Alex Hormozi Shifts Acquisition.com Strategy to Deploy Brand-Backed Capital

Alex Hormozi 调整 Acquisition.com 战略，部署品牌背书资本 高产出的内容创作与精准的载体选择推动企业价值实现指数级增长，而传统业务回报已超越风险投资。 Alex Hormozi 深入拆解了他在业务规模化、个人品牌构建及高产出媒体分发方面的核心运营法则。他阐述了为何产出规模能抵消运气成分、如何在不分散创收核心精力的前提下有效利用 AI 工作流，以及为何选择机遇远比单纯付出努力更关键。此外，他还探讨了客户经济模型、高客单价定价策略，以及 Acquisition.com 如何借助品牌背书资本与实操运营推动战略扩张。 媒体分发的核心法则是“以数量消除运气”，在 AI 内容日益泛滥的趋势下，无脚本的实时互动直播能够建立无法伪造的人际信任与高粘性参与度。 (11:08) 医疗美容诊所属于典型的高毛利、高需求但供给严重短缺的赛道；其规模化扩张的关键瓶颈在于稀缺技师的留存，需采用让利赋能的合伙人机制留住核心人才。 (16:08) 企业应用 AI 应专注于以工作流为核心提升人均创收与利润空间，切忌脱离主业盲目自研冗余工具或在错误策略上加速消耗算力成本。 (24:26) 商业产出等于“行动总量 × 载体杠杆率”，做低杠杆生意与打造十亿美元公司往往需要付出同等的极高工时，因此机会选择的重要性远胜单纯盲目努力。 (37:41)

Entrepreneur and investor Alex Hormozi argues that sustained business scale requires choosing structurally high-leverage vehicles, mastering basic operational cash flow before taking unhedged risks, and deploying ruthless distribution volume backed by real-world proof rather than superficial optimization. Media Arbitrage and the Proof of Legitimacy (51:10) Hormozi maintains that business influence cannot be faked through vanity metrics; it is downstream of real operational results. His own podcast, originally titled *Gym Secrets* and later rebranded to *The Game*, averaged roughly 2,000 monthly downloads until he executed a $46.2 million company sale, which subsequently drove millions of downloads. In Hormozi's view, the legitimacy an audience demands scales directly with the financial or personal risk of the advice offered. For high-stakes domains like business and personal finance, audiences demand tangible track records comparable to Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway rather than polished rhetoric. Operational Volume and Unfakeable Live Formats (11:08) Under the guiding mantra that 'volume negates luck,' Hormozi advocates for saturation across distribution channels, executing an all-of-the-above approach combining multiple agencies, automated repurposing, and in-house teams. For example, Acquisition.com runs a sub-brand channel managed by a single operator deploying AI tools to produce five mid-length clips and 15 short-form videos daily from existing long-form content. Looking toward 2026 and 2027, Hormozi anticipates that AI-generated media saturation will push audiences toward interactive, unscripted live broadcasts with tangible stakes, such as his shows *Cash Cows* and *Scale or Fail*. Pragmatic AI Implementation Versus Tech Distraction Small business operators frequently mismanage AI by pivoting away from profitable cores to construct redundant software tools or by using automation to accelerate fundamentally flawed strategies. Hormozi advises firms to preserve high client-facing pricing while using AI internally to eliminate specific departmental friction points, shifting organizational thinking from headcount-based org charts to workflow automation. Effective deployment requires a centralized data repository containing sales copy, customer testimonials, and creative assets, allowing companies like Acquisition.com to dynamically match hundreds of custom ad creatives with targeted landing pages. Vehicle Selection and Compounding Repetitions (37:41) Success is framed by Hormozi as the product of activity volume multiplied by vehicle leverage. Because struggling through a low-margin local shop requires the same 80-hour workweeks as scaling a venture-scale unicorn, vehicle selection dictates ultimate upside. However, abandoning an existing business carries heavy switching costs: four accumulated years of operational reps yield compounded returns in year five that often beat starting over in a marginally better opportunity. Hormozi also highlights non-tech, unglamorous niches—such as equipment rental or trade services—where operators like Brad Jacobs built multi-billion-dollar empires face far less institutional competition than venture tech. Cash-Flow Security and Mitigating Business Trade-Offs (47:36) Entrepreneurs are cautioned against adopting the superficial lifestyle habits of wealthy founders, such as complex morning wellness rituals, which Hormozi dismisses as confusing cause with effect. Instead, operators should compress the time between waking and high-cognitive work. Before taking unhedged business swings, founders must secure personal cash flow to create asymmetric 'free swings' where downside failure will not compromise basic living standards. Hormozi notes every sector carries distinct headaches—service firms face labor management and churn, while tech firms lack cash flow stability—citing his former CFO Suzanne Shifflet's observation that every business model involves structural drawbacks. Hormozi's approach emphasizes operational rigor, sustained focus in high-margin categories, and pragmatic monetization ladders over startup trends. A persistent operational question remains how effectively service-heavy, talent-dependent businesses—such as med spas—can scale across locations without losing high-performing practitioners to independent competition.

