He read it too literally. The point is not 10k or any magic number. The point is "don't be desperate for money". The point is to view yourself as something valuable. If you have no value for yourself, you'll be happy to get a low pay in exchange for a low-quality service. The more respect you have for yourself, the more people will respect you and the more valuable you become.
His counter argument is basically like this (he's B):
A: Doing X pays, just look at K (where K is a person)
B: No, you can't do X, and don't look at K, he's a special case.
A: Duh, he's special because he does X; he wasn't born special.
Someone should coin a name for this kind of argument ..
As JM himself notes, Linda Evangelista is not that special when it comes to prettiness or friendliness. He should've paused for a second to ponder how she became a brand.
(For the record, I have no clue who this Linda girls is).
Consider Steve Jobs. He says[1] he does not ship garbage. Why is that? Is it because he's rich and he can afford it? No, it's because this is who he is. He wasn't born rich; he got where he is because he could never ever produce garbage. A simple way to prove this is to consider: if he had shipped garbage through out his career, why would he stop now? Just look at Oracle and Microsoft.
I think that there is a genuine difference between refusing to lower standards for a product and refusing to be price sensitive in respond to the market.
What Sebastian is advocating is a bargaining technique so old that my grandfather warns against it.
What he's trying to imply is that there's a thin lying between hard bargaining and being insensitive to the realities of the market. Be careful on which side you fall.
What Sebastian is advocating is a bargaining technique so old that my grandfather warns against it. [sic]
It's one thing if it's a bargaining technique with nothing behind it. It's another thing entirely if it's a real reflection of underlying value.
I think your point is that there is a difference. Agreed. Remember that the market is not perfect. It wouldn't function as a market in the real world if everyone made perfect decisions about value all the time, instantly. If you're going to command an information asymmetry, a good place to start is yourself. If you don't know yourself better than others, you have no business being an entrepreneur. It should be the other way around.
>>> I'm not advocating any bargaining methods. I'm advocating not being desperate, figuring out what your goals are, and I shared some stories that people apparently liked a lot. <<<
We're all desperate in some way or another.
>>>But as soon as you need money – and people know – you’re hosed<<<
What I understood from your post was that you're essentially trying to engage in subterfuge making sure that the other person doesn't know your weaknesses. So, that you can reach your goals.
That just makes me... sad.
The thing is that yes they are some very, very nasty people out there and no you don't need to advertise how desperate you are, but this playing coy just feels fake to me. This isn't a reflection upon you or casting any judgement on your moral character, but I think that I wouldn't have the stomach to do something like this.
It might sound crazy, but if I have to engage in a game to show strength in order to make someone else treat me like an equal. Then perhaps I don't want to be his equal?
>>>Indeed, he is. Yes. But in the flunky capacity. This guy didn’t see me as a peer of his, apparently, and he doesn’t treat people underneath him very well.<<<
Yes, in some practical scenarios you have to do it, and to be honest I do a variation of this everyday, but that doesn't mean I create a repetoire of tactics and add this long list of techniques to manipulate with another list on how to avoid being manipulated in order to get what I want.
I just don't want my life to amount to that, and well professionally I would rather not engage in something like that. If I meet someone like that then I would rather keep my distance than have a relationship. If they want the product. Sure buy it, but I won't play this game.
What I'm trying to say is that if I am desperate for money. Then I'm desperate for money. I won't turn that down, just to show someone that I'm worthy of something more. If I am then I'll get there. If not then I'll work harder to get there.
I think this was what Jacques was trying to convey. People pay for how good you are. Not how good at poker you are. As that is really short term. Unless you have that genuine thing (in the case of the model a brand) no matter how you pitch it the money will evaporate. That's the most important piece of the puzzle in my opinion. Generating value.
That aside, I just want to say that this is not an invitation for someone to screw me over. I won't play such games with them, but neither am I a fool.
>It might sound crazy, but if I have to engage in a game to show strength in order to make someone else treat me like an equal. Then perhaps I don't want to be his equal?
Frankly, that's a terrible strategy. We're mammals with mammal brains and mammal signaling, and if you're going to choose to live in denial of that then you're handicapping yourself. I'm not advocating being an asshole, which is how you'll probably read that, but signaling desperation is going to make you less desirable in just about every capacity - not just in the working world but also when dating and even with friends.
