Custom Search

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Full Sail Discussion Post Dealing with Why vs What you Do

“People don’t buy what you do but why you do it.” _Simon Sinek_TED 2009

According to Simon Sinek when consider the bell curve of innovation related to mass market appeal that changes the status quo; it seems the formula is based on time and stating why you are doing something, not what you are trying to do. His codified concept of the “Golden Circle” explains technology, innovators, early adaptors, established branding, and political action. He explains how to negotiate with the individual, to accept and change the status-quo in relationship to branding and political action.

Remember about three classes ago when we were studying branding and we had to do a discussion post on Guy Kawsaki and his take on Mantra versus Mission Statement. Interestingly Simon Sinek cites Apple in his presentation because Guy Kawasaki who worked for apple during the time Sinek is referring too said that branding is more about making meaning not about making money. However, Sinek furthers this concept by introducing the "Golden Circle". This Circle adds two categories related to meaning. If meaning is represented by “why” in the Golden Circle, then how represents the product that is used by the people who identify with the meaning of the company that gives them the product. Thus, the “what” circle being the further from the “Why” circle is the most superficial and the most visible aspects of the entire process of making meaning for a consumer or more so a human being. Moreover, Sinek brings a valid hypothesis that the common statement “a gut feeling” is related to a biological reaction and not a rationalization. This concept is based on the current biological understanding of the human brain and the belief that reason is separate (i.e. the why) from the “what”. In this model, feelings (i.e. the why) are in the limbic system that does not control language. Language is in another part of the brain. Thus a “Gut Feeling” is a common expression because it is a common failing of human beings to connect the why with the what.

"The Goal is to sell to people who beleive what you believe."_Simon Sinek_TED 2009

Sinek analysis Dr Martin Luther King’s Speech and argues “I have a dream” biologically creates and inspires a movement that is more effective then “I have a plan” is an interesting point. The focusing on the why and the right time sold the ideas that Martin Luther King wanted to push. In this, Dr. Martin Luther king states a dream that set up objective criteria that man can follow because the criteria aligns with what people want as opposed to things happening at the time that they did not want. In this sense as it has been concluded by many; the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King is not his dream alone, but the true American dream without the fancy white picket fence, house, car and TV. I do agree that Martin Luther King is negotiating, but I think Sinek’s argument is not to negotiate with some other party. I think Sinek’s idea is to negotiate with the self; the interior of what makes humans human (i.e. the limbic, the why), then we are not selling simply a product but propitiating a concept as real and worthwhile. In this sense, people didn’t believe in Dr. Martin Luther King nor showed up to hear him because they saw themselves in the message of Dr. Martin Luther King had that there are two laws the law of men and the law of God and only when the two are united we will live in a just world.

"The goal is to work with people who believe what you believe" _Simon Sinek_TED 2009

It seems the formula is based on time and stating why you are doing something, not what you are trying to do. Thus, Sinek is saying that effective leaders focus on “why” something is what it is, and this is why people will follow someone. Not because they believe, but because the why is driving them to follow someone with an answer. This idea becomes very powerful when we consider things like Twitter and the recent events in the Middle-East because Twitter has a button labeled “follow” and leaders are losing their “followers”.

The Obama Conundrum: A Warning of Using the “Why?” in a World that Reacts with the “What!!!”

@ Jeff

Hey, this is going on my blog so if you want it removed just email me.

“Opportunity criteria and mutual benefits are definitely a part of King’s speech, but with a subject so volatile and full of emotion, separating the people from the problem is almost impossible. Dr. King was able to convey the voice of the people in the best possible way, keeping it positive and uplifting.” _Jeff

I agree Jeff. The objective criteria was poetically portrayed in the reason why Dr. King was speaking. On the other the hand, the 2008 “Change” campaign Obama ran also used the same strategy; however, after people wanted more facts about what Obama was doing a year after he was elected, the tone of the Whitehouse became about plans. In this sense, it seems the political climate had changed from the “why” to the “what”. Simon Sinek talks about politicians with their “12 point plans”. True, but the backlash of Obama who used similar auditory tactics should be noted. In business “Apple” seems to use this tactic very well, but I couldn’t see Steve Jobs wining any political elections or able to keep people happy if he did.

