hands down to you. YOU WIN!


John November 13, 2009

I think you hit the nail on the head.


ghazanfar November 18, 2009

Another good video, im becoming a fan!


aaron wall December 6, 2009

I think the problem here is that you are presuming that other people have your care/concern for greatness (and your vision). But, on the whole, society does not always have such values. Many people are cared about beer or banging chicks or sports or etc. And most can’t see beyond the tip of their own nose. Just login to some of the offer affiliate networks and see how slimy a lot of the products are…those were not created for greatness, but to get instant cashflow from a greater fool.

Why buy acai berry for $9 at GNC when you can get it for $5 online*
* with recurring $19.99 three times a month payments

And even at the macro-level, so many businesses/business models/investments are based on hyping growth and then selling a sack of crap into the market to a greater fool. Internet stocks, real estate, etc. Bubbles are a natural part of markets & government policy often fuels them as well.

To the average man on the street selling you services the Dollar in your pocket looks no different than the 10’s of Billions of Dollars Goldman Sachs stole from taxpayers.


Chris Pearson December 6, 2009

Aaron — Although the world is awash with assholes, lazy people, and poor answers, I am trying my damnedest to cultivate a different, more genuine reality for myself. Since everything we experience is a probability function relative to our perspective, I have no choice but to try and influence the world around me in a manner that is consistent with my worldview.


aaron wall December 7, 2009

I can respect that. I would often like to be a bit less cynical…but it has become harder for me over the past few years. Props to you ;)


mindctrl December 10, 2009

If we widen the scope of our thought, we find that we’re far from operating efficiently.


Collette January 5, 2010

Chris – Your demo link for Press Row has been hacked by this asshole:

Thought you’d like to know.

You rock.


Jim Hen January 17, 2010

I personally feel that it doesn’t matter if they receive 0 profit vs. having ads and it still being free to the end user.

Starting free isn’t anything new. Lots of sites do. Many people suggest that all blogs/sites should start free till they develop a following (which I don’t personally agree with in most cases). It’s only unsustainable if they can’t find a non-obtrusive method of displaying ads, or getting commission.


Rob McCance January 18, 2010

I really don’t get what all the piss’n and moanin’ is about.

You get what you pay for. If you use a free service, quit crying about ANY aspect of it.

If you want a more professional, less spammy version, and it does not exist, make it yourself.

Nobody will ever change the world or get their version of reality pushed onto everyone and everything else.

The Germans tried that once already.


twainsawyer January 21, 2010

I wish to disagree ! Imao…the human race needs to strive, to better him/herself. back in the day that was simple, the warmest house, most clothing. largest herd…et al. In the western society we do not live our lives in that fashion, we have progressed ! Money, in what ever form , is how we measure the progress of the our society. Now, we can’t all earn £100ks and upwards, but there are less of us in poverty than under the historical view . Without , venture capital etc many people wouldn’t work, entrepreneurs wouldn’t flourish and you wouldn’t have the time to sit and bitch.


Sam January 24, 2010

like cigarettes in the pocket of boy who is cool ….
Sheep don’t know the definition of business; They just know the difference between day and night and that the grass is there to eat.


Karthi January 30, 2010

Ya i Too agree with kiran..what she has said was true…this world is moving with making money…not with efficiency…


Chris Pearson January 30, 2010

Actually, every species is completely reliant upon efficiency for survival, and not a single species has ever advanced or evolved due to money. True story!


Rob McCance January 30, 2010

What’s the difference between a highly efficient tribe of humans in the African jungle (with no monetary system) and what’s found in the USA (capitalists)?

Which one is more advanced, and why?

Both have been on the planet the same amount of time. Both are humans.

BTW, the word “evolved” is way out of context here. Evolution has to do with genetics, not SW development and money.


Kala Youngs February 10, 2010

What you say is correct, or should I say true. The sad thing is that truth doesn’t always mean that it is a fact. The fact is that it is about money in today’s society. The fact is, that companies don’t care about the social depravity they spread by being greedy so and so’s.

It’s nice to believe or at least dream that there could be a society where it wasn’t about money. A society that was not so much about efficiency even but rather about doing the right thing for a change.