Alex Hormozi 认为，企业规模化与财富创造的核心在于将“执行体量”与“高杠杆商业载体”相结合，而非盲目投入工时或追逐虚荣指标；创业者应优先建立现金流安全垫，在具结构性优势的行业中深耕复利，并以实际业务战绩为信誉背书，通过流程化 AI 与全渠道媒体分发驱动扩张。 商业载体选择与长期复利 (37:41) Hormozi 提出成就公式为“行动体量乘以活动杠杆”。他指出，经营低杠杆的街头小微企业与打造高估值企业同样需要每周投入 80 小时，因此创业者必须主动选择具备结构性杠杆的赛道。以 Brad Jacobs 在物流、设备租赁等领域多次打造数十亿美元企业为例，大量高利润机会往往存在于 HVAC（暖通空调）或泳池维护等缺乏机构竞争的传统服务业；在这些行业中，执行力优秀的本地运营商常能以合理的工时实现 700 万美元营收与 250 万美元净利润。相比之下，处于行业底层高度拥挤、客户留存脆弱的营销代理（SMMA）或服装行业，其经济结构本身就充满摩擦。 在细分赛道上，Hormozi 重点看好兼具医疗与消费属性的“轻医美诊所（Med Spas）”。由于富裕人口老龄化催生了对延寿和审美的旺盛需求（例如 Bryan Johnson 推出百万元年费项目即吸引了 1200 名申请者），轻医美通常获客成本极低且利润率高达 40%。该类业务规模化的核心瓶颈在于技师易流失，因此他建议借鉴合伙人律所或财富管理机构的分配机制，给予核心技师 51% 股权以绑定利益。此外他强调，频繁转换赛道会损失复利，在原有赛道积累 4 年经验后进入第 5 年的复合收益，往往高于转向一个略好赛道的第 1 年。 现金流安全垫与风险评估 (47:36) 在应对高风险商业决策时，Hormozi 强调“先戴好自己的氧气面罩”。创业者应优先建立稳定的现金流基础或个人资产储备；当生活底线获得保障后，后续的高风险商业尝试就会转变为“免费挥棒（free swings）”，即使失败也不会迫使个人改变住房、饮食或家庭承诺。他引用 Keith Cunningham 的决策框架：评估上行收益与下行风险，唯有在确信自己能承受最坏结果时才可入场。Hormozi 提到自己虽曾两次经历“失去一切”的低谷，但他拒绝将挫折归为单一门槛，而是主张专注于控制可控变量并持续推进。 此外，Hormozi 批评了当下创业圈对冷水浴、桑拿、复杂冥想等生活方式优化的盲目崇拜，指出这是将“富裕的结果”误当成“致富的原因”。对于尚未积累足够财富的创业者，非直接工作类活动必须能证明其显著提升了单位时间的认知效能；他推崇摩擦极小的极简晨间流程——起床、摄入咖啡因、排除感官干扰并立即投入高认知消耗的工作。针对各行业的优劣对比，他引用前 CFO Suzanne Shifflet 的观点警示：没有完美的商业模式，无论是轻资产的人力调度摩擦还是重资产的突发运营风险，本质上都是在不同类型的困难之间做权衡。 AI业务重构与务实自动化 (22:34) 在企业引入 AI 方面，Hormozi 指出创业者常陷入三大误区：抛弃盈利主业盲目转型做 AI 原生项目、用 AI 加速执行错误策略导致亏损并承担高额 token 成本，以及将大量时间耗费在会议摘要软件等“工具拜物教”上，却忽视了实际产生收入的核心瓶颈。他强调会议记录从未成为其商业瓶颈，核心问题始终是当期实际创收。企业应避免花费数百小时自研简陋软件去替代现有成熟 SaaS（如每月 9 美元的 Calendly 或 CRM 免费内置功能）。 Hormozi 建议将企业的审视维度从“组织架构图”转向“工作流（Workflow）”。例如让 AI 接管视频剪辑师原本承担的部分常规工序，从而使其人均产出提升 3 至 5 倍，扩大业务毛利率。其实施策略包括“隐形运营”——对外按优质人力标准收费，对内运用自动化后端实现软件级效率；以及分部门渐进式降本。而在内容生产上，其核心前提是建立集中的数据底座（涵盖文案、客户背书及视频物料）。在 Acquisition.com，团队通过数据底座动态匹配数百个落地页与定向广告；其矩阵号“Mormozi”仅由一名员工操作 AI 工具，即可实现单日产出 5 条中长视频和 15 条短视频的高效自动化。 战绩驱动的媒体杠杆与阶梯定价 (11:08) 在营销与媒体扩张中，Hormozi 奉行“体量消解运气（Volume negates luck）”的法则。他采取哑铃式内容策略：一端是以高质量制作树立品牌声誉与信任度，另一端是以高频率产出逼近转化环节。面对注意力市场，他不拘泥于单一平台，而是推崇“全渠道捕获”及去中心化 UGC 配合 AI 后台质检；同时他认为传统媒体存在被低估的分发套利空间，正如 Dave Ramsey 通过全美约 600 家传统电台建立起现代创作者忽视的庞大影响力。为抵御未来 AI 生成内容的泛滥，他押注于具有真实商业后果和无脚本博弈的互动直播节目（如《Cash Cows》与《Scale or Fail》）。 针对个人品牌与内容变现，Hormozi 强调商业影响力必须建立在真实的商业战绩之上。其个人播客在改名为《The Game》之前每月仅约 2000 次下载，直到他以 4620 万美元卖掉公司后，听众规模才因实战结果的背书迎来爆发式增长。在商业化设计上，他指出客群具有分形特征，1% 的客户往往贡献 50% 的利润；企业应打破“按自己钱包估价”的心理障碍，构建阶梯式价格歧视（从每月 100 美元到 500 美元乃至 2500 美元）。Acquisition.com 在图书发布带动 1.05 亿美元声量的基础上，于 2024 年 1 月推出的咨询业务首年实现 3600 万美元营收，其投资赋能的平台 Skool 用户规模亦突破 3000 万、GMV 超过 10 亿美元。 Hormozi 的商业体系建立在对实操细节、战绩背书与统计概率的高度推崇之上，其策略有效性重度依赖于创始人能否耐受漫长复利周期以及是否具备真实的退出与操盘凭证。然而，这一模式对早期创业者的普适性仍存疑问：在缺乏数千万美元退出背书和丰厚资本安全垫的情况下，小微企业如何在激进的高产量分发与有限的生存资源之间权衡，仍是该框架留待实践检验的关键难题。

## Background 该内容由科技商业访谈频道 TBPN 于 2026 年 8 月 3 日发布在 YouTube 平台上。视频简介指出，本期节目是与知名企业家兼投资人亚历克斯·霍尔莫齐（Alex Hormozi）的深度对话，核心探讨了选择优质商业赛道的哲学、创业者应用 AI 时的常见误区、媒体分发中“体量胜过完美”的逻辑、个人品牌的因果倒置，以及 Acquisition.com 如何从纯现金流家族办公室演进为品牌与资本驱动型投资平台的实战手册。 ## TL;DR 霍尔莫齐在访谈中系统阐述了他的商业杠杆哲学，强调终极产出取决于“行动体量”乘以“赛道杠杆率”，告诫创业者切莫在平庸且缺乏壁垒的行业盲目苦干，更要警惕将 AI 沦为做会议纪要的伪生产力自嗨。在媒体与获客方面，他分享了通过高密度马拉松录制、程序化 AI 广告矩阵以及坦诚叙事来打造内容飞轮的经验，并阐明了利用客户分形结构搭建高溢价“经济阶梯”的定价逻辑。结合自身从两度破产到斩获数千万美元退出的历程，他回顾了重注社区平台 Skool 并确立“极致产品+超级分发+自有资本”投资铁三角的蜕变历程，揭示出任何商业模式背后都充斥着特有的现实折磨与运营阵痛，唯有筑牢财务安全底线并保持永不停歇的执行力方能穿透周期。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话在轻松幽默与极度硬核之间切换自如，开场由悍马 EV 与微型代步车的脑洞闲聊迅速切入刀刀见血的商业交锋。霍尔莫齐语速极快、思维密度惊人，毫不留情地用尖锐大白话刺破当下创业圈风靡的冰浴、冥想与跟风做 AI 原生软件等虚荣泡沫，展现出极强的压迫感与洞察力。