Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • How Do The Best Graphic And Web Design Firms Handle Sales?

    SALES: It varies by the size of the company.   Small companies generally are hired because they are local and cheap for small projects. Small projects get more attention and quality from small local companies. Big companies hate small stuff and are expensive. Selling to local companies is really just a matter of knocking on doors and showing work until they give you some of it.

    Large agencies are generally hired for their breadth of services, ability to scale, and strategic understanding.  Large agencies are able to attract and pay for a lot of talent in sales and delivery.

    Most opportunities are found through relationships between people who know each other.  But customers are always seeking new agencies and ideas. So customers will sometimes seek out an agency that wins awards or does promotional work for interesting clients.

    But most new companies do not have relationships and must generally produce gratis work for non-profits to promote its abilities. Much of the best award winning creative work is done gratis.  Usually, established companies are too conservative to fund projects that are useful for the agency to use in a sales pitch.

    Rarely do companies get off the ground without one or two accounts to support the startup.

    If I understand your question above, ‘Design Services’ is what you’re selling. 
    The problem is that for marketers, design services are like buying paper towels, toilet paper, and dish soap: they’re commodities. Design isn’t scarce. The difference between all but the top talent is marginal. So to get clients, you need to sell something other than the work itself.  Generally, you’re willingness to do it cheaply, or with greater customer service. Or perhaps because you understand their business or customers.  Largely; it’s “ease, dependability and price”.

    Most agencies MARKET rather than sell themselves.  Most service companies SELL themselves rather than MARKET themselves.  The question is, whether you have the money and talent to market yourself, or whether you are still just a service company and need to sell commodity services directly until you have relationships and business understanding. 

    PROCESS: 1)if you’re small just knock on doors and learn about possible client’s businesses.  Eat whatever ‘bugs’ you have to in order to get in the door.
    2) Develop a pitch team of Creative, Editorial, Technical, Marketing and account management.  Most of the time, in my experience, there are only two strong people out of that set in any given company. 
    3) if you get big enough, then hire a salesperson.  Usually the founders of small firms perform sales.   Sales people are very risky. Almost all business I have purchased in my life have gotten in trouble when the founders try to stop selling and hire salespeople.

    RFP’s: have a very bad name largely because customers will steal ideas, and because most of the time you’re just ‘column fodder’.  Pitches are EXPENSIVE.    A big agency for example only might put in five pitches a year. But they would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on each pitch. A midsized agency might spend over 50K for each pitch and do more of them, and a small agency less than that. It’s expensive.  A commodity agency might never pitch just sell services based upon proposals.  So, if you’re in the pitch business, it’s best to pick the RFP’s you’re capable of winning and then to absolutely kill it with good ideas, and price on the pitch. 

    My main bit of criticism, as someone who almost never loses a pitch, is that it’s not worth pitching something that you havent given your all.  So only pitch when you’re willing to give it your all, and where what you’re pitching is really valuable to the customer.  Everything else is a waste of time and money.  Count on at least one-quarter of your business leaving each year, so that if you want a greater than 20% growth rate – which is what attracts customers and talent – then you need to sell enough pitches to generate 40-50% of your revenue a year. If you figure out the average size of your accounts as they exist today, then the size of the pitches you feel you can win, then the rate of your wins, it’s just some simple math.   (Most agencies are puny, at under 5M in billings.) 

    (I’m trying to keep this simple enough for a Quora posting, so if something isn’t clear then ask.)

    SOFTWARE: Adobe suite. Macs. You need to be able to speak PC well enough to work with and deliver customers assets though.

    REFERENCES: There are notoriously few books on this business that are worth reading.  Ogilvy on Advertising is about all you really need to know.  There is one on copywriting the name and author escapes me.  Maister’s book on being a “Trusted Advisor” is as timeless as Ogilvy’s.   Other than Seth Godin’s attempt to shock the old guard into thinking about the identity of consumers today little has been written that’s really valuable. (There book about the marketing history of Mazda is good too.) Generally, high minded and fashionable books on marketing and advertising are just nonsense.  Find work. Take care of clients. Accumulate talent.  Try to survive. It’s a craft. Not a science.  It’s not that complicated.

    LAST BIT OF ADVICE: Creativity is not magic. It is the process of filling your mind with related information then playing while the subconscious does its thing.  It’s repeatable. It’s procedural. And you can get good at it as an individual or team.  The best defense against doing bad work is to simply collect as much work as possible and keep examples of both good and ‘failures’.  I can’t tell you how many ideas I’ve shot down by using an example of a known failure.

    OVERALL: It is a murderously overpopulated business in transition from a highly profitable past to a less profitable future, where you are little more than a commodity and where you live hand-to mouth in exchange for the freedom to work in a field that accepts “playing” as doing work.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-the-best-graphic-and-web-design-firms-handle-sales

  • Why Does Racism Exist And From Where Did It Originate?