But the great green god of money keeps getting in the way of the utopian dream. I have know very few people in my life who adhere to the put money second principal and stick with it. Are there some, yes, who are they? Usually people who don’t have to worry about money, people who don’t have day to day job they need to feed a family with. And this is by no fault of their own, rather a result of the pressures society places on us all.

MANY times I suspect they are people who came up from the ranks, clawing and scratching, putting money as the goal, and as someone else said were ones who worked harder and smarter, but not necessarily for the right reasons. We will never know how many little people they crushed along the way.

I am no Mother Teresa, and I doubt that anyone else can claim to be the new Mahatma Gandhi either. These two and one other that I can think of set examples. Doing the greatest good, for as many as possible without thought of self. As we say from where I come from , that’s a tough row to hoe.

I know your intent was not to say that they shouldn’t have some thought of self and that they should do everything for the greater good. But I do think you went a wee bit far on how you belittled those of us who are not independently wealthy and who don’t manage large multinational companies. We do matter, and we do make a difference, collectively if nothing else.

I learned early in life, that everything you do, every word your utter that is heard has an impact on someone. You may never know exactly the affect you have on someone by your actions or your words, but rest assured they do have consequences. The more positive your actions and words, (proven fact) the more positive the affect they have.

And when we stop putting the money in front of the more important things in life such as family, friends and those we care about , the better off we will all be. How true are your motivations?


Russell February 15, 2010


I agree with your main thrust about efficiency and sustainability being key components of a long term business.

But Twitter is not a long term business; it may survive and morph into something else. It is not unreasonable for the owners not to have a long term plan. It takes much different skills to run a 100 person or 10,000 person business from a startup business.

Like the Man of the Moon, any large scale enterprise has beneficial unintended consequences. I look at Twitter like I look at theoretical research: it may be inefficient but if there are enough experiments like this then greater good will result.

What your analysis misses is a measure of effectiveness. When in startup and growth mode then effectiveness is what counts; thereafter is all about making your business efficient in order to maximise the return on investment.

I don;t mind Twitter’s business model at all, what I really dislike is large, inefficient government subsidized businesses with lousy service. (let’s start with banking)

What are your thoughts on the FairTax? Scores high on efficiency, collectability, avoidability and simplicity


loneBrain ( A.G.) April 12, 2010

Now to get to the point: Nature laws. The humanity has been always fought against the nature. By fire and sword. We`re about to destroy our world like bunch of worms who feed from a single apple, then grow and multiply. But the apple remains the same size. At the end the natural laws say: all worms die in horrible death. (The strongest remain last).
Who can limit the growth of the humanity to prevent the horrible end ?
I can still hear the people who are proud of how many children they have made.


James April 25, 2010

I think we are all in it to make money in some way even the free service providers out there. But remember you get what you pay for. And there is no way that Twitter is dying cause it is running a loss. Most businesses that offer free service will invariably run into a loss in the beginning. But, once the revenue strategies kick in, I am pretty sure they will make money and lots of it.


Peter Colledge May 8, 2010

Hi Chris,
Just for a laugh I typed in the motto of my old school and your blog appeared. I was there from 1958 to 1965. I see you have real website talent. Mr Martin (?) would have been proud of you! All the best.


Jay May 15, 2010

The fact of the matter is efficiency and sustainability are at the core of the existence of any successful business or venture. If product or service delivery are not efficiently delivered then the business or venture will eventually reach about where it is no longer sustainable. That’s just the fact of the matter.


Mike June 6, 2010

@ Jay

If you know how to handle your business using the strategies that you have, there will be now problem at all. You just need to continue what you’re doing and make sure that you can solve every problem that come on your way.


Kate June 20, 2010

Plot all your strategies. Within the process, you can eliminate those strategies that aren’t suited to achieve your goal. In this way, you can really make sure that your doing the right thing.


Gary September 23, 2010

“If you know how to handle your business using the strategies that you have, there will be no problem at all. You just need to continue what you’re doing and make sure that you can solve every problem that come on your way.”

Completely agree.


Aloysius May 9, 2012

Everyone’s goal should be to make as much money as they want as long as it is honest and you give back to help others. A quote that I like is from Wallace D Wattles. Always give more in use value than what you ask. Great philosophy for everyone in business.


Hoot and/or Holler

Previous post:

Next post: