Multi-level Marketing

Back in the 1970s, multi-level marketing companies became popular because they employed a delivery system that compared favourably to the status quo. The traditional delivery system was as follows:

Manufacturer ==> Wholesaler ==> Retailer ==> Consumer (e.g., the public)

Not only were there many layers but each layer enjoyed generous markups. For example, if you made a product (say, shampoo) for the cost of $1, you’d typically sell it to a wholesaler for $1.60. That wholesaler would then mark it up another 25% and sell it to the retailer for $2.00. Then the retailer would double that cost and sell it to the consumer for $4.00.

Back then, the litmus test for bringing new products to market was whether they could sell for four times their manufactured cost. Granted, each layer had to pay sales staff and shipping charges, but there was good margin in the retail trade.

Because of such profits, bursting entrepreneurs were dying to get in. They knew how to make products like soap, toothpaste, and shampoo—all they needed was a way to get them on the shelf. But getting shelf space for products from unknown manufacturers was virtually impossible (since large companies had it all sewn up) so entrepreneurs created an alternative.

What multi-level marketing initially did was take a product that cost $1 and sell it to consumers, through a dealer network, for $3.00. And this new method worked great because consumers got better pricing, new manufacturers got to sell wholesale, and people in the networking business earned cash—so everybody won. As a result, a new generation of home-based entrepreneurs was born.

But in the 1990s the traditional delivery model changed. Retailers like Walmart and Costco started buying directly from manufacturers, bypassing the wholesaler, and then reduced their markups. This resulted in lower retail prices—even better than those of MLMs.

Stripped of their price advantage, MLMs evolved into selling quality. Gone are the toothpaste, soaps, and shampoos that are cheaper. Today, the toothpaste is better for you and not available in any store. MLM products are now premium priced—and they have to be in order to support their existing model.

Granted these new prices come with claims of superior quality but much of it is emotional. And selling emotional quality is a different business since you need mass advertising to support the required perception. It’s hard to generate emotional value with just salespeople—especially when they’re inexperienced and only work part-time.

Multi-level marketing companies may have hit a wall. Their prices for ordinary products are too high and consumers will eventually figure it all out. Business models don’t work unless consumers somehow win. And sure, you can never underestimate the whims of people or the ambitions of an entrepreneur, but most of us will be buying our soap from Costco.

Then again, maybe their products are better.

History of Western Faith

Western Civilization is based largely on the Judeo-Christian faith. But how did this come to be? And why are so many North Americans born Christian?

Before Judaism

Before Judaism, people believed in multiple Gods, with human-like personalities, most of which were mean. These Gods were highly-sexed and occasionally needed to be satisfied with human sacrifice. Back then, people also believed life was cyclical—an experience where the same things occurred over and over, across every generation. So they figured we were like hamsters on a wheel, created to serve all these crazy-assed gods.

Judaism

Then a small group of nomads changed things. The Jewish religion began around 1800 BC and developed over the years to produce the following concepts:

  • belief in just one God (monotheism)
  • no more human sacrifice
  • God is loving and good (albeit, in the Old Testament he was also vindictive and cruel, but still better than all Gods at the time)
  • we need to have faith (e.g., Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son)
  • the Sabbath—a day of rest, education, and enjoyment
  • the rest of the ten commandments (granted they don’t denounce slavery or discuss equality by gender, but they do promote some pretty good stuff)
  • life is linear, not cyclical. (They changed the concept of time. They moved away from a perspective where one comes to inner peace by coming to terms with the wheel, to a new outlook where we’re not bound by some predetermined fate and are free to write our own future.)

Though Jews represented only a small percentage of world population, they started a new belief system. One that made more sense than what came before. And probably due to its sensibility, this religion persevered.

Christianity

Then along came Jesus, a Jew who founded Judaism 2.0. He moved away from the bad parts and made God more loving. Gone was the monster god of the Old Testament and the notion that Jews were his chosen people. Added was the idea that God is always loving and we should be the same way (e.g., love thy neighbour).

Jesus said and did a lot of great things, and his religion was more positive and sensible than multiple gods or Judaism 1.0. As a result, it grew to eventually become the Holy Catholic Church (the first Christian church).