    For a set of reasons:
    1) Mating selection is determined by both genetic markers (physical properties) and status signals (social properties).
    2) There are differences in desirability between the races due to different morphological attributes, despite the near universal human preference for a set of attributes. 
    3) There are different DISTRIBUTIONS of certain talents across the races. (linguistic intelligence, and spatial intelligence in particular.) This difference in distributions causes the development of different norms and preferences within groups, which in turn alters the complex signals we both observe and send.
    4) Because of this economy of signaling, Status Signals ‘within group’ are lower cost than status signals ‘across groups’. (Partly because we have just have higher familiarity within the group). Each of us is more likely to get more positive, and fewer negative status signals within group than across groups. And those signals are richer and more complex.
    5) These signals affect our relationships and the trust that can develop in them.  Where that trust is necessary for relaxed interaction, goal determination, task coordination, and risk taking.
    6) In the working and lower classes, external racial groups usually will work for less money or will displace them in their earning capacity and therefore also deprive them of status signals.  Racism is a means of forming political solidarity themselves, as well as with their elites, for the purpose of preserving their advantage – or gaining their advantage.
    7) In the middle and upper middle classes, racism is a vehicle for maintaining political power (law) and social power (norms) and assets (their own accumulated status signals) for themselves and their groups.

    This set of facts is demonstrated by our demonstrated universal preference to work (largely) and live (largely) with people who share our same ethnicity and social class. The data illustrates that preference over and over again.  In simple terms, we are ‘judged’ more easily, and therefore included more easily among those with whom we share physical, intuitive, conceptual, and habitual similarities. However, at the extremes, the very successful and prosperous tend to form a worldwide-class and the lower classes seek mates more opportunistically, and there are social signaling benefits to certain racial groups (a mating between a below average white woman and an above average black man may increase the social standing and quality of mates of both. So the racial norm is a majority-middle preference. 

    While there is a noticeable rise in the inbreeding going on between asians and whites,  women still seem to demonstrate an extraordinary preference for men within their race (men are less discriminating) of upwards of 80%.  But this preferences is a middle class statistic obtained from dating sites. And it becomes very hard to make the same statements about the lower classes outside of what’s stated in the census (about 15% intermarriage).  The reason is that some races are pretty indistinct (black/hispanic) because of high interbreeding already.

    I hope this was helpful. This is only a sketch of a complex topic. But it’s enough of a trail of bread crumbs that it might help answer your question.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-does-racism-exist-and-from-where-did-it-originate

  • Are There Any Arguments Against Immigration That Are Compatible With Libertarian Thought?

    1) Hoppe has put forth an argument (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han…)  But hoppe would also argue that if a bunch of neighbors made a contract that no one without red hair could move into a neighborhood/village/city that was all privately owned, even by the use of shares, that since that contract was vountarily entered into by members that they would all have to respect it.  (This is called the “right of exclusion”.)

    2) When libertarians talk about any given issue, they do so within the libertarian context: the inviolability of private property. The inviolability of private property requires that no involuntary transfers occur. This tenet of in turn requires the absence of redistributive programs that allow immigrants to transfer weath by moving into a geography and obtaining redistribution (theft).  Theft which therefore is used to fund the growth of the bureaucratic (parasitic) governmnet. This argument is that OPEN immigration is incompatible with the welfare state.
     
    The alternative solutions are that a) people pay their way in, or b) they borrow and pay back their way in c) or that they are ‘sponsored’ by someone who is financially responsible for their productivity or loss (as was common in history). Further that they conform to norms that are expressions of property rights. Any one of these solutions makes immigration possible without violating property rights. Open immigration under redistribution doesn’t. I think this argument is pretty hard to refute.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-arguments-against-immigration-that-are-compatible-with-libertarian-thought

  • Are There Any Arguments Against Immigration That Are Compatible With Libertarian Thought?

    1) Hoppe has put forth an argument (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han…)  But hoppe would also argue that if a bunch of neighbors made a contract that no one without red hair could move into a neighborhood/village/city that was all privately owned, even by the use of shares, that since that contract was vountarily entered into by members that they would all have to respect it.  (This is called the “right of exclusion”.)

    2) When libertarians talk about any given issue, they do so within the libertarian context: the inviolability of private property. The inviolability of private property requires that no involuntary transfers occur. This tenet of in turn requires the absence of redistributive programs that allow immigrants to transfer weath by moving into a geography and obtaining redistribution (theft).  Theft which therefore is used to fund the growth of the bureaucratic (parasitic) governmnet. This argument is that OPEN immigration is incompatible with the welfare state.
     
    The alternative solutions are that a) people pay their way in, or b) they borrow and pay back their way in c) or that they are ‘sponsored’ by someone who is financially responsible for their productivity or loss (as was common in history). Further that they conform to norms that are expressions of property rights. Any one of these solutions makes immigration possible without violating property rights. Open immigration under redistribution doesn’t. I think this argument is pretty hard to refute.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-arguments-against-immigration-that-are-compatible-with-libertarian-thought

  • Is Islam A Political Ideology? (And Are Progressivism, Scientism, Democratic Secular Humanism Religions?)

    From The Global Secular Humanism Group: “Should ‘Islam’ be considered as a political ideology and a religion at the same time?” The question should be restated in this fashion in order to illustrate Islam’s political content: A) Should Islam be considered a Religion? (Yes/No) YES: Religions consist of Myths and rituals. It does appear that religions require some form of magian reasoning. However, scientism, secular humanism, progressivism, all require ‘faith’ (in methodology, reason, or technology) that is expressly counter to the historical evidence. So, it is quite possible to create a personal philosophy that is the premise for a religion (scientism, secular humanism, progressivism) on faith. Scientism has myths, rituals and institutions. Progressivism has them too. Secular humanism is getting close, but I tend to treat secular humanists as simply anti-christian atheists and progressives as Democratic Secular Humanists. That means Secular Humanism is a minor ideology, and Democratic Secular Humanism as a major ideology. Both of which rely upon faith. But Democratic (Socialist) Secular Humanism, like islam, has both laws (human rights), institutions (academia, the press, the party structure, and it’s developed expressly for use in majority rule under parliamentarianism). So it appears to be both an ideology, a religion and a political system. B) Should Islam be considered a political Ideology? (Yes/No) YES: The purpose of an ideology is to obtain political power through excitation of the masses. Islam was invented to obtain political power. Islam was used as a means of conquest, and succeeded in obtaining political power. Islam is used to obtain, justify and use political power. Political power is the power to enforce the primacy of a set of laws. Islam contains a code of laws with explicit commandment to their primacy. Therefore islam is a political ideology. C) Should Islam be considered a political system? (Yes/No) YES: While a primitive political system only requires the ability to resolve disputes, A political system capable of coordinating investments (taxes and expenditures on infrastructure) requires at a minimum, laws, and an organization that mandates the exclusivity of those laws above all other laws, rules and norms. Islam has both a set of laws (Sharia) and a system of producing judges for those laws (Mullahs) and a system of intergenerational teaching for the purpose of propagating those laws (Religious Schools). In effect islam is a legal system with magian origins (instead of natural rights). That islam does not include other formal institutions (a parliament) is simply a function of it’s antiquity and tribal authoritarianism. Islam conquered a roman state (Byzantium) and assimilated it’s administrative structure. But did not include it on it’s own. In fact, much of islamic administration relied upon slaves and eunuchs because the byzantine administration could not adapt to Arab tribalism. (See Fukuyama’s recent book.) Islam is a religion, a political ideology, and a political system. If one argues that it is not, then one must define the terms religion, political ideology, and political system. And that exercise would lead to either confirmation of that it is a religion, ideology and political system, or one would define those terms using selection bias by sampling normative rather than structural rules.

  • Political Movements: How Globally Influential Are Nazi And Fascist Factions?

    ( Pretty bad answers so far. I’ll try to help. )

    I can speak to the US, UK, Germany and Greece, all of whom have  active movements at present — with England’s two groups currently the most activist and noticeable.  Although in Greece, the degree of stress and the Greek problem of Turkish immigration into Europe (akin to Mexican in the states) is the fuel for an rapidly expanding movement.

    The fascist (Nazi) movements consist largely of working class males.  In these countries, the movements generally expand during times of economic duress.  This is because of a variety of factors but largely that these males are displaced by competition from immigrants.  (There is some suspicion but not good data, that it is driven by difficulties in finding mates as well, since mates are a status symbol.) Their concern in this regard is not without merit, really.  In their view, they tow the social line, adhere to rules and norms, and are not rewarded for it, and instead are displaced both economically and socially. So they see society as ‘unfair’ to them.

    These movements are not large. In the single digits of suport. (Although in the UK they have managed to capture of few seats recently.  But because these movements are vocal and somewhat frightening, they get a lot of press. Consequently, the governments tend to be highly concerned about them. In no small part because they are subgroups of a supposedly social majority that is not satisfied with the state of affairs, thus invalidating the existing government, and posing a threat to the dominant political ideology.  It’s probably useful to keep in mind that a) chaos and loss of faith in a government can occur more easily in a country than we assume  b) a revolution only requires that five to ten percent of a population be united and willing to deploy violence in some organized fashion. So it is not irrational to take these groups seriously if they have any chance of getting above five percent support of the population.

    But in real terms they are not so much politically influential as they are a measure of dissatisfaction that is so great that it is driving some percentage of the population to advocate violent change to the status quo.  Their very presence is a meaningful yardstick.

    https://www.quora.com/Political-Movements-How-globally-influential-are-Nazi-and-fascist-factions

  • Political Movements: How Globally Influential Are Nazi And Fascist Factions?

