ShareThis

It’s been crazy, sleepless and fun the past few days.

Listening to everyone speculate about what the Lakers might do is always entertaining.

Listening to everyone speculate about what the Mavs might do is fun when it comes from fans. Love or hate what we do, might do, or have done, as long as fans have an opinion, that’s always a good thing. It shows passion, and Mavs fans are certainly passionate about our team.

Which leads to a question: In the Entertainment biz, they have very honest job descriptions. Someone who creates and reports gossip is called a gossip columnist. Joan Rivers, Page Six, Cindy Adams, etc. don’t pretend to be reporters. They get paid well to dish out gossip.

Can we please start calling the Sam Smiths and Peter Vesceys and Norman Chadsof the world what theyreallyare?Sports Gossip Columnists. They don’t have regard for the truth. Why pretend that they do?

It’s always these old favorites that seem to slime their way to the top. I was listening to the Dan Patrick Show and they had Sam Smith on, my buddy from the Chicago Tribune. Let’s just hope the accountants for the Tribune Company have a higher regard for accuracy in reporting than Sam the Sham does.

Perfect example of Sam in action is Jerry West going on the air during the draft saying the Grizz can’t afford to trade for Shaq. Then Sham chimes on the show saying Shaq is going to Memphis. Sam then does his daily rip on the Mavs and, in particular, our new draft pick, Pavel who he calls a stiff.

How about this for a challenge Sam the Sham Smith?…I will donate 10k dollars to the charity of your choice if you can prove that you have ever seen Pavel play in person or on tape excluding the footage on the ESPN draft shows.Two minutesof ESPN tape doesn’t qualify as scouting. If you lose, you change your business card title and Tribune byline to “Sports Gossip Columnist”. I will even pay for the cards.

Doesn’t the Tribune Company realize that you are a blight on the entire company? I brought this up to an exec I met who works at the company. He told me they knew it, but that you were like the crazy oldunclethey had learned to live with. Great support from your company, Sam.

If they only knew how many times I have told brokers and possible investors that they shouldn’t buy Trib stock because if they can’t get simple details on their sports pages right, how can you trust their accountants? Corporate culture either values accuracy or it doesn’t. The Tribune Company obviously doesn’t.

******** Stop The Presses ********

No lie: After I wrote this blog entry, I sat down to read the NY Times and there in the business section is an article accusing (among others) the Tribune Company for inflating audited subscriber numbers…Maybe the company encourages Sam to lie…who knows…Is lyingpervasive at the Tribune Company? Corporate culture is amazingly powerful…

******** We now return to our regularly scheduled blog entry ********

Then of course there is Joan Rivers Vescey. Joan is wrong so often its hard to keep up. This week he wrote (calling itreporting would be so wrong…) that Steve Nash was mad at the Mavs because wehadn’t made an offer to him…Where in Europe did your “sources” talk to Steve? He has been on vacation since the end of the season, but I’m sure he is talking toyour”sources” instead ofvisiting theEiffel Tower. I guess I shouldignore theemails he has sent me and believe what you wroteinstead, Peter.

Where do you get this stuff? And why are you stupid enough to writeit as fact?Why are you so lazy that you have NEVER EVER called or emailed me to confirm a single thing you have written? Could it be that you don’t care about the truth? Aren’t you embarrassed that Page 6 in the Post has a better track record than you do?

And while we are on the topic of fantasy masquerading as fact, let me set everyone straight. The Mavs will not trade Dirk. We have never discussed a trade with Dirk or Steve for that matter.

As far as making additional trades, it’s no secret that we have discussed trading Antoine Walker. Walk did everything we asked of him this past year. He played every single position on the court from point guard to center. He defended guys twice his size. He changed his game to fit our needs. He is an amazing talent.

While other players might have gotten upset or complained, Walk went to war for us. I can’t tell you how much respect I have for Walk, and what a positive he has been in the locker room and in representing the Mavs organization. It’s because he went to the wall for us that we told him that we would see if there was a better fit on another team. His flexibility was a big plus for us, but he would excel even further if he could find a specific role and focus on it.