LOL, I still believe in the current President to be part of positive change.

Case Study Help

To my fellow students... hope this helps.

Yeah and don't forget about the writing center.

Game Thoery Response

Sorry for the late post but on Wednesday my net was down and I was busy editing the week 3 interview. I first heard of game theory in video game design. In video game design, game theory creates the challenges the players will face and the reward upon completing those challenges. If the game seems to unreasonable, then the player quits and less people will want to play the game. For this class, Game theory seem relative close to BATNA, in this sense two parties are weighing their options in regards to their self and another party.

From the first video on the prisoner’s dilemma and the term Strategic Interaction means the decisions you make effect others and how your effected by others actions. Similar to the group experiences we had, one member could break the entire group or the entire group has to work towards a mutual beneficial goal. The use of the chart is to measure the possible best out come for each player. Note: we’ve considered in the example that there are only two parties. In this case, the chart that we’re given can only be related two parties or sides and not multiples.

Player 2 [Confess No] [Confess Yes]
Player 1 [Confess No] [10, 10] [O,15]
Player 2 [Confess Yes] [15, 0] [5,5]

This example of the prisoners confess is based on the psychology that both want the best (i.e. a Dominant Strategy). The best bet individually would just to confess and try and go for 15 points, however, if both will confess they will both get 5 (i.e. Nash Equilibrium). However, if both parties could trust each other, both could leave with 10. In this case, this is where negotiation and contracts help to create mutual benefit. Thus, corporations more than likely have insensitive to cooperate with their competitors even though it’s illegal, because cooperation leads to better wins. The assumption of the presenter is that cooperation act more individually and that cooperation is based on guessing what the competition is going to do.


An example where the third video game theory and Banta work hand and hand in the negotiation for Mike’s pay raised because his boss is slowly pushed in to a BATNA. Since the boss doesn’t want to lose him, it corners his boss.


@ Braing and @ Tiffany

“Regarding the tobacco companies, don't forget they both benefitted by the ban on advertising. It (the ban) was a gift to them in some ways, saving them millions of dollars in advertising because they had to compete.”

I fully agree, but let’s look at the chart
Let C= Comapny

[C1 Advertise Yes] [C1 Advertise No]
[C2 Advertise Yes]
[C2 Advertise No] [15,15]

In this case, it stands to show although it is illegal for companies to cooperate in full “inclusion”, the benefits of having legal agreements that hold each other to do certain set of action still stand. If you remember the movie “Thank You for Smoking”, it cited an interesting case related to Philip Morris. That being that one of the major cigarettes cooperation actually funded the anti-smoking campaigns. Now if we consider that this model only does a comparative analysis of two parties in decision matrix, then it also shift focus from a third outside force can manipulate an entire industry as in this case. Case in point, the analogy of the “prisoners” does not tell us how crooked the cops are and only creates a BANTA for the prisoners when dealing with the outside force of law.

Considering Michael Moore’s recent documentary “Capitalism a Love Story”, the event that lead us to the “2008 Crisis”, and the “Great Depression” game theory has a huge hole in logic, it doesn’t account for an outside force. In our lives we will face many outside forces, and seems game theory means to team up in order to get the best out come when dealing with these outside forces. In as sense, the outside force could be analogues to a mediator who has an self interest (i.e. a lustful marriage councilor after one of the spouses they are trying to help). LOL, sounds more like a Life Time Movie then a Conspiracy Theory, heh.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Full Sail Business Financing Discussion Post_Rich Dad Poor Dad

LOL, as teacher who had said a lot of the things Poor Dad said about money this book was a horror story with a happy ending.

