--Apple-Mail-38-567256902 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think we agree here. I don't define productivity in terms of cheaper, I view them as doing the same job just as well or better, cheaper. You can't gain productivity out of the human element of a Dr's. perspective. You just can't automate certain things. Productivity must take into consideration of total output not just cost.

What didn't you agree with? I'd love to hear a counter perspective. I think Andy took it a bit far with the programmer parasite comment, but I do agree with his underlying premise. Productivity w/o a doubt drives economic prosperity.

productivity creates profit, profit creates capital, capital creates investment, investment creates jobs. productivity is key

Creating NEW jobs requires getting rid of old jobs, unproductive jobs.

It's a good life lesson. Keep expectations low. Let everyone surprise you. Half of life's disappointments comes from our own, unrealistic expectations of others. (expectation of ourselves should always be high, we control them) but for those outside of our control, keep em low.

It's like dating in college. One night you go out and every hot chick is all over you and your like, "I'm the man". The next week, your buddies dog won't even take a milkbone from you.

I completely agree it is more art than science, and there are no guarantees when subjectivity and money play together.

Depending on the VC their choice of "my company" could shed some insight into how they see themselves and the role they play. Using "my company" suggests an inflated sense of self and the role they play. A VC not using "my company" like Fred and yourself suggest a real understanding of the eco-system and the roles of all the players.

VC's are enablers. The founders are just that the founders, the innovators. It is a symbiotic relationship. Both are needed. When a VC. an enabler, calls it "my company" he is insinuating more ownership around the founder, and innovator component that in most cases is not theirs to claim.

One of the negative perceptions of VC's is their inflated sense of importance and value in the start-up eco-system. VC's can certainly NOT be understated in this system, but they can't be overstated either.

Excellent post Brad!

Nice point of view. I like how you added a different angle to the perspective.

Very cool, I have to believe there is good opportunity in the medical field as well, not just in fitness

Well said. This Return on Influence pays itself back in time in the form of a valuable asset. As our social graphs or online influence grows it becomes a real measurable asset. I see this asset being critical to the success of the next generation and those with out a well developed, well managed asset will suffer severely. I see an online presence or social graph being our most valuable asset being worth even more than our homes. I wrote about it here: Online Presence: Asset of the Future-Why our Social Graph Will be Worth More Than Our Homes. http://asalesguy.com/2009/05/14/online-presence-t...

Great observation and self critique Tim.

I have found asking leading questions helps the person I'm coaching/leading get their on their own. Questioning does three things, one it clarifies if my interpretation of their point is accurate, two it forces the person to think more deeply and possibly about things he/she didn't take into consideration and three, most importantly, I don't have to "tell" them anything. I can share to support the conclusions they come to on their own.

Why sell? What was the motive of the founders? Why would the investors break even if there was a future and they were profitable. Why not expand and look for adjacency's?

Clearly there is more to this than is public. I'd be curious to hear the board discussions. It clearly wasn't a desirable exit.