We also told him that we wouldn’t just trade him just to move him. Guys who work as hard as Antoine and are as versatile aren’t easy to come by.

I’m off to see our new guys workout. We play against China this week. I can’t wait to see Pavel against Yao!

One last thing: If comments on the blog get personal and aren’t on topic, they will be removed. If policing comments becomes a hassle, I will just turn them off.

ShareThis

First, sorry for the delay in posting…It’s been a little crazy around here.

2nd, everyone knows as much asI do about all the trade rumours floating around. Believe it or not, even in the NBA discussions start based off of what we read in the newspapers. Making a trade happen is never simple. Teams want to make sure they have covered all their bases, and when you add in the expansion draft, and then the regular draft, it creates a lot of variables that need to be taken into account and that typically slows things. Not always…but usually. So my job is to try to explore all the options and then compare those to what Donnie is telling me is happening around the league. It all takes time,and never happens on the timetable you want or expect.

Third, I got to see the first pass of the Benefactor SizzleReel. This is the video that the production company puts together for advertisers and insiders to get a feel about the show. I nabbed a copy.. (sorry to the person whose desk I took it from…. you know who you are and I apologize….)

If you want to check it out, it’s a huge file at 70mbs, so give it some time to download…

http://www.blogmaverick.comcommonvideosmarksizzlereel.wm…

Fourth,

From July 14th to the 18th I will be in Lake Tahoe for the American Century Championship

http://www.tahoecelebritygolf.com/

All proceeds from auctions and special events will go to the Fallen Patriot Fund (www.fallenpatriotfund.org) .This year I will be auctioning off my caddying services…

http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/…

And trips on the Mavs Plane to games, a fantasy trip on the GV, and lots more.. So if you can make it out , its for a great , great cause !!

ShareThis

Congrats to the Pistons. There is a ton we can learn from their championship. The primary lessons are as follows:

1. There is no template for winning a championship. Up to the final series, the same people who talked about how defense wins championship praised the lakers defense, in the championship series, they condemned the lack of defense? So can you get to the Conf Finals not playing defense? The same people now condemning the Lakers, couldn’t praise their Hall of Fame lineup enough from the start to completion of the season.

2. The real reason the Pistons won is that they had people who could hit open jumpshots. Rip, Chauncey, Elden Campbell, and even Ben Wallace, whenever there was a double team they seemed to hit the open shot. The Lakers couldn’t hit that shot if their life depended on it. It wasn’t great defense that left Slava, Fish, Payton, Walton and Rush wide open for jumpers that would not fall. If there was a theme throughout the playoffs, it was the team that had its first and then its 3rd or 4th option hit their open jumpers, won the game. Shaq and Kobe needed help from somewhere, they didn’t get it. Detroit was playing 5 on 2 defense. That makes their life a lot easier and makes any defense look good.

The spurs pulled Bowen for Devin Brown. The Pacers started Croshere then Harrington instead of Foster. The Lakers tried every combination possible all to get someone on the court who could hit a jumper. When the shots went down, they won. When they didn’t, they lost.

3. Will we ever know why Phil preferred having the Pistons score on 24 out of 31 possessions rather than have Ben Wallace go to the foul line? It not only would have broken the Pistons rhythm, it would have allowed Shaq to rest, and of course most likely meant Ben missing his free throws and the Lakers getting possession.

4. Will NBA announcers always talk in generalities and stereotypes? Doc Rivers was great, but my goodness, could he be any more politically correct? Could he and Al say possibly say things with less substance? I am so tired of hearing about the same 5 topics and no details, such as this team came out with more energy, that team hit the open man. Compare this to football. There isn’t a football fan who can’t name at least 5 or 6 plays that teams run. Can the casual basketball fan name a single play NBA teams run? Do they even know NBA teams call plays almost every possession?