The point I'm trying to make is that I don't have a strategy and neither do I want to have a strategy.
Yes, I'm vulnerable. Yes, it exposes all of my flaws, but at least what you see is what you get. At least, when I have a relationship I know it's genuine and based on a solid foundation instead of grounded to pretense under the garb of strategy.
I just don't want to make it complicated as some relationships I deal with anyway. It took me a while to learn this, but it was worth the effort and the pain.
You do have a strategy. Now that you have acknowledged the concept, you can't not have one. Your strategy in this case is (explicitly) not to engage in conscious strategizing and (implicitly) to ignore social norms which don't match your aesthetics (which, by the way, are probably not some fundamental truth of the universe or even of your genes, but rather a function of the memes you were exposed to during your formative period).
I also think you're making the mistake of assuming that consciously thinking about human interaction makes it impossible to have honest, open, "real" relationships. I assure you that isn't the case. Two separate times in my life I've had reasonably large circles of friends in which we were more open with each other than I suspect most people ever are with anyone (and one of those times is right now). I'd even go so far as to argue that active introspection and learning about human nature enables one to have more open and meaningful relationships.
The problem with the argument that by not making a choice, you're still making a choice is that it's a circle. I know you're right, but the thing is that the english language or any natural language wasn't built for such deep probing of concepts. The things we're talking about disintegrate under the microscope and what we get is philosophy.
I think you're right about active introspection.
I have done a lot of soul searching too and I still continue to do, but the point I was trying to convey is that this (read: applying game theory to everything) really isn't what life is all about. There are some things that should be broken apart and others that should be felt. I just think this is one of them.
Sebastian's point was that professional style -- here, his choices about what he will do, and for what -- communicates values and goals and self-perception. That information helps others self-select how they want to work with him.
Jacques writes "Faking success isn't going to make you successful". Well, obviously, a style based on misperception won't work, and one based on misrepresentation won't last. But that doesn't mean an accurate and honest style won't help you find whatever you regard as success.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy; like self-confidence. If you have no confidence, you're more likely to screw up. By simply having more confidence in oneself, one is more likely to do better, and reinforce his confidence.
The point is that there is a cost and there a benefit to being a brand.
Being an honest/ordinary provider of an honest/ordinary service is easier. Have a skill, have satisfied customers who'll provide references. There are more people who will succeed doing this than there are people who become brands.
On the other hand, a brand can be a great shortcut to extreme, wild success, the difference between millions and billions. And also being a brand can give a kind of success that is deeply dishonest and unbalancing (as Hollywood, modeling and various other pursues will show).
Steve Jobs also makes the point that a brand is a simple point that evokes strong feelings in people. This allow the people to remember the brand. But by that token, it is inherently impossible for there to be a lot of brands since each brand is simple thing remembered by many people. Thus with millions of people in the world, there just are not going to be many people who are successful at being brands (indeed, the greater unification of the world, it seems there are inherently going to be fewer and fewer brands since any given brand can serve more and more people).
And certainly, someone who successfully becomes a brand takes the simple idea and makes as much as possible "who they are". Yet given that human are complex and varied creatures, it's a onerous task for someone to continuous exemplify any quality, even "excellence". The stories of Steve Jobs screaming at subordinates do not make it sound like the existence of a Steve Jobs would be entirely pleasant despite his wild level of success in not just making money but changing the world. (On the other hand, I am impressed that Google's "don't be evil" seems to have so far stuck as quality they exemplify - seems like something you'd want to look at if you were to be going for a brand).
I personally find a lot of Sebastian's posts here to exemplify a contempt for the less successful. That may be what it takes for him exemplify the relentless drive for success. And exemplifying that might really help him build his brand. I still wouldn't want to be that.
Steve Jobs mixes garbage, the AppleTV/MobileMe, with things that look pretty but are garbage under the hood, iMac, with things that aren't garbage, iPhone.
The beauty is that Jobs has created an aura where everything looks like gold.
I agree, and you get metacomments that add absolutely no value to the conversation. And you get upvoted for adding no value, but downvoted for noting it. Gotta love the HN Apple fans.
Wow, those are pretty strong words. By what justification do you call AppleTV/MobileMe garbage? Clearly they serve a need for people or they wouldn't be doing so well.