听感如同置身一场剥离了所有公关滤镜的闭门高管私董会，既充斥着斯多葛主义直面失败的冷峻，又洋溢着古典实用资本主义的热烈与真实。 ## Bulletin - [35:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2116s) Acquisition.com 正从家族办公室全面转型为“品牌+资本+执行”投资铁三角平台：其咨询业务首年创收 3600 万美元，旗下控股投资的社区平台 Skool 用户达 3000 万且 GMV 突破 10 亿美元。 - [39:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2354s) Alex Hormozi 提出终极成就公式为“行动数量 × 活动本身的杠杆率”，强调无论经营街头餐馆还是打造独角兽每周均需投入 80 小时，因此赛道机会的选择直接决定了回报量级。 - [24:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=1464s) 针对 AI 落地中小企业，Hormozi 建议企业从组织架构思维转向工作流思维，在维持纯人工高客单价的同时利用 AI 提升人效 3 至 5 倍，切忌盲目分心去创立 AI 原生软件公司。 - [53:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=3216s) 在内容与个人品牌上，Hormozi 警惕没有过硬产品的“伪工作”流量自嗨，指出 B2B 影响力的底层是真金白银的商业硬指标，其自身播客的爆发正是得益于 4620 万美元的业务套现退出背书。 ## Key takeaways - [00:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=43s) 写书与沉淀认知需要延长时间线以扩大“思维表面积”，带着假设框架深入商业实战经历足够刺激，而非在职业生涯晚期才做磨平细节的复盘。 - [09:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=592s) 媒体产出秉持“体量消除运气”信条，以极高频的集中录制和短视频规模化铺量获取分发优势，同时下注真人博弈与真实风险（High Stakes）的实时互动以抵御 AI 生成浪潮。 - [14:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=897s) 在内容分发上执行“哑铃策略”：一端是用极致工业水准精雕细琢的重磅内容确立行业权威，另一端则是高频、原生、追求每秒价值密度的极简内容推动信任与转化。 - [16:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=969s) 医美水疗（Med Spa）等类医疗赛道虽存在老龄高净值人群带来的暴利红利，但核心瓶颈在于“认人不认店”的高接触属性，必须借鉴律所或财富管理让利 51% 的合伙人机制深度绑定技术人才。 - [22:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=1354s) 中小企业切忌陷入 AI 伪效率自嗨（如沉迷于自动化会议纪要），应将底层销售与营销物料整合进统一数据仓库，实现 AI 动态拼装广告与规模化分发。 - [32:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=1950s) 企业应当利用客户群体的“分形结构”建立经济价格阶梯，用直白坦诚的沟通直接筛选出能承受超高客单价的前 1% 高净值客户，实现收入成倍跃升。 - [35:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2116s) 反思 24 个月完成 24 笔收购中仅 3 家大成的惨烈规律，Acquisition.com 彻底停做纯财务被动投资，转向将自有风险资本与顶尖品牌分发全面赋能变态级产品的重注打法。 - [37:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2261s) 反对将创业者二元对立为“跌落前”与“跌落后”，人生的挫败与危机在各阶段都会周期性降临，核心生存策略是承诺永不停歇并专注掌控自己能掌控的事。 - [40:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2452s) 深耕平庸赛道进入第 5 年所累积的复利与技能，往往远高于跳入新赛道从第 1 年冷启动开始；但某些具备结构性缺陷的行业（如 SMMA 代运营）天然受制于人才流失与小微企业高倒闭率。 - [43:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2628s) 传统“枯燥”生意（如暖通空调、建材租赁等）缺乏现代化管理与高维竞争者，往往能通过现代运营手段实现降维打击，创造数百万美元的高额自由现金流。 - [45:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2747s) 警惕因果倒置的晨间玄学（如冰浴、冥想），大众往往是在模仿成功富豪维持现状的“平台期”，而非他们早期每天高强度劳作 16 小时的“上升期”。 - [49:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2949s) 推崇“先给自己戴好氧气面罩”的底线决策模型，通过预留足以让个人生活毫无改变的财务安全底牌，使后续的风险重注转变为毫无后顾之忧的自由挥棒。 - [51:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=3070s) 做出一款造福大众的惊艳产品天然会附赠个人品牌，脱离过硬业务去追逐流量只是粉饰太平的“伪工作”，高风险领域的内容影响力必须建立在真实商业硬战绩之上。 - [57:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=3429s) 商业世界中不存在完美的商业模式，高现金流业务往往伴随极低估值倍数、员工流失和繁重的管理琐碎，创业者必须坦然接纳每种模式特定的痛苦代价。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=0s) 悍马 EV、菲亚特微型车与开场寒暄 节目在一阵轻松的闲聊中开场。主持人招呼亚历克斯·霍尔莫齐（Alex Hormozi）入座，并随口问起他是否还开着那辆悍马纯电车（GMC Hummer EV）。霍尔莫齐笑着确认车子还在，主持人立刻打趣让他谈谈车评，因为他们录制前恰好聊到了菲亚特（Fiat）极其微型的电动代步车 Topolino。两人对比起这两款体型悬殊的座驾：重达近九千磅的纯电悍马巨兽与小巧玲珑的 Topolino 简直是两个极端。 霍尔莫齐随即开脑洞构想了一个极具画面感的幽默场景：若是把十辆菲亚特 Topolino 像古罗马战车前排的马匹一样排开，或者让庞大的悍马 EV 像火车头一样领头疾驰，后面跟着一队 Topolino 像《速度与激情》（Fast & Furious）里那样拉开 V 字战阵破空而出，那场面绝对霸气十足，足以瞬间碾压整片街道与车流。 --- ### [00:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=43s) 创作节奏与“思维表面积”：让油墨在时间中慢慢风干 谈到近况与新书计划时，霍尔莫齐透露目前确实有一本新书正在筹备中。