5. The Piston roster shows just how wrong both NBA general managers and the media are in their assessment of talent. Go back and read about Rasheed Wallace and how he could never win a championship because he was soft, then read this weeks articles.

Go back and read about Chauncey before and after each of the how many times he has been traded?

And the Wizard and Magic both moved Ben Wallace? Rip, Elden, Lindsey Hunter, Corliss, is there a guy on the roster who hasn’t been 2nd guessed and traded more than a couple times?

6. What will the impact of the Pistons roster be on pricing in the free agent market? Agents won’t care, but the good news is that owners now have a model to point to and suggest that stars may not win championships. Which is a lot more fun to point to than the luxury tax as a reason not to spend money. We all can scream about how defense wins championships if only because defenders get paid less than scorers.

7. It’s time to get to work, last season is over, and it’s back to Mavs time!

ShareThis

As the promos start to run… (sorry you have to see those pics of me as a kid , I’ve been doing some interviews and posting on some message boards. I thoughtI would share some of what I said and wrote here on the blog…

In picking the contestants for The Benefactor, I wanted a wide range of experiences, backgrounds, education and personalities. There were 8 guys and 8 girls, ranging in age from 22 to 42. The common trait that I was looking for was competitiveness and the williness to stand out, rather than fit in.

In every other reality show, everyone does the same thing. That’s not real world. I wanted The Benefactor challenges to represent more of what we all face…

In the real world we either challenge ourselves to figure out how to reach our dreams and goals, or we find ourselves doing the same thing day to day wondering what it will take to find the lives we want. I wanted people who would challenge themselves to go after the million dollar prize knowing it could enable them to change their lives in however they saw fit.

In the real world, when you walk into a job interview, there isn’t a scoreboard above the interviewers head saying where you stand. You have to be prepared to compete as yourself, on your own, using your brains and experiences to get the job. But in the end, it’s one person’s subjective opinion of you that determines your fate, and you go crazy knowing how and why you were or were not picked.

In real world, if you start a business, it’s your business. The brains, creativity and effort you put in to it determine if you survive or go out of business. Until you know, you are at the whim of your prospects and customers, hoping your vision met their needs.

In the real world, everyone thinks there is something special about themselves.
If they only had the chance to show it, and somehow enable it, they could stand out from the pack. Some do. Most don’t. This show is about giving a shot to 16 people to show how they can stand out from the pack. It’s my job to pick the right person. It’s a job I took very seriously.

The Benefactor is about my creating open ended challenges that push each of the 16 contestants to challenge themselves to stand above and apart from their competitors, knowing that 1mm is at stake.

There are challenges that I think reflect what we all face every day trying to make our dreams, whatever they are, come true. Unlike the real world, I had cameras on them all the time to see not only how they responded to the challenges, but how they responded to and competed with each other. Let’s just say some contestants came to the early realization that they weren’t going to win on talent alone and having the cameras certainly helped me out quite a bit.

To give you an idea of the challenges…

In one challenge I gave each contestant 1k dollars and 24 hours to prepare a 15 minute presentation to me that showed what was special about them. An individual task where they had complete creative control. I told them I wanted to see them step out of their comfort zones and do something that showed how they could shine.

It’s not an easy challenge if you think about it. They had no idea what the other contestants would do. Some were so freaked out about this challenge they tried to find out.

How and what do you present about you, or from you, to show me that there is notonly something unique about you, but something that makes you stand out morefrom the competition?

It was really hard on the contestants, but it turned out to be one of the easiest challenges from which to make cuts. It was obvious who opened up and pushed themselves, and who took the completely safe route and did nothing to differentiate themselves. The only risk to me was if someone completely fooled me about who they were. If they completely lied.

Another challenge was based on the premise of time being more valuable than money. I put them in teams of 4 and gave each team 3 hours of my time. My instructions were simple. You have 3 hours, don’t waste my time.

Two teams just blew me away. You know how there are always things you say you are going to do, but never find the time to do because of kids, work, whatever? They understood the concept completely. They had me doing things that I never thought I would find the time to do…I was suprised and I had a blast.