I can literally put together a list of problems with them, but honestly would it matter? During the pwn2own discussion on HN people were seriously suggesting that the reason OS X goes down first every year is because it was on the most desired computer. That's like saying the reason that XBox had the RROD is because everyone loves playing it so much -- no manufacturing or design issues.
And don't get me wrong, Apple releases some of the best products on the planet. But when they do do something that is subpar, most Apple fans simply see it as those on HN saw pwn2own. AppleTV is decent now, although I still prefer other boxes, but can you honestly say the $299 AppleTV wasn't garbage? Even at $99 the video quality was laughably horrible. Yet most Apple fans will call me a troll or fanboi for even the mere suggestion that AppleTV did not win WWII and kill the nazis.
I generally love JM's postings, but it's clear that he did not actually read much of the article at all. Unfortunately that cheapens the discussion.
For what it's worth, I think that Sebastien's reasoning for not having advertising on his site should be summarized, screen printed and dropped propaganda style from airplanes over the financial districts of the world so that when bored fund guys hire us to build web properties, they might be slightly more likely to have a non-advertising business model in mind.
What Sebastian is advocating is a method of hard bargaining that may or may not lead to brand building. What Jacques is advocating is being careful about not crossing the line between bargaining and delusions about your own market worth. It's a perilous balance to maintain if you're playing this game and falling either way might ruin you.
Actually, he's not advocating bargaining of any firmness. He's saying that one's personal brand (or dignity, or whatever) should have a minimum price that is not necessarily $0.01. In his case, he's decided that the amount he'd earn with advertising isn't worth the cheapening of his brand it would entail.
It's shocking to me how many people commenting here (plus Jacques) totally misunderstood Sebastian's post.
"I think I'll add some ads to this blog just to make the point that if you can't afford to leave money on the table you probably shouldn't."
Indeed, that's almost verbatim what Sebastian said - but for the added insight that if you CAN afford to leave the money on the table, doing so will make you more than that in the long run. JM missed that insight.
I think JM missed the point of Sebastien's use of the quote. From the original article:
"But like my freelancer friend wrote, or like Ms. Evangelista says – if you’ve got the chops, you set your own rates to a large extent. I’m not looking to pick up $80 per month at the expense of other things. More on this in a minute."
JM's entire post focuses on his use of the Linda Evangelista quote to illustrate a point about not cheapening your "product" or your "brand" unless it's really worth it. Maybe he didn't read the whole thing.
Sebastien's articles give me the shits and I think talk about winning, success, victory and individualism is counter productive but if you're going to criticise it at least get your facts straight.
Because the CEO of BigCo isn't likely to award you a big contract if he gave you two dollars for coffee not five minutes ago. Picking up (advertising) pennies is not without costs.
Your answer made sense. Tim Harford did a piece on why people who refuse to be team players (e.g. take on some extra work that's "beneath" them) end up making more money. I assume you mean a signalling scenario like that.
Hey, sorry I didn't get back to you on this. Really, a response to this question needs to be a blog post that I don't have time to write at the moment, but I've put it on "the list".
I'll gladly take those 2k Eur to provide a day of reading comprehension classes that would help avoid such misunderstandings. :) \
Sebastien's article had little to do with actual money and a lot to do with the implicit value of one's skills, name, and work (and advises not to cheapen your brand with puny advertisements unless it actually makes sense financially). This response had nothing whatsoever to do with anything but the link bait title.
Seriously, this guy has implemented so many systems and has written so many lines of code that I've lost count. Plus he has awesome business experience ( http://www.jacquesmattheij.com/content/story-behind-wwcom-ca... ) and is a pretty great guy to work with. Yet again, the thing is that what he brings to the table isn't just pure coding skills, or business skills, but a combination of both and years of experience. So, what you're actually doing by hiring him for a day is hiring an army of programmers for all the human years he has invested.
You know the thing is that when you have been in the market for that long and people are willing to pay you that much for that long. There has to be a lot under the surface.
"... working as a consultant to do technical due diligence. That is M&A jargon for the job of verifying that what a company says it sells and owns is actually true, and that it's all put together in a sound way to limit the risk investors and buyers are exposed to. I do this work for several renowned Venture Capital firms in Europe, and it's the most exciting and interesting work I've ever done."
I think he should consider a better design for his website. And take more attention on Topography, since he probably has the money to buy a good theme or a designer.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly - are you really wondering about him specifically, or are you saying that 2k is a lot of money to be paid a day?