关于出书的节奏，主持人好奇他是否计划保持每年一本的频率，霍尔莫齐澄清实际节奏更接近每 18 个月到两年一本。他坦言每次写完一本，自己都会发誓“这是我写的最后一本书”，随后进入大约六个月的“不应期”（refractory period）；然而半年过去，灵感又会重新复苏，脑海中浮现出某个值得拆解的命题，便不知不觉再次动笔。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Alex Hormozi 的写书思考与沉淀流 accDescr: 展示从灵感记录、长周期思维发散、现实压力测试到定义边界的成书流程 subgraph Phase1["第一阶段：灵感沉淀与发酵"] A["手机备忘录碎片记录<br/>(随时进行 Mind Dump)"] --> B["思维表面积发酵<br/>(18-24个月多元生活经历)"] end subgraph Phase2["第二阶段：实战检验与收敛"] B --> C["提出假设框架<br/>(Working Theory)"] C --> D["业务实战压力测试<br/>(重复解决真实业务难题)"] end subgraph Phase3["第三阶段：范围定义与输出"] D --> E["明确问题定义<br/>(收紧范围，拒绝冗长巨著)"] E --> F["撰写高信息密度作品<br/>(在记忆鲜活时即时记录)"] end ``` 霍尔莫齐详细拆解了他的写作系统。他目前在手机里记录了大约 10 本处于不同孵化阶段的选题，平时只要有灵感就随时往备忘录里倾倒碎片想法（mind dump），直到素材积累到足够有趣、厚重时才正式立项。他格外强调“思维表面积”（surface area of thought）这一概念： - 如果把自己关在房间里试图在两周内突击写出一本书，创作者在极短时间内根本无法经历足够多元的现实刺激，无法“让油墨自然风干”。 - 相反，如果把时间线拉长，在跨州出差或与不同背景的人交谈时偶遇认知盲区，就能随手将顿悟补入框架，使文字的信息量与思维密度成倍提升。 - 构思与沉淀的时间远大于真正敲键盘码字的时间；在长达一年半载的跨度里，他会带着一套假设框架（working theory）进入商业实战反复碰撞打磨，直到发现自己在用同一套底层框架反复攻克现实难题时，才认定它值得被提炼成书。 --- ### [02:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=144s) 书籍的问题定义与聚焦：从万页巨著到精准解法 在被问及过往作品的思考边界时，霍尔莫齐直言“为一本书划定问题边界”（problem definition）是创作中最艰难的一环。以他的第二本书《获客》（*$100M Leads*）为例，他将其形容为迄今写得最痛苦的一本书，因为最初的野心是“写透广告全流程”，但商业获客的路径极其庞杂，把所有内容强行塞进一本书导致手稿经历了整整 19 版的大改迭代。 相比之下，后来的《盈利模式》（*$100M Money Models*）就写得极其顺畅，因为它精准聚焦于各类促销策略的底层包装（wrappers for promotions），结构明确且易于执行；而最初的《商业报价》（*$100M Offers*）同样边界极其窄细且锋利。霍尔莫齐笑称，这三本书最初其实起源于同一部包罗万象的庞大草稿，当时他把厚如法典的手稿拿给朋友看，对方直接警告说根本没人能读完这样一本“鸿篇巨制”（tome）。这让他幡然醒悟：必须极度收窄议题，写出能让人真正读得下去的实操手册。 主持人提及蒂姆·费里斯（Tim Ferriss）从《每周工作4小时》跨界到美食、健身和生活方式的路线，询问霍尔莫齐未来是否也会跨界涉猎更广泛的题材。霍尔莫齐明确表示，克制聚焦是他的底层逻辑： - 他只写自己拥有独到见解（unique take）的领域。如果市面上已经存在成熟的同类书，或者别人早已讲得一清二楚，再去重写一遍不仅毫无意义，在写作过程中自己也会因为“这东西早就有人写过了”而彻底丧失动力。 - 无论是做企业还是写书，他的准则都一样：必须创造出“如果我不做，这世上就不会存在，或者至少不会以正确方式存在”的东西。如果一项业务就算自己放手不干也对世界毫无影响、处处都有替代品，那他便提不起兴趣。 --- ### [03:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=231s) 创造的独特性与即时记录：为什么不要等生涯末期才写书 话题随后转向了两人共同的好友、著名投资人杰里米·吉芬（Jeremy Giffon）。主持人和霍尔莫齐都赞叹吉芬独特的思考穿透力——每次吉芬开腔，全场都会不自觉地洗耳恭听；然而令人遗憾的是，像吉芬这样的人往往在商业一线极度忙碌，即便出书恐怕也要等到三四十年后的职业生涯晚期，平时大众只能通过偶尔做客《Invest Like the Best》等深度播客来捕捉他的真知灼见。 霍尔莫齐由此指出了延后总结与“即时创作”之间的核心差异： - 许多顶尖人物选择在退休时做一次生涯巡礼（victory lap）式的复盘，但这种滞后总结往往会磨平所有的细微褶皱（wrinkles）与鲜活细节。 - 霍尔莫齐打了个生动的比方：这就像向别人讲述自己如何遇见妻子的故事，多年后讲起来虽然熟练流畅，但如果是在相遇后的第二天立刻复述，你脑中对每一个细枝末节的记忆和体感都会丰富鲜活得多。 - 秉持着“在油彩未干时作画”（paint while it's wet）的哲学，他坚持在商业征战的现场同步进行制度化输出与文档化沉淀。他调侃道，如果年轻时把这些鲜活打拼的实战书写完，到职业生涯尽头反而最轻松，因为到时候只需从各本书中挑出精华做一张“精选金曲合辑”（greatest hits）即可。 --- ### [06:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=362s) 房产执念与极简工作环境：消除一切外界刺激 访谈聊到了社交游戏巨头 Zynga 的创始人马克·平卡斯（Mark Pincus）。平卡斯曾做客该节目并提出一个观点：每个人一生中不仅应该写一本书，还应该亲自盖一座房子。主持人借此询问霍尔莫齐是否有购置空地、与建筑师团队合作从零打造实体豪宅的愿望。 霍尔莫齐毫不犹豫地给出了否定回答。他坦言自己对建造居所完全没有执念，在房地产领域他们主要专注于收购存量的大型多户公寓（multi-family real estate），属于纯粹的投资行为。当主持人追问是否因为亲自盖房“缺乏生产力”才不感兴趣时，霍尔莫齐打比方说，这就像今天有没有想过要听碧昂丝（Beyoncé）的歌一样——并不是抗拒，而是脑子里压根没有这一项待办，纯粹不在自己的愿望清单（bucket list）上。 主持人进而提起霍尔莫齐早期 YouTube 视频中宛如修道士般的极简环境——他常常把自己关在一个毫无装饰的狭小衣帽间里录像，好奇他如何看待自身的生活与办公空间。霍尔莫齐对此展现出了截然分明的两面性： - **私人生活空间**：他完全顺从妻子蕾拉（Leila Hormozi）的喜好。“只要蕾拉开心增加 10%，我的幸福感就会同步提升；而我自己住得是否奢华舒适，反倒对我毫无影响”，因此日常居住环境全凭妻子决定。 - **高强度工作空间**：他则展现出极致的控制欲。因为自知极易受到外界干扰，他的办公环境致力于剔除一切外部感官刺激——工作室内甚至连窗户都没有，工作时必须关掉杂光、戴上耳塞，将自己置身于近乎感官剥夺的绝对专注状态中。 ### [08:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=488s) 早期 YouTube 历程与战略起点：把做媒体当作做企业 主持人与 Alex Hormozi 回顾起 2020 年前后做 YouTube 的起点。当时 Alex 刚卖掉之前的公司，正处于两段事业之间的休整期。主持人提到，自己和搭档差不多在同一时期做 YouTube，当时他们只是顺着兴趣做硅谷历史类内容，虽然做得极其用心、积累了约 50 万粉丝，但本质上只是把频道当成“个人博客”；而 Alex 从第一天起就以“做商业”的严谨姿态降维打击，迅速拉开了巨大差距。 面对主持人关于“起步时团队、策略与时间投入”的提问，Alex 分享了自己的极简起步史：当时他直接找了一家视频剪辑代运营机构，对方建议每周发 3 条视频，他便照做不误。由于那一年他和妻子 Leila 正处于卖掉公司后的旅行休假阶段，他随身带一个小行李箱，里面装齐设备，走到哪里就打开笔记本摄像头录制。那时他没有实质业务工作，满脑子都是多年沉淀的商业心得与观点，于是顺水推舟，把这些想法一口气全部倾泻到视频中，这构成了他 YouTube 策略的 1.0 版本。 - 主持人团队过去多年只有一名远程剪辑师，不考虑变现，仅仅跟着兴趣探索较小 TAM（目标受众规模）的领域。 - Alex 在开启当前这套媒体体系时正值业务退出期，拥有充足心智带宽将认知规模化输出。 --- ### [09:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=592s) Shorts 短视频爆发、单日百条录制与“体量消除运气” 在短视频风口刚出现时，有人主动向 Alex 发送冷邮件（Cold reach out），提议免费帮他从现有的长视频中切片做 Shorts，Alex 欣然同意，因此极其早期就吃到了短视频红利。随着切片表现越来越好，该剪辑师提出：“如果专门针对短视频场景进行单独录制，效果会更好。”Alex 答应了，但开出了一个极其严苛的条件——**每个季度只花一天时间录制**。 剪辑师飞到 Alex 所在的城市，Alex 在那一天从清晨 6 点一口气录制整整 100 条短视频，榨干最后一丝精力才结束。这种“马拉松式密集录制”的习惯一直延续至今：Alex 宁愿每隔一周或一季度集中进行高强度的马拉松式内容产出，也不愿把精力碎片化地摊在每天。主持人也感同身受地表示，自己每天高强度做 3 小时长播，深知连续录制的消耗；而 Alex 强调，在当下的媒体环境中，“高产能/体量（Volume）”是决定性的胜负手。在 Acquisition.com 总部的墙上，甚至赫然写着：**“体量消除运气（Volume negates luck）”**以及**“暴力出奇迹（Violence is the answer）”**。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Alex Hormozi 早期内容规模化飞轮 accDescr: 展示 Alex 从长视频倾倒思想到短视频季度马拉松录制的规模化生产机制 subgraph 生产端["内容录制 (高密度马拉松)"] A["季度单日冲刺 / 一次录满100条"] B["高强度倾泻认知 (榨干每盎司精力)"] A --> B end subgraph 放大端["分发与切片网络"] C["冷邮件合作剪辑手"] D["早期抢占 YouTube Shorts 红利"] C --> D end subgraph 核心信条["总部核心法则"] E["体量消除运气<br>(Volume negates luck)"] end B --> C D --> E ``` --- ### [11:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=680s) 2026-2027 年的内容形态布局：直播互动与 AI 无法伪造的高真实性赌注 当被问及未来几年最看好的内容格式时，Alex 毫不犹豫地给出了答案：**“实时互动（Live interactive）”**。这不仅涵盖类似 Twitch 或 YouTube Live 的直播，更关键在于如何打破单向传播的壁垒，把真实的受众拉进场景中共同探讨。他近期推出的新节目《Scale or Fail》（前身为《Cash Cows》）便是这一逻辑的典型代表。 Alex 指出，在 AI 大模型能够廉价批量生成一切的时代，创业者必须思考：**什么是无法被伪造的？** 答案是“有真实利益/风险悬念（High stakes）”的真人博弈。例如 MrBeast 的挑战如果换成假的 500 万美元或模型做出来的兰博基尼，整个节目的张力和悬念瞬间荡然无存；又如国际象棋，虽然人类早就下不过计算机，但人类棋手之间充满真实压力和戏剧性的对抗反而比以往任何时候都更受欢迎。正是出于对这种真实悬念的追求，Alex 极其推崇让创业者当场起立现场路演、接受审视与诊断的实时互动模式。 - **AI 时代的抵御壁垒**：虚构故事可以完全由技术生成，但观众对真人赌注、即兴反应和真实风险（Stakes）的需求永远无法被算法替代。 - **互动模式迭代**：不仅是看弹幕互动，而是邀请真实创业者带着真实商业数据当面对话。 --- ### [12:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=758s) 签约 CAA 与传统媒体的未开采红利：全渠道注意力捕猎 随着 Alex 签约顶级经纪公司 CAA（Creative Artists Agency），主持人好奇身为“新媒体守门人”的他是否还在乎传统电视和老牌媒体的声誉价值。Alex 直言，他是一个**“注意力的机会均等主义者（Equal opportunist when it comes to attention）”**。进入传统媒体并不是为了盲目追求声望，而是为了获取目前完全接触不到的圈层受众。 他以理财教父 Dave Ramsey 为例：在人人都宣称“广播已死”的时代，Dave Ramsey 靠着 600 家辛迪加广播电台统治了行业三四十年，赚得盆满钵满，核心原因就在于很多新媒体人根本没有往那里看。网络信息流虽然开放，任何人都可以发布内容并可能一夜爆红，但这也意味着竞争极度扁平；而传统电台与电视渠道拥有独特的准入壁垒。一旦从传统媒体引流——例如《日落家园》（Selling Sunset）或 Ryan Serhant 的房产真人秀，即便那些明星在社交媒体上的原生运营水平很一般，依然能凭借传统电视赋予的庞大曝光建立极高的粉丝基础。 - 科技圈常犯的误区是线性外推，误以为电商会 100% 取代实体零售，或互联网视频会彻底消灭广播与电视；但事实上，拥有极强消费力的传统收视/收听人群依然稳固。 - 策略是利用电视等传统渠道的差异化准入获取新受众，再将其无缝承接至全网内容生态中。 --- ### [14:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=897s) 哑铃策略：精雕细琢的“蒙娜丽莎”与高频价值输出的平衡 针对内容制作的“精美工业化制作（High polish）”与“单人对着镜头随意讲话”之间的取舍，主持人提出制作过度容易陷入效率泥潭，但制作精良又自带权威性。Alex 提出了明确的**“哑铃策略（Barbell strategy）”**：要么把内容做到极致精雕细琢，像打造《蒙娜丽莎》一样去打赢顶级工业级制作这场仗；要么就彻底投入到高密度的体量游戏中，追求每秒钟的极高价值密度（Value per second），尽可能高频地铺量。 在 Alex 的商业闭环中，这两端承担着完全不同的职责： 1. **重制作/顶级曝光端（漏斗顶部）**：重塑品牌认知、确立行业权威，打入新的分发壁垒并触达广泛眼球。 