These were just two of the many challenges. I also had character tests to weed out the kiss-ups early.

Honestly, going into the show, I really didn’t know what to except. I did the show because I wanted the experience for myself. I got far more than I expected. I really had a blast with it. It wasn’t easy by a long shot, but it was fun.

I participated far more than a host or judge would. I really got to know and like most of the contestants. Some I thought I would like, and didn’t, but I couldn’t cut them because they were so talented and surprising. Others, I thought I knew, and found out I was completely wrong about. Each cut was painful not just for the contestants but for me as well.

Fortunately I decided to go visit the contestantsand spend a full 24 hour day with them. I got to meet their families, their friends, see where they grew up, and find out what their friends and family thought of them. It was eye-opening.

Thank goodness I did it too because it’s where I found out someone had been lying about themselves. In another case, this person’s family warned me that they thought the contestant’s significant other was a pure golddigger, and if this person won, it could hurt more than help. Then we got the significant other on tape acting the part. On top of that, in one of their interviews, the contestant talked about his/her biggest fear being not wanting to go down in history as the one reality show winner who blew the million dollars in 6 months or less, and had to go back and beg for the job they had before the show. Talk about putting me in a damned if I do, damned if I don’t situation. Do I cut them because of this, or give the contestant the benefit of the doubt and let them deal with it if they won? I really, really liked this person and I lost a lot of sleep and made up and changed my mind dozens of times before I finallymade my decision.

One of the hard parts for me was that I really wasn’t allowed to talk to anyone to get advice. I could ask questions about what a contestant did or said, or ask to see what they did on tape, but there was always someone from ABC right there to make sure the decision was 100 pct mine. As the numbers got smaller the decisions got more and more painful for me to make.

The other thing that was really cool about the show was that I found myself truly impressed with many of the responses to the challenges, and more than a couple times I realized that if I were in their shoes, there is no way I could have come up with the answers and responses that they did.

In the end, I think I made the right choice, and I’m proud of the person I picked. I had fun doing the show, and would do it again in a heartbeat.

ShareThis

Phil Jackson came out today and talked about how the Pistons would grab, hold, push and hit the shooter and it wasn’t called. All true. How in the world does a defense as physical and aggressive as Detroit only have 10 fouls midway through the 4th quarter? That’s unheard of in a regular season game let alone a very physical playoff game. It also meant that they had to call 6 fouls the rest of the way. What changed? Who was officiating?

Larry Bird’s preference of defenders was big news this past week. Personally, I thought there was some big news that came out of Jim Gray’s 4-way interview with Larry, Magic, Lebron and Carmelo, but it wasn’t Bird’s comments.

What caught my attention was when asked about race in the NBA today, the future of the NBA, two African American teenagers responded in unison that race wasn’t an issue to them or their friends growing up, and it still isn’t. The Baby Boomers, raised in the 1950s thought race was an issue then, and it probably was an issue now. That the league could use more “larry birds”. Skip over Gen X and Gen Y to whatever they are calling today’s teenagers, maybe Gen Colorblind, and they talked about looking up to Dirk, Peja and Yao Ming. Thank you Lebron and Carmelo from saving us from the obligatory old man dialogue about hip hop, bling-bling, tattoos and posses being the end of the NBA. The only divide that was sensitive they could come up with was based on sponsor, both within the same company! Team Jordan vs the rest of Nike I guess…Horror of horrors.

And was anyone else surprised when they referred to Shaq as the Dad of the NBA. The guy any player could call and talk to? To me, that is the ultimate compliment.

Back to the Pistons vs Lakers last night (notice it’s pistons vs lakers, not lakers vs pistons.), where was Hack a Ben? I guess Phil didn’t want to win badly enough to put a guy who is shooting 28.6 Pct in this series onthe line. Big Ben makes Shaq look like Reggie Miller at the line. Why would you not put him at the line to break up the Pistons momentum and get a great chance of getting the ball back. It also would have given a breather to Shaq, who was definitely looking a little tired towards the end.