For someone who usually writes very smart posts this is one strange post.
On one hand developers complain that they don't get paid enough and don't get treated well. On the other hand, they refuse to consider the possibility that perhaps not getting out of bed for less than $10,000 a day is exactly what developers ought to do.
If you look at the cumulative worth companies like Microsoft and Google and VMWare built up and break it down to the founders and first 10 developers - it'd be a lot more than $10,000 per day.
The $10,000 per day was just a metaphor to not actually do things that you feel you don't deserve. Of course a lot of it has to fall in place before you are there to do that.
I mean for a man with no job and loads of skills he still needs to work for a while before he is able to claim that.
Also a good idea might be to have a constant fallback of some form. A safer job that gives enough time for freelance maybe?
Linda Evangelista is a brand unto herself. That's why she's worth the big bucks, not because she's a good looking girl (I know prettier ones!) and not because she's that great to work with. It's simply because she moves product. Most of us provide a service, we are not 'brands'.
I actually see no difference. If I'm offering a service, then I need to brand myself. This is no different than products we sell, or buy. The Author, jacquesmattheij, himself has a brand. He should be popular in his field, so that he can touch 2K euro / day.
He has got skills in IT. Linda has got skills in promoting products. It's not her beauty what makes a difference. He actually mentioned that, though. So, she's not 'that girl'. She's someone that made it and become able to sell products. She has got her own marketing strategies and that works.
She has got skills, same for the Author. They are just approaching different fields.
You consider 55000 USD per year low? Geez, I've never made over 20000 USD.
40000 is the median in the U.S. and that includes people at the peak of their careers. Cops, teachers, and social workers don't necessarily make much above that after a lifetime of hard work. Anyone over 40000 should feel proud and/or fortunate.
In the U.S. it is not uncommon for software developers working as employees to make between 90k and 120k per year. In fact, AFAIK that's THE salary for experienced devs in Silicon Valley; and independent contractors can make much more than that.
Indeed cops, teachers, and social workers make much less, but salary is usually a function of how much profit you can produce + a function of supply and demand.
The demand right now for capable software engineers is pretty high, even with this economic recession. And the supply is very low - so if you live in the U.S. and are making 20000 USD per year, you're doing something wrong ;-)
Heck, that's not enough to pay the rent in San Francisco.
Even junior developers coming fresh out of college are making more than 20k.
In that light, yes 55k is much lower than I could earn if I were located at the heart of the software industry, but I'm pretty happy and feel fortunate about it anyway; although my target is 120k.
So again, if you live in the U.S. 20000 is way low without having extra benefits - like being a co-founder in a startup that will make you rich one day. Even if the projects you're working on are fun, don't sell yourself for pennies. In the long run you'll suffer; not to mention, have you noticed the ageism going on in this industry?
40k might be average for everyone, but for skilled and educated technical folk (which most of us on HN are), 55k is low (at least if you're living in the US).
If you are living in an industrialized country and have real technical skills, just do a good job, cover your bases, then ask for 12% more every year. As is often said around here, often your salary is just a line item in the books. You can actually do stuff like look for a new job and say, "You know, I've never made 6 figures. How about you pay me $100k?" and a lot of places will just do it, even if this means they're jumping your income by 25% I know this for a fact, because years ago, that's exactly what I did.
Hint: if you want to do this, try working for companies with money. Energy and energy related companies are like this. Also be prepared for lots of politics and soul-grinding nonsense.
His counter argument is basically like this (he's B):
A: Doing X pays, just look at K (where K is a person)
B: No, you can't do X, and don't look at K, he's a special case.
A: Duh, he's special because he does X; he wasn't born special.
Someone should coin a name for this kind of argument ..
As JM himself notes, Linda Evangelista is not that special when it comes to prettiness or friendliness. He should've paused for a second to ponder how she became a brand.
(For the record, I have no clue who this Linda girls is).
Consider Steve Jobs. He says[1] he does not ship garbage. Why is that? Is it because he's rich and he can afford it? No, it's because this is who he is. He wasn't born rich; he got where he is because he could never ever produce garbage. A simple way to prove this is to consider: if he had shipped garbage through out his career, why would he stop now? Just look at Oracle and Microsoft.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu0qeb_rJYU