Re: Kiyosaki RT, Lechter SL (2000) Rich Dad, Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids About Money--That the Poor and Middle Class Do Not! Business Plus

Yeah, what really got me about working at community college was that there were teachers who had assets such as rental properties and struggling adjuncts like myself. One teacher owned an entire apartment complex in the Bay Area. The teachers who had assets never had to worry about their jobs. In this sense a culture divide was kind of made between "Rich" teachers were truly not in it for the money, as other quote on quote "Poor" teachers had more liabilities and therefore had to work. It wasn't as if neither one didn't care about the students nor that adjuncts didn't have access to incomes between $16,000 to $90,000, but that income difference was there.

I have met millionaires in California: Some who didn’t like me because I was not wealthy, and others who were really cool because they understood my choice to be a teacher. I also saw the effects of the 2008 crisis on many of the wealthy engineers whose primary assets were based on a good UC education and past inventions with start-up engineer firms. These entrepreneurial engineers sold their companies to bigger companies to avoid direct competition and expenses. For example, medical technology has to be approved by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and larger firms already have the infrastructure to implement the necessary testing to get a product out faster, as a small start-up does not.

These engineers increase their assets from the liability of owning their own companies. These people who retired at the ages of 35 to 40 had done their best to maintain their assets. After retirement, some of them actually lost a lot of their assets post 2008. They really had to assess their lives and figure the next step. Unfortunately, I lost connection with them. I really wanted to know what happened because I care and if I do find myself in a similar situation, I wanted to learn from their decisions. Similar advice noted in Rich Dad Poor Dad.

Thinking back about our last class, where Guy Kawasaki explains that company's think about the money don't make money, and company's that think about something beyond making money, make money, I realize my life as a “Poor” teacher was not wrong, but working for the government was limiting. In Rich Dad Poor Dad, I agree with “financial choices” can get you out of the Rat-Race, but I think for myself the most important lesson is that money is not evil, it’s a tool that can help people. Moreover, I became a teacher to help people; thus, money as a tool is synonymous with my philosophy as a teacher.

When putting together a business plan with very little personal assets, the people that have been interested in helping us start a company we’re not really interested in the return, but who we “are” and what we wanted to “do”. These potential investors see money as a tool to help people, and I can only hope that the company that I’m trying to form gives me the same ability to be an “Indian-Giver” and help people make a living from their passions. Note: the history and misconception of “Indian-Giving” is in Rich Dad Poor Dad’s later chapters, and I apologize if I offended anyone, but it really helped me form my philosophy when approaching investors I can work with. Also note: the term really reflects returns and wealth generation from ventures very well.

LOL, I’m actually praying that the things I’m working towards actually pay off at the end of the world in 2012.

Kurt Sasso Interview

Hi all, here’s a link to the full hour and half final recording.

Hi all, here’s a link to the full hour and half final recording. For those of you who don’t know who Kurt Sasso is… he’s a up and coming rising star in the webcomic and comic convention scene. He’s becoming influential because his podcast is over 150 episode run helps showcase new and established web comic creators. Recently, he has convinced many to join him to create a cookbook to promote awareness of north American access to food issues.

For the busy person, below are the most key points and themes related to the Full Sail Assignment, Enjoy☺

Table of Contents of Segments….

Part 1 Introduction

Part 2 Kurt Sassso on Affiliation and Role

Part 3 Web Business Talk

Part 4 Business Negotiations

Part 5 KS on Email to Interview

Part 6 Zon Rants About Internal Negotiation

Part 7 KS uses his Role and Affiliation for good (i.e. a good cause).

Part 8 KS on Role, Autonomy and Mutual Benefit

Applying Fisher and Ury’s (1981) ideas with Fisher and Shaprio (2006) addition of emotions to negotiations, Kurt Sasso and I had a blast talking about the theory and business of web comics, content marketing on the internet, and how it all related to this Full Sail Assignment.

Part 1 Introduction

Part 2 Kurt Sassso on Affiliation and Role

“What do you think of the Community to Industry model for independent creators?”

Part 3 Web Business Talk

“How large are your web hits?”

Part 4 Business Negotiations

“What are the biggest negotiations to your brand?”

Part 5 KS on Email to Interview

“How much negotiations with type of questions or prep?”

Part 6 Zon Rants About Internal Negotiation

“How does Kurt negotiate with Kurt?”