Finally, I’m really looking forward to the expansion draft. It’s the first time I have been through one, and I think it will befascinatingto watch how teams strategize, plan and work this through.

And as far as who I want to win this series… I just want it to go seven games… More revenue, lower luxury tax…

ShareThis

In the NBA, the way changes to the game are supposed to be introduced is viathe Rules and Competition
Committee. It consists of a member from each team, and it meets a couple times a year to discuss the issues that are
impacting the game itself.

Each year the Mavs, and other teams put together a list of items that we think would benefit the game and propose
it to the committee. Each year since I’ve been in the league, the results have been pretty much the same. We get shot
down, as do the proposals by most other teams. What changes occur are,with rare exceptions,on the
margin.

Since change doesn’t come easy inside the league, sometimes creating discussion on the outside is the best forum.
It’s easier to get information in the hands of every GM and owner via the media than it is at an NBA meeting. I know
that they all get their daily printouts of articles and usually read them. If there is any controversy at all. They
definitely read them. There isn’t a toiletin the NBA that doesnt have that days NBA related articles
photocopied, stapled and laying on the floor.

It’s not that the NBA wont allow it or doesn’t encourage proposals or discussions, they do both. The Commish has
made this a point of emphasis and he has gotten results. When I first got into the league there was zero discussion
at meetings I attended. Now there is a lot more valuable give and take going on.The problem now is that there
isn’t enough time for more than a couple issues to be proposed, and there iseven less time for discussion.
There just aren’t enough hours at meetings. Or maybe there just aren’t enough meetings. Either way, because of time
constraints,team thoughts and issues beyond the most impactful financial issues are not proposed or
discussed.

Which is my way of explaining why I thought it would be a good idea to offer what I have proposed, and would
propose to increase scoring in the NBA.

First, is our annual request to either get rid of the charge line or at least move it further away from the
basket. I have detailed our logic in aprevious blog entry.Each meeting our chances of this passing are
equal toCindy Crawford saying yes to Homer Simpson for a date.

What we haven’t proposed, because it would be immediately dismissed, is the following:

1. The NBA officials have a guideline for incidental contact. Their guideline is that if the incidental contact
doesn’t impact or impede the “Speed, Balance, Quickness or Rhythm” of the offensive player, then a foul will not be
called. The logic of the guideline makes absolutely perfect sense. An offensive player may still have an advantage,
even after the contact, and shouldn’t be penalized for the defensive contact. The league doesn’t want to blow the
whistle stopping a layup over a little bump.

On the surface that is all well and good, and as I said makes perfect sense. HOWEVER, the concept of
advantage is based only on the relationship between a single defender and the offensive player. If we were
talking about a 1 on 1 tournament, the logic would hold up well. We aren’t. In the NBA today, advantage is gained and
lost as a team.

Using the same example, if I beat my man off the dribble and have half a step on him and he has his arm on my
stomach slowing me down just a tiny, tiny bit, I still have him beat. But in this era of help defense and zone
defense, that tiny, tiny bit of timeI was slowed or pushed a tiny bit off course might not have impacted my
ability to get by my defender, but it may have given a weak side help defenderjust enough time to get in
position to defend or impact me in some way.

Before zone defenses,offenses could take defenders far enough away from the ball to open a lane to the
basket. A bump might not matter. Now they can’t. Defenders can be standing in the paint. They can leave the guy they
are supposed to be guarding (this would have been an illegal defense before) and be close enough that thelittle
bump can make the difference between a layup and a missed or blocked shot or a charge.

It also may have created enough time for a guard at the foul line to V back in front ofa teammate standing
in front of the basket while that teammates defender jumped over tochallenge my shot. My advantage as the
offensive playercould be completely gone in the time lost bythe littlest of bumps.

That is where the rule change needs to happen. Any contact on an offensive player with the ball when going towards
the basket should be a foul. If you hadn’t cut your fingernails and you scrape the offensive player on the way, it’s
a foul. If you graze his arm, it’s a foul.