2. **高频输出/原生内容端（漏斗中下部）**：虽然没有华丽特效，但由于价值极度浓缩且陪伴感极强，反而是真正推动用户产生实际购买与转化行为的核心阵地。 ### [16:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=969s) 医疗水疗与“长生不老”背后的暴利蓝海 Alex Hormozi 透露，自己一直以来都在寻觅一家堪称“魔法般”的医学水疗机构（Med Spa）。他坦言自己对一切“类医疗”（pseudo-medical）赛道都极为痴迷。背后的底层逻辑非常简单：当今社会正经历着前所未有的人口老龄化，而这批年长人群手中掌握着社会上最庞大的财富积累。与此同时，他们极度抗拒衰老，以科技新贵 Bryan Johnson 为代表的极端抗衰生活方式早已成为当下的时代精神（zeitgeist）——人人都渴望长生不老，人人都想永远年轻貌美，且这批人完全付得起高昂的代价。从需求端来看，市场空间近乎无限；反观供给端，各地的 Med Spa 却普遍处于极度缺人的状态。 在 Alex 每周接触的众多创业者中，有几个特定领域的生意甚至“好到了不合逻辑的程度”。主持人随即补充了一个亲身经历：他初到洛杉矶时认识的一位 Med Spa 老板，仅投入了约 40 万美元启动资金，短短一年之内就做到了高达 120 万至 200 万美元的纯自由现金流，盈利能力令人咋舌。大家普遍好奇为什么像 Bryan Johnson 这样自带巨大流量与争议的人物还没在此大举收割。事实上，尽管外界对其仿生人般的作息争议颇多，但愿为其买单的拥趸基数极其庞大。Bryan 曾推出过一个定价高达每年 100 万美元的抗衰项目，竟吸引了多达 1,200 人提交申请；而其麾下每年 6 万美元的次级项目，潜在报名人数更是呈数量级递增。 即便全美目前存在约 1 万至 1.5 万家 Med Spa，整个行业依然高度分散，尚未出现真正的全国性巨无霸整合者。许多单店年营收做到 600 万美元、净利润率高达 40% 的老板在被问及获客秘诀时，往往一脸轻松地表示自己“只是租个门面挂个招牌，做好口碑，顾客自然就带顾客来了”。Alex 直言这种躺赚状态绝非长久之计，这些经营者只是恰巧身处一个供给极度紧缺的红利真空期，却误以为是自己的商业运营能力高超。此外，许多传统从业者格局受限，往往只盯着诸如除皱、填充等未来 3 到 6 个月的短期医美效果，未能切入数十年的全周期健康管理。 - 行业宏观特征：需求端由握有巨量资产的老龄高净值人群驱动，供给端机构高度分散、人手严重匮乏。 - 暴利单店模型：典型优秀案例可在 40 万美元初始投资下，于首年产生 120 万至 200 万美元的自由现金流。 - 极端客单价验证：Bryan Johnson 定价 100 万美元/年的健康管理计划吸引了超过 1,200 名高净值申请者。 - 常见盈利画像：部分中小型医美水疗单店可达到 600 万美元年营收与 40% 的高利润率，且主要依赖自然客流与口碑裂变。 ### [19:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=1160s) 技师绑定难题与类律所合伙人模式 谈到若亲自下场会如何操盘 Med Spa 赛道，Alex 认为无论是通过行业整合滚雪球（Roll-up）还是从零开设新店（Denovo）都行得通，因为单店的建设成本并不高，真正懂打法的硬核操盘手进入后完全可以形成降维打击。在这门生意里，获客成本（CAC）几乎可以忽略不计，高客单服务的毛利率更是高得离谱。然而，该模型真正致命的命脉在于“核心技师与技术人才的匮乏与流失”。 由于行业整体受制于供给短缺，不仅机构短缺，具备过硬注射、激光实操技术的技师同样严重供不应求。对技术人员而言，自立门户挂牌单干的门槛极低，甚至随时可以带走机构积累的熟客。高接触度的医疗美容服务中，客户天然只对自己信任的注射师或仪器操作师保持忠诚，对门店品牌几乎毫无留恋。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Med Spa 人才绑定与合伙人模式 accDescr: 展示技师流失危机与借鉴财富管理经验的51对49让利合伙制方案 subgraph PainPoint ["传统模式痛点"] A["高接触度服务"] --> B["客户高度忠诚于具体技师"] B --> C["技师独立带走客源 / 门店流失核心收入"] end subgraph Solution ["合伙人破解机制"] D["借鉴财富管理合伙逻辑"] --> E["直接绑定服务创收让利"] E --> F["让出大头: 技师拿51%分成与自主权"] F --> G["技师全权负责交付且终身不愿离开"] end ``` 要想打破这种技师出走、客户流失的死循环，必须建立极其精妙的人才留存与分利机制。Alex 借用了自己教父在财富管理领域的打法：其教父白手起家掌管着数十亿美元资产，核心绝招就是在利益分配上“主动让对方多占便宜”。具体而言，管理层愿意给到一线合伙人 51% 的分成收益，由对方全权负责落地交付。正如律师事务所的合伙人体系一样，唯有将利益直接与创收深度绑定，让技师获得无可匹敌的体面收入与生活方式，才能彻底打消其跳槽单干的念头。 - 核心运营瓶颈：高利润掩盖下的人才供给约束，技师自立门户壁垒极低，易卷走客户群体。 - 客户心理机制：高接触医疗类服务呈现出“认人不认店”的特征，品牌粘性远低于技师个人粘性。 - 利益分配哲学：借鉴掌管数十亿美元教父的经验，以类律所模式出让 51% 权益，用让利换取顶尖人才的深度捆绑与长久留存。 ### [20:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=1246s) 死亡哲学与从 1 到 5000 万的商业受众聚焦 当被问及是否也像抗衰狂人一样追求肉身永生时，Alex 坦白自己从不琢磨这件事：“我做好了随时死去的心理准备。虽然我更倾向于活着，但哪种结果我都能坦然接受。”他搬出了古罗马哲学家马可·奥勒留（Marcus Aurelius）的名言来阐释心境：老人和年轻人在死亡那一刻所失去的东西其实完全一样，那就是当下——因为除了当下，没有人拥有别的任何东西。 话题随即转回到 Alex 的内容受众与 Acquisition.com 的业务拓展版图。主持人指出，Alex 目前的核心受众似乎精准锁定在营收 100 万至 5,000 万美元之间的中型企业主、主理人与创始人。面对是否会顺水推舟进入世界 500 强做高管演讲、或给中层管理层灌鸡汤的提问，Alex 表达了明确的取舍。他认为，单是 100 万至 5,000 万美元这一梯队中，就还有海量创始人从未听过他的理论或看过他的内容，增量空间依然广阔。 更关键的是，只要专注解决企业“从 100 万做到 1,000 万美元”的复杂命题，那些渴望“从 0 做到 100 万美元”的早期创业者自然会被全数吸引包容。人们会天然认为：既然你能帮大企业迈向下一台阶，指点初创公司从零起步必定手到擒来。Alex 强调自己是自由市场资本主义的忠实信徒，深信越多人参与自由市场竞争，对国家、创业者自身以及所服务的客户就越有益。他给自己定下的使命，就是尽可能把商业路径拆解得足够简单直白，让更多人敢于迈出创业的第一步，尽情品尝这颗商业的“禁果”。 - 面对终局的心态：对科技永生持超然态度，秉持斯多葛哲学，坚守专注于当下的生活原则。 - 核心受众锚定：深耕年收入 100 万至 5,000 万美元的成长期企业主与操盘手。 - 认知降维辐射：通过攻关“1 到 1,000 万美元”的企业增长瓶颈，自然对“0 到 100 万美元”的创业小白形成高维度的信任溢出与吸附效应。 ### [22:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=1354s) 创业者引入 AI 的典型误区与“伪需求自嗨” 在探讨中小企业主对 AI 的盲目狂热时，主持人指出当下许多老板听了几期科技播客、刷了刷社交媒体 X，就戴着防蓝光眼镜跃跃欲试，犯下极其严重的战略失误。他们不思考如何用 AI 给老业务赋能，反而盲目关停或分心去成立一家所谓的“AI 原生新公司”。这种做法往往是在用自己的业余爱好去挑战顶尖大模型自带的基础功能，直面全世界顶尖科技巨头的竞争，陷入了“别人的草地更绿”的心态盲区；原本只要给成熟业务提高 10% 的效率就能持续复利，却偏偏要去送死。 Alex 对此深表赞同，并当场列举了创业者在使用 AI 时最常见的愚蠢行为。第一大败笔在于“用 AI 极速做蠢事”。AI 并没有拯救平庸的商业模式，过去不赚钱的小微企业在套上 AI 后依然不赚钱，唯一的变化就是每个月白白多出了一大笔昂贵的 API Token 账单。 第二大典型误区则是过度痴迷于“AI 会议纪要与笔记总结”这类的伪生产力工具。Alex 戏谑道，很多人仿佛把公司的业绩瓶颈全都归咎于没有做出一份完美的会议纪要。他直言，自己在多年的创业历程中，从不需要依赖记笔记去达成任何商业目标。对他而言，商业运营的核心逻辑简单而粗暴——明确眼下最重要的一件事，全力攻克它；搞定之后，再找出下一个最重要的事情继续执行。许多创业者炫耀自己的 AI 会议系统配置得多么无懈可击、流程多么丝滑，但一旦被问及“你今天到底赚了多少钱”，场面便瞬间陷入尴尬。 - 误区一：脱离本业去追逐 AI 概念创企，试图在大模型通用能力层面与行业巨头正面竞争。 - 误区二：使用自动化工具极速执行错误动作，商业模式未跑通的前提下凭空制造巨额 Token 调用开销。 - 误区三：陷入以“会议纪要总结系统”为代表的伪效率自嗨，忽视了最核心的商业推进与真实变现能力。 ### [24:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=1464s) 从组织架构转向工作流：企业应用 AI 的破局点与分心陷阱 在探讨企业应当如何正确应用 AI 时，Alex Hormozi 指出，核心思路在于将思考维度从“基于组织架构”（org chart-based）彻底转变为“基于工作流”（workflow-based）。以视频剪辑师为例，过去一名剪辑师可能深度参与六个不同的工作流；在引入 AI 后，其中三个工作流的大部分繁重工作可以直接交由 AI 处理，剪辑师只需聚焦在其余三个关键流程中。这种改造能让产出直接提升三到五倍。对于服务型企业而言，这意味着每人产出（revenue per headcount）大幅增加，成本结构优化，利润率随之飙升。Hormozi 强调，当前正处于一个极佳的窗口期——因为市场终端价格在短期内尚未调整，企业可以继续维持“纯人工服务”的高客单价，而后端则享受技术带来的超低边际成本与极高利润，“甚至根本不需要告诉客户你在后台使用了 AI”。 与此同时，主持人和 Hormozi 讨论了创始人在 AI 浪潮中最容易犯的错误：过度分心与“这山望着那山高”。许多传统业务老板（例如开干洗店的店主）看到 AI 热潮后，不甘心做原有业务，转头就想“为所有干洗店打造一套 AI Agent 操作系统”。Hormozi 直言，除非你立志成为万亿美元级的巨头、愿意卖掉干洗店全力投身前沿科技，否则不要两头兼顾却两头落空。对于中小企业主来说，最明智的策略是利用 AI 稳固并扩大本土基本盘，比如用 AI 持续监控周边地区的扩张空间。由于多数竞争对手还在跟风复制低劣的 AI 软件，专注在干洗主业上用 AI 提效反而能轻松击败对手。 此外，两人批判了许多初创团队试图“重新发明轮子”的愚蠢行为。为了省下 Calendly 每月 9 美元的订阅费，有创始人宁可花 200 个工时去手写一套预约系统，结果代码错误频发，损失掉上万美元的业务机会。中小企业其实免费享受着很多上游 SaaS（如自带 AI 邮件营销的 CRM）的技术红利，完全不必自行开发。不过，针对高度定制化的边缘场景，小工具开发确实能带来惊人效益，例如团队内部自研针对特定工作流的脚本，能够将直播切片、自动生成字幕以及广告片尾拼接一并处理，从而在 Premiere 中节省大量重复劳动。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI工作流改造逻辑 accDescr: 展示将传统基于职能架构的人工工作流转变为AI与关键人工结合的工作流，从而提升人效与利润。 subgraph OLD["传统组织架构思维"] A["人工岗位（如剪辑师）"] --> B["工作流 1-3（全人工制作）"] A --> C["工作流 4-6（全人工制作）"] end subgraph NEW["现代工作流思维"] D["AI 自动化引擎"] --> E["自动化处理工作流 1-3"] F["人工骨干"] --> G["精细化把控工作流 4-6"] end NEW --> H["人效提升 3-5 倍<br/>维持人工定价 + 享受技术低成本<br/>实现超高利润率"] ``` ### [27:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=1663s) Acquisition.com 的营销引擎：数据仓库与程序化 AI 广告矩阵 谈及 AI 在媒体与获客层面的规模化落地，Hormozi 分享了 Acquisition.com 的内部实战。他指出，绝大多数小微企业在拥抱 AI 时遭遇的最大瓶颈是“缺乏数据层”（data layer）。任何真正有价值、具备独特壁垒的 AI 应用，前提必须是拥有专属的数据资产。为此，Acquisition.com 搭建了一个庞大的内部数据仓库，将团队积累的所有销售文案、客户见证、视频素材与营销物料全部整合在统一的底层架构中。 在付费流量端，系统能够实时调取底层素材碎片，自动拼装并衍生出数百条各具特色的广告物料，并将其与全自动程序化生成的数百个动态落地页进行精准匹配与 AB 测试。Hormozi 坦承：“我们并不是一家 AI 软件公司，但我们把 AI 的效能压榨到了极致。” 而在自然流量端，团队针对切片亮点账号“Mo Hormozi”设计了极其精简且高效的内容工厂。团队内部仅凭一名极具爆发力的年轻小伙，每天就能独立产出 20 条视频内容： - **5 条中视频（Mids）**：时长约为 3 到 10 分钟。 - **15 条短视频（Shorts）**：垂直微短内容。 - **自动化工作流**：将 Hormozi 与各类企业家的深度对谈素材输入系统，AI 自动提炼核心爆点，人工只需把关内容质量、嵌入预设的行为召唤（CTA），即可一键流水线分发。 ### [29:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=1753s) 流量捕鱼论：UGC 去中心化矩阵与多渠道并进哲学 针对内容切片体系应该依赖自建团队、远程员工、代运营机构还是开放 Discord 众包这一问题，主持人和 Hormozi 展开了探讨。当前行业内流行一种依靠数百名野生剪辑师在 Discord 社区领取素材、按播放量（CPM）获得赏金的去中心化打法。当被问及其团队更推崇哪种路径时，Hormozi 斩钉截铁地回答：“全部都要（Yes）。” Hormozi 的核心逻辑是“捕捉所有可能曝光的注意力”（Got to catch them all）。他不仅同时雇佣三家外部代理机构，还配备专属的内部团队，并在全网开放分发渠道。