Part 7 KS uses his Role and Affiliation for good (i.e. a good cause).


Part 8 KS on Role, Autonomy and Mutual Benefit

"What do you think are the most important themes when small independent media companies deal with each other?"

Fisher, R. and Shapiro, D. (2006) Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate
Penguin Group New York. New York.

Fisher, R. and William, U. (1981) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Discussion Post One for Negotiating and Deal Making

Discussion Post One for Negotiating and Deal Making
From Full Sail

“I am ‘Zon Petilla’” and “I am most afraid that I won’t be able to achieve my goals in life.” I aslo believe that I am the only one in the world who has ever felt this fear of failure until others share.

In Chapters 1-2 of Getting To Yes, please discuss how perceptions and emotions affect negotiations.

In chapter one, “positional arguing” is based on perceptions and emotions. In this sense, when a person argues their position, they will hold closer to their position wither it is right or wrong. When two people hold their position, anger or frustration can be generated by the lack of giving trying to find “objective criteria” for a middle ground.

Looking at the analogy of dating or romance, a couple from a series of arguments can change their perception about whom they are with. These negotiations then can become arguments that may become verbally and/or physically violent. In reference to chapter Two “The relationship becomes entangled in the problem” and the couple may turn to the blame game and aggressively attack and hold on their positions without compromise (20-23). In this sense, the couple according to the book would have to stop running on emotions (i.e. the very thing that drives passion and romance) and develop an “analysis” and “planning” stage before negotiating on solving the problem(s) at hand (12).
This were they usually seek a negotiater such as a preist or counciler.

Making fun or our last class material in relationship to this analogy, I think the hardest argument for many couples is the “Time/Money” argument. Is their enough money going into the relationship to make it worth my time.

a) What are some of your strengths and weaknesses?


Understands Kids and Teens


Needs to Constantly Research
Can’t do stand up comedy
Robotic In Logic
Over Talks too much (Have you read my blog?)
Annoying at times

b) How do you think others see you?
The Positive
He can help me solve the problem and encourage my success.

The LOL Negative
An energetic intelligent trustful waste of potential whom needs to get his act together. And sometimes over talks a point. LOL, one time this person had to reinforce that we were going on a date and that she liked me after she said “yes” two minutes prior (Aw too be young)J

c) How do you think self-confidence plays a role in effective negotiation?

Pride and ego are not necessarily bad things because they create self-esteem in turn self-confidence. Facts about one self such as “looks”, “talent”, “knowledge”, and “combination” or “compensation” of all things, a person can create a sense of self-worth attached to self-confidence. Once a person knows their self-worth when they negotiate, they can be confident about their position and their importance to the negotiation at hand. When needed elements are missing from self-confidence related to worth and value, internally it’s hard to deal with people who do not necessary value a negotiator’s role. Fear of inadequacies follows and the primary argument of “worth” fails and the negotiator more than likely is internally and externally deemed “worthless”.

In other words, self-confidence leads to internal and external value of whom and what am I in a specific conversation.

LOL, my reflections on dating.

d) Do you think that any of your fears keep you from being an effective negotiator? If so, how might you overcome this?

Yes, I would love to go back to therapy and itemizes the various aspects of my self, I could become a Buddhist again, or the cheapest and easiest answer I can think of is to surround myself with people who can help me grow as a person (i.e. friends).

e) How do you think knowing yourself will help you in your career?

Surviving the stress of a career comes from love. I feel that a person has to love what they do and whom they do it with. This means build a criteria and scale of love and hate. When the hate out weighs, the love it’s time to move on. In this sense, a person can’t understand how they feel about something until they know who they are. This is unfortunately a long conversation with an internal self who changes slowly each year; however, the empathic application of understanding people in negotiating makes the entire exercise of knowing “self-worth”, worth it when considering a career that is driven by people’s passions, perceptions, and emotions.

Maybe, this is why many love allusions of truth, such as “sarcasm”.


Fisher, R and William, U (1991) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Second Edition. Penguin Books. London