By making any such contacta foul, you completely remove the officials from having to make judgements about
whether theoffensive player or his team has an advantage. It’s an automatic foul. You open up lanes and you
speed up action to the basket.

This is the point in time where all the fools rush in and talk about how the game would slow to a crawl because
there would be so many fouls. It won’t. Did you notice how Kobeavoided any contact when he got beat off the
ball in overtime when he had 5 fouls? Defenders will make the same point not to foul guys who beat them on
their way to the basket. I don’t know why some people think players aren’t smart enough to adjust to changes in
rules. They have for years, and would with this change as well.

This change wouldn’t slow the game, it would speed up the game. More players would put the ball on the floor and
go to the hoop. Players might actually be able to get to the bucket. When weak side help was there, they actually
might be able to get the ball to a teammate before a 3rd defender came over to help.

On the flip side, how would it hurt? What is the downside? If I’m wrong and players can’t adjust, they will foul
out, there will be more foul shots. More points scored with the clock stopped.Let’s stop the bumping and
pushing and let the players play.

One last point. What made me realize this would have such a big impact came from watching Detroit play defense.
Larry Brown is brilliant. He has his guys push, pull, bump, slap just enough to put the pressure on the officials to
make a call, knowing they will rarely call touch fouls. All creating just enough time for a helpside defender
to come in, or for a defender to get through a pick, or for a shot blocker to get in the lane…Brilliant coaching.
Take advantage of the rules as enforced.

Now its time to change the rules.

2. The next change that I would propose is to always give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter. For
some reason the league has gotten away from calling touches on the elbow, wrist and body. It’s not an easy call to
make because this is one case where it happens so quickly, it’s hard to tell if the shooter got touched or if it
impacted the shot.

Officials often watch the flight of the ball to make a determination if there was contact. That works for
significant contact, but it doesn’t work for just a little touch to the arm or wrist or a push from the hand to the
stomach of side.

My proposal would be to always give the shooter the benefit of the doubt. Shaq shoots his jump hook and
gets hit on the elbow, it’s a foul. Rip Hamilton gets nicked on the side by a defender trying to catch up, give Rip
the benefit of the doubt. Prince goes up to defend Kobe, and the refs aren’t sure if there was enough contact to
affect the shot, doesn’t matter, call the foul. Not calling the foul gives the defender the advantage.I say
give the advantage to the offensives player.

It’s time we realize that we are making it far more difficult on the offensive player and creating a distinct
advantage for the defense. That’s not the way it’s supposed to be. Both sides of the ball are supposed to have equal
opportunity to do their job. The league is so talented, if we make it fair for both, scoring will improve
considerably.

This is the part where the rest of the fools rush in and tell me what they think about the Mavs and our defense
and that’s why I’m writing this. This isn’t about that. Believe it or not, I never try to give the Mavs an
advantage. I plan on owning the team a long, long time. The players and style of play will come and go over the next
25 and more years. Trying to fit the league to the team I have in any given year is stupid and short sited.

I want to make the game a better entertainment product for our customers. If I have to suffer the fools who have
nothing better to do, so be it. I suggest they read a favorite book of mine, The Innovators Dillema.

Track and Field used to be the number 1 sport in America. So did Boxing. There are tons of examples of
entertainment products that took for granted that they would always be in demand and never adjusted to their
customers. I don’t want the NBA to be one more example in a textbook or business class 25 years from now.

ShareThis

The Rules of Success

As MicroSolutions became more and more successful, and as I paid attention to the common traits of businesses that
I saw succeed and those I saw fail, I came to realize that there are “Rules of Success” that I saw in companies that
excelled. Where companies failed to follow those rules, inevitably, they failed. I found myself checking with “My
Rules” before I made decisions. When I traded stocks or considered investments in companies, I applied The Rules to
their business before I made a decision.