Roman Empire

The Roman Empire existed between 27 BC and 476 AD. After years of persecuting Christians, Rome changed from its polytheistic belief system to a Christian empire. This occurred between the years 300-400 AD, with Rome declaring Christianity as its state religion. At the time, Christianity meant Catholicism and it was imposed upon all subjects, which translated into all of Europe becoming Catholic.

Protestant Reformation

During the mid-1500s, a number of movements challenged Rome’s authority over the faith. The result was the Protestant Reformation, which converted large numbers away from the Catholic Church to other Christian denominations. For example, most of England, whether willingly or by force, converted to the Church of England (what Canadians call Anglicans). Most Germans became Lutheran. And many countries, like France, remained primarily Catholic but allowed Protestants to practice (eventually).

This transition was hardly smooth and discrimination resulted everywhere. Even in 1950’s Canada, whenever a Catholic would marry a Protestant, some relative wouldn’t attend the wedding for reasons of faith.

Fundamentalism

Up until the past few generations, most people took religion seriously. The Bible was regarded as actual words of God and the clergy was seen as His messenger. So religion had great influence over culture and held huge political power.

Most people were, what we now call, fundamentalists. But thanks to education and civil liberty gains over the past 100 years, people are now encouraged to think for themselves. Resulting in today’s fundamentalists representing less than 10% of the population (at least, in Western society).

Summary

So the Jews invented a better religion, Jesus kicked it up a notch, the Roman Empire adopted it, the Protestant Reformation created multiple denominations, and, because North Americans are primarily of European descent, the majority of us were born into it. You didn’t choose your religion, nor did it choose you. It’s about geography. If your ancestors originated in the Middle East, you’d be a Muslim; if they were from India, you’d be Hindu; if they came from Japan, you’d be Buddhist; and if they were from a communist country like China, you wouldn’t have been raised with any religion at all.

You were born in North America and are probably a Christian. How seriously you take it is up to you, but now you know your heritage.

Novels

Life has many tricks so here is one of mine: buy reference books and get novels from the library.

There are books for knowledge and books for pleasure. Get your novels from the library since you’ll only read them once. Knowledge books are different. They get highlighted and picked back up many times so keep them around. Buy knowledge books to make your own personal library and pass on novels so they don’t take up space and get dusty.

Because of the medium, novels stimulate a deeper sensation within us. Touching somewhere that movies or television can’t reach. And they provide us with common points of reference that can be used for communication. Lots of famous speakers express themselves by referring to popular novels (which only works if everyone has read them).

Anyway, I’m sure you get the point. Here is the list of my favourites:

  • A Prayer for Owen Meany – John Irving
  • A Time to Kill – John Grisham
  • East of Eden – John Steinbeck
  • Elvis, Jesus and Coca-Cola – Kinky Friedman
  • Flowers for Algernon – Daniel Keyes
  • Gone Girl – Gillian Flynn
  • I Know This Much Is True – Wally Lamb
  • Kane and Abel – Jeffrey Archer
  • Murder on the Orient Express – Agatha Christie
  • Naked – Daniel Sedaris
  • She’s Come Undone – Wally Lamb
  • Strip Tease – Carl Hiaasen
  • The Da Vinci Code – Dan Brown
  • The Godfather – Mario Puzo
  • The Glass Castle – Jeannette Walls
  • The Piano Man’s Daughter – Timothy Findley
  • 100 Years of Solitude – Gabriel Garcia Marquez

Where’s yours?

Love

Love has continuously evaded definition through the ages. This is partly due to there being so many types of love. In our lives, we experience family love, friendship love, puppy love, passionate love, romantic love, parent-child love, love for mankind, love for pets, material love (e.g., love for a new car), and many others.

But among this variety are two consistencies: the positive sensation of receiving love and the conscious effort of giving it.

Get-love

Why do you like or love any person or any thing? Isn’t it because they make you feel good?

Think of a friend. When they’re part of your day, you feel better. That’s why you like them. Now think of someone you don’t like. When they enter your day, you feel worse. Liking or loving any person or thing includes receiving positive feelings or sensations from them.

So let’s define “get-love” as the positive feelings or sensations you receive from another person (or a car).

Give-love

Give-love is what you give to others without expecting anything in return.

Think of caring for a sick baby. A parent will sit for hours, giving out positive energy just to make the baby feel better. But the soothed child doesn’t give anything in return. It doesn’t send flowers or promise to do better the next time. They simply take the love given.

In this situation, the adult gives love, and the child receives it.

So we have two categories of love: give-love and get-love. The difference is best illustrated by an expression used by parents in talking about their teenagers. They’ll often say, “I love my daughter, but I don’t really like her right now.” This refers to the position of still being ready to give love, while not receiving anything in return (at the present time).

Self-satisfaction

Those issuing give-love may be rewarded for their efforts through self-satisfaction. Self-satisfaction is a wonderful sensation in and of itself, but it’s not a direct result of give-love, and it doesn’t always occur. It’s indirect because it’s a result of your own actions, as opposed to something you can receive from another. And it doesn’t always occur because it doesn’t always occur: that’s just the way nature works. So, sincerity is a major component of give-love.

Magic love

One of the wonders of life is the positive sensation we feel from others without them consciously exerting any effort. Magic love is when you like someone “just the way they are.” When this happens simultaneously between two people, they experience a mutual exchange of positive energy—which is great.

I say something funny and you laugh. You share opinions and I respect them. I physically present myself the way I like and you find me attractive. We both receive get-love without putting any effort into give-love. Net result: getting without giving. Friends share magic love all over the world. It’s the positive energy generated effortlessly by people simply being themselves.

Romantic love

The epitome of magic love is when two people find each other—when they give each other more positive feelings (get-love) than anyone they’ve ever known, and the feeling is mutual.

A person in romantic love thinks, “If you die, I will too because I cannot live without receiving all this wonderful get-love in my life.” And this amazing feeling is generated almost entirely without effort on your part. All you have to do is simply be you.

Friendship love 

Friendship love is based in reciprocity. In a sense it could be called 50/50 love, since both parties generally give and get to the same degree. But within friendship love, most giving is effortless and the receiving plentiful. It’s like both parties give 3 units of love but receive 10.

Sure, I buy you a birthday present and then you buy me one. I listen to your problems while you listen to mine. But friends naturally enjoy each other’s company. They receive magic love from each other simply because their personalities are compatible, so both are receiving more than they give. It’s a win-win situation.

Friendships develop based on this win-win principle. The more we win from each other, the more we stay together; our relationship grows or shrinks based on this effortless reciprocity. When we feel we’re no longer getting back what we’re putting in, we move on to develop new friendships—which may be better bargains.

Family love

There is also wonderful love reciprocity in most families, but it’s coupled with much more flexibility and willingness to keep the relationship together. We accept less of a “bang for our buck,” since we’re not as conscious of what we receive versus how much we give.

Family love is also not as effortless because, as the saying goes, “You can’t choose your relatives.” It involves obligation and commitment (e.g., even though I’m angry with my brother, I’ll still invite him for Christmas at my house). People only break off family relationships under exceptional circumstance, and when they do, they’re almost always open to reconciliation.

Family love is the closest thing to total acceptance we ever feel. It’s a more comfortable love since ending the relationship is typically not an option. As a result, family love is a much deeper love.

Love and relationships

Boy meets girl. Boy likes girl. Boy asks girl out. Girl likes boy. Girl accepts.

Dating is based entirely in friendship love. I receive more than I give, and my giving is almost effortless. Likewise, you receive lots from me, and your giving also comes easily. This get-more-than-you-give thing grows until both parties can no longer live without each other. We simply grow to a point where we cannot live without receiving all this great get-love because it feels totally fantastic and costs virtually nothing.

As a result, most people consider their courtship period the absolute best time of their life.

Unhappy marriages

Unhappily married people make comments like “I’m not getting back what I’m putting in,” “The romance is gone,” and “I no longer get butterflies when you walk into the room.” They simply want more get-love in their lives. Unfortunately, they don’t understand that their thirst for boundless get-love is totally impossible to satisfy.

Happy marriages

Happily married people always refer to the work involved in a good marriage. They say things like “It’s a lot of work keeping a marriage together.” What the heck are they talking about?

They’re talking about the work involved in give-love. About loving someone without expecting things in return. About putting effort in for your partner simply because they’re your partner.

It’s work to give. You’re tired, you’re lazy, and you want to be left alone. Frankly, you’d rather be receiving. When you’re giving, the only thing you can hope for is self-satisfaction, and that’s not always guaranteed.

In happy marriages, spouses somehow get to the stage where they realize that living with a spouse and raising a family isn’t about getting (like dating was)—it’s about giving. These people change their attitudes from “It’s all about me” to “It’s all about us.” And, in successful marriages, spouses treat each other like family, not just friends

Summary

  • There are two primary forms of love: get-love and give-love.
  • Get-love measures what you receive from another person. Give-love is what you consciously give without expecting anything in return.
  • Friendship is typically based in get-love reciprocity, while family love is less evaluative and more about giving.
  • Relationships always start in friendship love (getting more than you give) and then, if successful, transform into family love.

For more information see Chapter I in Marriage Figured Out.

Golf

I have a nephew in Toronto who is athletic, but not a golfer. Here’s how I’d teach him to play.

There are four components to the game: driving, approach shots, chipping, and putting. The basic swing applies to the first two. Chipping is a modification of the basic swing, and putting is something completely different.

Basic Swing

The basic swing has eight parts.

Eye on the ball

  • “Keep your eye on the ball” is the oldest adage in golf. It was designed to help players make proper contact between the ball and club.
  • Your head should be tucked, looking directly at the ball, until at least a half second after you’ve made contact. Then, your back shoulder will naturally make your head turn forward as you complete your follow through.
  • Hit the middle of the ball with the middle of the club. (Easy when using a tee. Also why you make a divot when shooting off the grass.)

Feet position

  • Stand close to the ball (you’re not playing hockey).
  • Your front foot position varies by club: with short irons (6-9 iron), the ball stays in the middle of your feet. When hitting long irons, woods, or drivers, the ball should be closer to your front heel.

Front arm straight

  • For right-handed golfers, your left arm should be mostly straight (but do bend your wrists).
  • Your club should be on the same plane going up as coming down.

Closed face

  • The club head can be either open faced, straight, or closed. Try it all ways and you’ll find the ball goes further with it closed.

Knees bent

  • Keep your knees bent throughout the swing. They’ll naturally rise back up as part of the finish.

Turn your hips, turn your wrists

  • Drive your hips through the swing and turn your hands over as you make contact.

Hit through the ball

  • Don’t just hit the ball and stop. Hit all the way through on your way to the finish.

Finish your swing

  • Your chest should be facing the hole, all puffed out like a rooster, with your club’s shaft touching your back just like Rory McIlroy.

Practice the basic swing by concentrating on each component, until the whole thing feels natural. Start by hitting the lower clubs (e.g., wedges) and then gradually move up to drivers. Hit each club at least 8 times. After hitting a hundred balls or so, every day for 3 weeks, you’re ready to play.

Chipping

  • Pop the ball up using a short back swing, firm wrists, and a little hips.
  • Still bend your knees.
  • The trick is to hit the bottom of the ball with the bottom of the club (not the middle of the ball with the middle of the club).

Practice in your backyard by lightly popping up a ball for no more than 5 feet. Do this a million times over and you’ll become good.

Putting

  • There are two parts to making a putt: line and weight. Weight is how hard you hit the ball, and line is where you put it.
  • Putt with your arms and shoulders (not wrists). Your wrists should be straight (and don’t break them).
  • Line up the ball by pointing its arrow (or lettering) towards the hole. This way, during your actual stroke, you’ll only worry about weight.

Practice putting on a practice green at any golf course. Remember, it’s line and weight. If you line up the ball properly, you only have to worry about weight. Place your feet one step back from the ball, and take 2-3 practice strokes for weight. Then step forward and hit it.

P.S. Tiger is getting old.

Burgers Need Spice

Most people think great burgers are found at fast food outlets. They’re not. The best burgers are made in your own kitchen and I’ll tell you why—spice. Spice is what restaurants aren’t allowed to add to theirs because John Q Public prefers its food bland.

So here’s how to make a great hamburger. Put your ground beef into a bowl (lean, not extra lean). Add salt, black pepper, and garlic powder (don’t forget the garlic powder). Break an egg into the mixture, add chopped fresh parsley, a little barbecue sauce, and enough breadcrumbs to tighten things up. Then form into patties, cook ‘em, and eat ‘em

The full recipe is available here.

Minimum Wage

Most modern countries have laws governing employee minimum wage. And though the majority of people support such legislation there are always those who oppose. Dissidents lean toward the ideals of total free market economics, where wages are left only to the market. Advocates, like labour leaders, say minimum wage is essential for protecting the working poor. Who’s right?