    ( Pretty bad answers so far. I’ll try to help. )

    I can speak to the US, UK, Germany and Greece, all of whom have  active movements at present — with England’s two groups currently the most activist and noticeable.  Although in Greece, the degree of stress and the Greek problem of Turkish immigration into Europe (akin to Mexican in the states) is the fuel for an rapidly expanding movement.

    The fascist (Nazi) movements consist largely of working class males.  In these countries, the movements generally expand during times of economic duress.  This is because of a variety of factors but largely that these males are displaced by competition from immigrants.  (There is some suspicion but not good data, that it is driven by difficulties in finding mates as well, since mates are a status symbol.) Their concern in this regard is not without merit, really.  In their view, they tow the social line, adhere to rules and norms, and are not rewarded for it, and instead are displaced both economically and socially. So they see society as ‘unfair’ to them.

    These movements are not large. In the single digits of suport. (Although in the UK they have managed to capture of few seats recently.  But because these movements are vocal and somewhat frightening, they get a lot of press. Consequently, the governments tend to be highly concerned about them. In no small part because they are subgroups of a supposedly social majority that is not satisfied with the state of affairs, thus invalidating the existing government, and posing a threat to the dominant political ideology.  It’s probably useful to keep in mind that a) chaos and loss of faith in a government can occur more easily in a country than we assume  b) a revolution only requires that five to ten percent of a population be united and willing to deploy violence in some organized fashion. So it is not irrational to take these groups seriously if they have any chance of getting above five percent support of the population.

    But in real terms they are not so much politically influential as they are a measure of dissatisfaction that is so great that it is driving some percentage of the population to advocate violent change to the status quo.  Their very presence is a meaningful yardstick.

    https://www.quora.com/Political-Movements-How-globally-influential-are-Nazi-and-fascist-factions

  • In The Us, Is It Realistic To Try To Achieve Labor/progressive Goals In Businesses Through More Active Shareholder Participation Rather Than Government Regulation?

    Being a shareholder is like being a voter. It’s more symbolic than meaningful. Companies of any size are affected either by a) threats to the brand perception by customers or b) threats at regulation.  These two are more effectives strategies than minority share ownership.

    IMHO there is a trending body of thought that suggests shareholders are not owners but speculative lenders. The recent Apple dividend distribution was caused by economists blogging and publicly decrying the company’s hoard.  This caused the company to issue dividends defensively.  And the powerlessness (and frankly, lack of utility) of shareholders was part of that discussion.  Lynn Stout has written a book “The Shareholder Value Myth” and I think it accurately represents the mythology around shareholder ownership.

    https://www.quora.com/In-the-US-is-it-realistic-to-try-to-achieve-labor-progressive-goals-in-businesses-through-more-active-shareholder-participation-rather-than-government-regulation

  • In The Us, Is It Realistic To Try To Achieve Labor/progressive Goals In Businesses Through More Active Shareholder Participation Rather Than Government Regulation?

    Being a shareholder is like being a voter. It’s more symbolic than meaningful. Companies of any size are affected either by a) threats to the brand perception by customers or b) threats at regulation.  These two are more effectives strategies than minority share ownership.

    IMHO there is a trending body of thought that suggests shareholders are not owners but speculative lenders. The recent Apple dividend distribution was caused by economists blogging and publicly decrying the company’s hoard.  This caused the company to issue dividends defensively.  And the powerlessness (and frankly, lack of utility) of shareholders was part of that discussion.  Lynn Stout has written a book “The Shareholder Value Myth” and I think it accurately represents the mythology around shareholder ownership.

    https://www.quora.com/In-the-US-is-it-realistic-to-try-to-achieve-labor-progressive-goals-in-businesses-through-more-active-shareholder-participation-rather-than-government-regulation

  • What Is The Libertarian Position On Laws About Filming Up Women’s Skirts Without Their Consent?

    Anon is correct.

    The reason that someone can violate another’s privacy is because there are insufficient property rights due to the ‘tragedy of the commons’ in ‘public’ areas.

    However, we don’t need to get that complicated.  If all citizens of a village are shareholders, and shareholders vote to create a contractual obligation that we don’t look up women’s skirts, then there is nothing that violates ‘libertarian’ principles.  It’s a private corporation.  The shareholders determined the rules.  The people can voluntarily go to that village or not.

    The problems for libertarians are a) that we don’t have the right of exclusion (we can’t randomly forbid people from shopping malls or city streets), and b) we don’t have the right of secession, which means we can’t set up our own rules for our own neighborhoods.  This amounts to the government causing and subsidizing bad behavior.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-libertarian-position-on-laws-about-filming-up-womens-skirts-without-their-consent