The Rules are not infallible. They have their limits. I’m an entrepreneur. My businesses have had hundreds and now
more than a thousand employees. My world has been limited to starting, building, growing and running businesses that
are never going to make the Fortune 500. My dreams were never to build the biggest corporation in the world. So, if
you are a middle level manager in a Fortune 500 company, these rules may not help you manage your department. If you
are the CEO of a Fortune 500 company with tens of thousands of employees, some rules will apply, some won’t, but
where they will help you is to know how little guys coming out of nowhere are going to disrupt your business.

Where The Rules will help you is if you are considering starting, or currently run your own business. There are
always exceptions to any rules, but I can assure you that those exceptions will be rare. Entrepreneurs that don’t
follow the rules are far more likely to fail. There is no doubt about it.

So let’s start at the beginning.

Rule #1: Sweat Equity is the best start up capital.

The best businesses in recent entrepreneurial history are those that have been started with little or no money.
Dell Computer, MicroSoft, Apple, HP and tens of thousands of others started in dorm rooms, tiny offices or garages.
There weren’t 100 page long business plans. In all of my businesses, I started by putting together spreadsheets of my
expenses, which allowed me to calculate how much revenue I needed to break even and keep the lights on in my
office and my apartment. I wrote overviews of what I was selling, why I thought the business made sense, an overview
of my competition and why my product and/or service would be important to my customers, and why they should buy or
use it. All of it on a piece of yellow paper or in a word processing file, and none of it cost me more than the diet
soda I was drinking while I was writing it up.

I remember the foundation for each of my businesses. MicroSolutions was very simple. To use microcomputers and
software to help our customers become more productive, profitable and gain a competitive advantage. AudioNet, which
became broadcast.com was simple as well: use the internet to enable real-time, worldwide communications of
entertainment and business applications. HDNet is to create great entertainment, originated in High Definition format
to allow our distributors to compete for the highest margin customers.

Once I could put the idea on paper, I gave the company a name. From there, I took the most important steps: I
tried to find people to shoot holes in it. When we started AudioNet, I remember getting an appointment with Drew
Marcus of Alex Brown (it could have been Larry, but I think it was drew , an investment banking company. Drew
followed the radio industry and I wanted to see if there was anything he saw from his experience that would blow up
the concept. He loved the idea. We took it to Dan Halliburton of Susquehanna Radio. He was an executive in charge of
several Dallas area radio stations. We discussed how he could broadcast his stations over the Internet using AudioNet
and reach the in office market where there weren’t many radios on desks, and few of those could pick up the AM signal
of his stations. He loved it. I took it to Tim and Eric Crown, who ran a newly public company called Insight
Enterprises. I asked them if it made sense to broadcast their quarterly earning conference calls over the internet so
their investors and the research analysts who followed them could easily listen to the calls and get up to date
information, or listen to an archive of the call if they missed it. They thought it would help them reach their
Investor Relation goals less expensively.

Each step cost me next to nothing to get great feedback. Each enabled me to check the foundation of my business
idea to see if it was easy to shoot holes in it, and most importantly, they all served as sales calls. Each company
eventually became a customer of ours.

I went through this in each of my businesses. The step gave me confidence that my business idea was valid. That
there was a chance of success. At this point, many entrepreneurs think the next step is to take all this feedback,
update their 100 page business plans and go out and raise money. It’s as if the missing link for success in a
business is cash to get started. It’s not. Far more often than not, raising cash is the biggest mistake you can
make.

Most entrepreneurs tend to think in terms of what raising money means to them. How it can get them started? How
many people they can hire? How much they can spend on office space? How much they can pay themselves? They forget to
put themselves in the position of the person or company they are asking for money from. They think they are
considering that person’s position by making up numbers and calling them expected returns for the investor. If you
only give me X dollars, you will get X pct back in X years. You will double or triple your money in X years. Any
investor worth anything knows you are just making these numbers up. They are meaningless. Worse, if you tell a savvy
investor that the market is X billions of dollars and you just need one or some low percent to make zillions, you are
immediately kicked to the curb.