Let’s start by looking at early economic thinking and why this legislation was introduced in the first place. Then we’ll decide.

Adam Smith

In his book, The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, Adam Smith presents his theory of natural versus market price. He says the natural price of labour is the cost for a family to provide for itself. And the price of labour can never go below this level because if a family cannot adequately support itself by working, capitalism doesn’t function. There’d be no end of revolutions. Then he crudely defined what adequate subsistence was. At the time, only half of all children survived into adulthood so a family required food and shelter for six (plus maybe a grandparent or two since, back then, children were your retirement plan).

Market price is what employers are willing to pay for labour, today. It’s the result of supply and demand. His theory says that, over time, market price will gravitate towards natural price. So even if the market is currently paying higher, the pull is always back to subsistence wages.

Objective

Early economists were pessimistic about the fate of labour. They couldn’t see how wages would ever get beyond mere subsistence levels. Couple this with the theory that business naturally wishes to maximize profits and you see why the push for minimum wage. It was designed to combat the natural lows of the market by ensuring the price of labour never went below its natural price. And that’s what it still is today.

So is it a sin to regulate such a thing when Adam Smith says the market will, over time, naturally correct itself? And what else are these free marketers trying to say?

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman, famed economist from the University of Chicago, argues that minimum wage causes unemployment. He says that if minimum wage is set at $8.00 per hour, and a worker is only worth $5.00, you’re denying employment because no one will hire that person for $8.00. And if the market was left to its own devices, he or she would have a job being paid exactly what they’re worth.

Now we have someone saying minimum wage isn’t helping—it’s hurting. But Milton has obviously never run a business. In the real world, if someone isn’t worth barely a living wage, they should be fired. You can’t have that type of person influencing the rest of your staff, not to mention causing quality issues. Every person doesn’t belong in every occupation so part of the market system is for workers to find where they do best.

History

New Zealand was the first to enact a minimum wage in 1894, followed soon after by Australia. Britain brought in similar legislation in 1909 when Winston Churchill said, “It is a serious evil that any class of His Majesty’s subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions. It was formerly supposed that the working of the laws of supply and demand would naturally regulate or eliminate that evil.”

Minimum wage was introduced in the US, in 1938, by Franklin Roosevelt. He introduced the .25 cents an hour legislation by saying, “No business which depends for its existence on paying less than a living wage to its workers has any right to continue in this country.” In Canada, the Canadian Constitution assigns the responsibility for labour laws, including minimum wage, to the provinces and territories.

Summary

Because of its duty to maximize profits, business is often handcuffed from doing what it ethically desires. That’s why, in many industries, one company can’t pay much better than another. But when government forces all to honour a minimum wage, it levels the playing field.

Friedman’s theory only holds water if minimum wage is set too high. And the practice of telling someone to move on “if he or she isn’t doing well in this industry” is part of the market system. If you can’t find a better fit, you may belong on social assistance. (Note: government programs already exist to address such situations.)

The general sentiment is that people deserve to make at least a living wage, so these laws are here to stay. But there will always be debate over who minimum wage is for, how much we pay young people, and what we deem to be a living wage.

Free Market Economics

A number of issues come with a system based solely on free market economics—that’s why we don’t have one. Ours is a mixed economy where government through regulation, production, and social welfare co-exists with the private sector. Yes, the majority of outputs still come from business but we have public involvement to address issues like security and stability (the tricky stuff).

Regulations

The theory of capitalism rests heavily on the notion of competition. That if company A makes a better widget than company B, they’ll attract more customers and then company B must either adapt to this new condition or perish. The net result is better value for the consumer and better efficiency for our system. The competition model works well because business, in its quest for survival and profits, will always try to outmaneuver the other guy. Without competition where is the motive to get better or cheaper? That’s why governments don’t allow monopolies. And if circumstances dictate one is required, they run it themselves.

In theory land, free market thinking supposes that once prices soar under a monopoly, companies in other industries will be attracted to enter the market, thereby reinstating competition. Sure, this might work in the long run but how long can we wait? And depending on the complexity of the industry, competition may never come. Businesses too, wish for competition because companies are also consumers, so monopolies hurt them equally as well. As you’ll soon see, total price is a determining factor in overall sales. So even if it is a level playing field with all companies paying monopolistic input prices (say, for plastic), my business still gets hurt because the whole market diminishes. For example, if every company’s I-pod is priced at $1,000 instead of $100, people buy less I-pods.