These investors, including myself, know what you don’t, and they are not telling you. The minute you ask for
money, you are playing in their game, they aren’t playing in yours. You are at a huge disadvantage, and it’s only
going to get worse if you take their money. The minute you take money, the leverage completely flips to the investor.
They control the destiny of your dreams, not you.

Investors don’t care about your dreams and goals. They love that you have them. They love that they motivate you.
Investors care about how they are going to get their money back and then some. Family cares about your dreams.
Investors care about money. There is a reason why venture capitalists are often referred to as Vulture Capitalists.
The minute you slide off course from the promises you made to get the money, your dreams fall in jeopardy. You will
find yourself making promises to keep investors at bay. You will find yourself avoiding your investors. Then you will
find yourself on the outside looking in. The reality of taking money from non family members is that they are doing
it for only one reason, to make more money. If you can’t deliver on that promise, you are out. You will be removed
from the company you started. You will find someone else running your dream company. If this sounds like a scene out
of the Sopranos or an episode you would watch on TV about a loan shark, you are right. The only difference is that
it’s all legal.

There are only two reasonable sources of capital for startup entrepreneurs, your own pocket and your customers
pockets. I personally would never even take money from a family member. Could you imagine the eternal grief and guilt
from your mom, dad, uncle or aunt because you blew your nephews college money or the money for grandmas last
vacation… I cant.

You shouldn’t have to take money from anyone. Businesses don’t have to start big. The best ones start small enough
to suit the circumstances of their founders. I started MicroSolutions by getting an advance from my first customer of
$500. The business didn’t grow quickly in the first couple years. We didn’t grow past 4 people in the first couple
years, and we all worked dirt cheap.

So what’s wrong with that? It’s OK to start slow. It’s ok to grow slow. As much as you want to think that all
things would change if you only had more cash available, they probably won’t.

The reality is that for most businesses, they don’t need more cash, they need more brains.

Stay tuned for more rules…

ShareThis

I appreciate all the inquiries asking about when I mightpublisha book about my approach to, and experiences in the business world. The short answer, not anytime soon.

Call it a firm belief in karma, but I just don’t think it’s smart or right topublish a book about business while I still have businesses that are in start up mode.

HDNet is going along very, very well. We are far beyond where I thought we would be at this point, but we aren’t all the way there yet. We have a lot of work to do, and the industry as a whole still has a lot of growing to do and we have to capture our share and then some.

I can’t see writing a book saying how smart I am, and how if you do this, you too can leap over tall bank accounts in a single bound and then have HDNet underperform.I can’t tell you how stupid I would feel. There is no amount of money (at this point in my life…) that would make it worthwhile. So no book from me until HDNet is where I want it to be at the earliest.

It amazes me that there are people out there that write books about business success while one or more of their businesses is failing.Maybe its financial desperation for the book advance?Who knows.To me its bad karma and hypocrisy.

Fortunately, I have BlogMaverick to present ideas and situations and get feedback from people on them. Of course you get exactly what you pay for. I get paid exactly what its worth…Which gives me carte blanche to write whatever I want….

ShareThis

I don’t do a lot of promotion, but a buddy of mine has a blog. He actually worked on The Benefactor, so I think we are friends. Not the “call him up all the time and ask how he is doing” type of friend, but I think he would at least stop if I had a flat tire type of friend.If I were in LA and wanted to hang out type offriend…

More importantly, he has a blog. He likes to write about topics that you only think about to yourself when you are sitting at the dentist bored out of your mind and would never say out loud. The kind of inane things I love.

Plus he has some good gossip, that I have no idea if it’s true or not. But it sure is fun to read.

And since this was my first night to catch up on WFME since we finished shooting, it turns out to be a great source of a few tidbits from an insider that I didn’t even know about the show and how some of the crew, I mean my new best friends, felt about it.

Paul is a very talented guy. It’s a great read:

http://pauldavidson.blogs.com/wfme/2004/05/index.html

m

ShareThis