Same goes for regulating safety standards and minimum wage. Today’s common wisdom dictates that an external body is required to insist upon rules being followed because business, through a total free market system, cannot always regulate itself. Total free market theory says if company A provides window washers with safety equipment, they’ll attract the best workers. But rather than wait for a bunch of guys to fall off a platform, we chose instead to force companies into buying workers a harness. And if this increases the cost of having windows washed—so be it. We don’t need efficiency to be perfect. Likewise with employee wages, ethical companies are handcuffed by their directive to maximize profits. So if they can get away with paying less—they must.

Production

It’s always an argument whether government should be involved in producing goods or services. Proponents think it’s a great idea because, in theory, this keeps taxes down. Opponents (i.e., free marketers) say the business world is not the government’s space. But there is one instance in which everyone agrees where governments must get involved and that’s when circumstances carry with them extremely high investment and risk. Take for example, the Canadian National Railway. How could any company get financing for such a massive project that carried such huge risk? Did anyone really know how much it would cost and whether people would use it? So projects of this nature are always started by the government—essentially as monopolies. Examples include not only CNR, but Air Canada, utility companies, and many instances involving natural resources.

Now once an industry can stand on its own—with viable competition—free marketers say it should. And we’ve seen this through the privatization of most telephone companies and utilities (e.g., AGT and BC Tel becoming Telus). Many have gone well but some have become disasters (those privatized before their time or not conducive to competition). CNR is now successfully private since the huge risk is gone and competition is provided by trucking companies and airlines. So we can argue over whether provinces should own their own liquor stores and operate insurance companies, but everyone agrees that it’s the government’s role to get certain industries off the ground.

Social welfare

Every economist knows that capitalism brings with it inherent brutalities. That as competition rewards Company A with greater market share, Company B falls. You might think employees of Company B just go work for Company A, but what if they’re in different cities?

Economies have natural ebbs and flows. Sometimes we’re at full bore and sometimes you really can’t find a job. That’s why we invented employment insurance. It’s not welfare for people who don’t want to work, it’s a social program to bridge the gap between previous and future employment. And it’s essential when the market naturally crashes. Do people sometimes take advantage? Sure, but people also cheat the private insurance industry. So what’s the difference? EI was introduced to curb part of capitalism’s inherent brutality and the overwhelming majority of free marketers support it.

Likewise with social security (public pensions). Early capitalists insisted that people take financial responsibility for themselves and provide for their own future. But it quickly became apparent that most people don’t have the necessary skills. Too many of us were entering our senior years without anything for savings, and how was anyone to correct poor past behavior when they were at their financial weakest? Society, through government, chose to force people into retirement savings. And the forcing part, along with pre-determined outcomes, meant they had to be administered by the feds. Free marketer rumblings soon silenced once everyone realized there had to be forced “pay ins” and dependable “pay outs.” (Most countries, like Canada, have a hybrid model where public pensions provide you with something and you’re on your own for the rest.)

Summary

We don’t have a totally free market system. No country does. We have a mixed economy, where government plays a significant role. Total free-market economics is a theory, and just a theory. It doesn’t work in common practice. Practical free marketers believe in some government regulation, some government production, and some social services (like, employment insurance and public pensions). The difference is they don’t believe in excessive regulation, unnecessary government production, or questionable social services. And this position is perfectly justifiable.

Note: CNR wasn’t actually started by the government but I’m sure you get the point. CNR was the result of government buying up private railways that went bankrupt, and was later privatized.

Using Email

The resurgence of the written word is certainly here to stay. Email, texting, and the like, have replaced the telephone call in many instances. And though this change is mostly good, people need a lesson on when to talk and when to write.

Writing has become popular for three reasons: it improves quality, saves time, and is artistically rewarding. Modern technology didn’t create these reasons, it simply unleashed them. But, when used inappropriately, writing has its downsides. And people should understand these downsides before completely switching over.

Quality

People usually talk too soon—before they’re ready to say what they really want. Writing forces one to organize his or her thoughts and clearly communicate—which is great. There is no downside to quality.

Saves time

If you electronically give me your address, tell me when a meeting is, or provide four reasons why I should buy your product, it saves me the time of having to remember or make notes. And that’s nice. If you electronically send me a birthday invitation, in order to save you time, you’ve just told me I’m not worth much effort. And that’s bad.

Saving me time is nice. Saving you time is insincere.

You’re also saying that not much effort is being put towards this event. Making me wonder, why bother? In the olden days, formal written invitations meant something special, like a wedding. And people would formally reply. This style of writing was more effort than a phone call since it involved getting people’s addresses, making paper invitations, and buying postage. Today’s electronic invites don’t even ensure that you have my correct email address (it could be one that I no longer use).

This also applies in business. Companies that host customer events with a phone call get much higher turnout than those who just send email. Customers subconsciously say, “If I’m not worth the effort of personal contact, this event isn’t worth the effort of attending.”

We humans naturally measure the amount of effort extended towards us. People who exert effort are innately deemed to be more trustworthy (and a bunch of other good things). So, mass marketing your husband’s fiftieth birthday can be viewed as lame, but electronically following up with details is thoughtful.

Artistic

Many of us consider our writing abilities to rival those of Ernest Hemingway or Stephen King. And some of us think we’re just as funny as Dave Barry or Erma Bombeck. And this is all great—the artistic component of writing is both stimulating and rewarding. But it must be reserved for friends, it doesn’t belong in business.

The business world is a factual place where emails are used in court. You should never put anything cutesy in an email that could potentially be used in court. Business humour should always be verbal. And long-winded emails attempting to express emotion should be re-written after a human conversation.

Business emails are great for to-do lists, detailing next steps, and providing training-like information. They’re not for having discussions. If someone is trying to have a discussion with you via email, pick up the phone (and then maybe use email to confirm your understandings).

Remember, emails are used in court. If you don’t want this discussion to be placed in front of a judge, talk about it. And if you think the judge would get confused by trying to decipher this string, clean it up with a conversation, and then, maybe, summarize in an email. Conversely, if you think a judge would benefit from knowing certain things, put them in writing (just like we used to–with real letters).

Salad

Mastering the salad is essential for any cook. Not only do they taste great but salads are also very good for you. You just need to know a few tricks, starting with how to make a dressing.

Oil and vinegar

Many people are afraid to make their own oil and vinegar dressing. Is it more oil or more vinegar? Relax, you just have to remember one thing: “Oil to coat, vinegar to taste.” Add enough oil to coat, toss, and add your spices (e.g., salt and pepper), toss again, add some vinegar, toss, taste, add more vinegar (if need be), toss again, taste again—and then live with it.

Generally, the ratio is 2 parts oil to 1 part vinegar. But because oils and vinegars are so different, it’s best to use the “coat and taste” method described above. Find a nice olive oil (usually extra virgin) and use red wine or balsamic vinegar. Balsamic has a sweeter taste (and now comes in white so it won’t colour your salad).

Honey twist

To jazz things up you can add honey or maple syrup. In this case, you also need to add some Dijon mustard to hold things together.

Lettuce

Your basic Italian salad has 2-3 types of lettuce. Try romaine, endive, arugula, radicchio, red or green leaf, and butter lettuce. You can also use kale and spinach.

Onion

Yellow onions are used in cooking—not for salads. White onions are mild and good in salads. Purple (a.k.a. red or Italian onions) are stronger and are also good in salads. Spanish onions, which look like large yellow onions, are sweeter and they too are good in salads. You can also use green onions.

Vegetables

Tomatoes, celery, and cucumber are popular. You can also use sliced carrot. But don’t add mushrooms or those little corn cobs (they don’t belong).

Cheese and olives

Olives are good in any colour but your cheese has to be white. Use a hard cheese like Asiago, Parmesan, or even cheddar. And you can use feta (if it’s coarsely crumbled).

Nuts and fruit

If you’re not putting olives, use nuts and fresh fruit. Cut up an orange, use red grapes, fresh berries are good, or try pomegranate seeds. For nuts, toast slivered or sliced almonds, pine nuts, sunflower seeds, or make candied pecans.

Beans

Except for chick peas (garbanzo beans), beans don’t really go in a lettuce salad. Beans go in a bean salad, which, of course, doesn’t have any lettuce.

P.S. For actual recipes, click here.