他特别强调，若想学习最前沿的买量投放玩法，必须紧盯两大行业：第一梯队是成人产业，紧随其后的第二梯队则是直接面对消费者的电商（E-commerce）。那些能在 12 到 24 个月内从零做到上亿美元营收的头部电商品牌，无一例外都在践行同一套打法： - 依靠海量去中心化的 UGC（用户生成内容）铺开曝光面； - 后端配合 AI 系统进行质量审核与风险合规控制； - 对筛选出的极具爆发潜力的素材注入真金白银进行规模化广告放大，从而在保证品牌安全的前提下实现指数级裂变。 ### [30:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=1826s) 品牌叙事的演进：以商业为圆心与“全盘托出”的坦诚力量 在涉及是否会将育儿或私人家庭生活纳入公共内容版图时，Hormozi 表达了自己的品牌边界观。他表示，除商业以外的话题，自己从未做过刻意的营销规划，若有人提问，他只会坦诚作答。他的内容矩阵中有一个不可撼动的核心轴心——“商业”。无论是谈论育儿，还是探讨与妻子兼合伙人 Leila 的婚姻关系，他切入的视角始终是一位企业创始人如何在商业现实与伴侣创业的维度下去理解这些关系，绝不会偏离商业主线去刻意营造无关的人设。 随后，主持人提出了一个许多企业在商业模式转型时都会面临的沟通难题：Hormozi 早期在互联网打响个人品牌时的经典口号是“我没有什么东西要卖给你”（I have nothing to sell you），但后来他出版了畅销书并开展了各项商业变现，品牌究竟是如何平稳过渡而不引发受众反弹的？ Hormozi 给出了极其质朴却行之有效的公关准则——“讲出全部真相，而非半真半假”（The whole truth, not half-truth）。转型其实只需直截了当地告诉受众：“当时我确实没有东西要卖给你；但现在，我有了。”他进一步指出，资本主义最美妙的地方就在于自愿交易。如果受众不想花钱购买书籍或高阶服务，团队依然日复一日提供数不胜数的免费硬核内容，买卖全凭自愿，没有任何欺瞒与道德绑架。这种绝对真实的姿态，反而让品牌在业务转型中赢得了更坚固的信任。 ### [32:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=1950s) 商业的经济阶梯与分形客户定价 主持人探讨了企业构建“经济阶梯”（Economic Ladder）的重要性，并借用退役海豹突击队指挥官约科·威林克（Jocko Willink）的商业模式举例：如果粉丝想花 1 美元，有对应的产品；想花 100 美元买书或补剂，有对应产品；花 1,000 美元可以参加研讨会，花 10,000 美元能共度周末，花 100,000 美元则能获得深度定制咨询。对于非用量计费（Token-based / Consumption-based）的传统商业来说，这种价格歧视阶梯极难搭建——如果受众中恰好有一位身家数十亿美元的富豪，企业该如何向他们提供体量匹配的报价？ 霍尔莫齐指出，客户群体具有极强的“分形结构”（Fractal Structure）：企业完全可能从前 1% 的高净值客户身上赚到与其余 99% 客户相同规模的收入，甚至单一客户层级就能贡献一半的总流水。在商业定价中，每一个层级向上跃迁往往伴随着收入翻倍。例如，基础层是每月 100 美元的产品，在每月 500 美元的档位上可能会让总收入再翻一番；升至每月 2,500 美元时又能翻倍；再往上设置 5 倍到 10 倍的超高定价层级，同样能带来额外的业绩增量。 多数企业主最大的心理障碍在于“用自己的钱包替客户做决定”（Sell out of their own wallet），在给高端产品定价时感到别扭。霍尔莫齐在市场团队立下了一条核心原则：“陈述事实，说出真相，并且是完整的真相”。其营销文案直接坦白：“我们正在推行这项服务，它贵得离谱，只适合那些看完报价觉得‘对我来说一点都不贵’的人。如果你看到价格被冒犯到了，好消息是，我们有便宜得多、更亲民的选项，会有更多人跟你一起参与；但如果你自认是特殊的‘高定客户’，我们也有专属的特价。”霍尔莫齐强调，网络上永远会有黑粉和质疑者，创业者必须明确自己的立场：你到底是在乎那些真正需要你帮助的人，还是在乎那些因为你试图提供帮助而愤怒的人？ ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 客户分形定价阶梯结构 accDescr: 展示从大众基础款到顶级定制的阶梯式价格与服务分层 subgraph Ladder ["价格歧视与分形阶梯"] L1["大众层：基础产品 / 会员<br/>（如 $100/月，走量普及）"] L2["进阶层：深度社群 / 专业工具<br/>（如 $500/月，收入翻倍）"] L3["高阶层：咨询指导 / 线下大会<br/>（如 $2,500/月，高客单爆发）"] L4["顶级层：专项赋能 / 私董陪跑<br/>（高客单定价，贡献核心利润）"] end L1 --> L2 L2 --> L3 L3 --> L4 ``` - **分形收入法则**：1% 的顶级客户往往能产生与其余 99% 客户相当的收益，并支撑起总营收的 50%。 - **阶梯倍增逻辑**：从 100 美元到 500 美元、2,500 美元乃至数万美元，每个更高维度的价格带都能发掘出新的营收翻倍点。 - **营销准则**：用直白坦诚的沟通筛选受众，明确区分大众普惠产品与针对极少数群体的“贵得离谱”的高定服务。 --- ### [34:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2073s) 国际化扩张的权衡与痛点 当被问及国际化策略时，主持人提到霍尔莫齐的内容虽在全球范围内疯传，但他本人不可能频繁飞往世界各地。霍尔莫齐坦言自己在国际化扩张上长期处于纠结状态。商业理智告诉他，过早推进未经本土化适配的国际业务会严重堵塞销售漏斗。如果团队里充斥着英语不够流利的潜在客户，而公司又没有提供对应语言（如意大利语版本）的交付支持，整个销售和客服链条就会被拖垮。 尽管如此，团队目前正逐步采取措施，打造更具标准化的产品来服务海外受众。霍尔莫齐明确表示，自己短期内不会频繁出国开展线下业务，但通过搭建适配国际受众的服务和数字化交付体系，公司正逐步以更轻量的方式接纳全球客户。 --- ### [35:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2116s) Acquisition.com 的进化：从家族办公室到“品牌+资本+执行”的投资铁三角 回顾 Acquisition.com 的演进，霍尔莫齐透露团队在 30 天后即将完成一笔重磅交易。公司最初是他与妻子莱拉（Leila Hormozi）共同运营的现金流家族办公室。霍尔莫齐笑称，那是他人生中最惬意松弛的阶段，但同时也“无聊得要死”（Bored to tears）。在最初的 24 个月里，他们完成了约 24 笔收购交易。这些不是风投式的早期撒网，而是实打实的全资或控股收购。 这批交易印证了投资组合理论（Portfolio Theory）的残酷规律：在投出的 24 家公司中，仅有大约 3 家成为了真正的大赢家。更重要的是，在此期间霍尔莫齐的个人品牌迎来爆发式增长，其品牌势能甚至超越了自有现金能够承载的极限。意识到这一资源维度的变化后，团队迅速做出战略调整： 1. **开拓咨询业务**：2024 年 1 月成立咨询业务线，仅凭该单一板块，第一年就斩获了 3,600 万美元的收入。 2. **图书发售势能**：新书发售创下 1.05 亿美元的纪录，咨询业务同期持续攀升。 3. **彻底停止纯财务投资**：坚决放弃只出资金、不参与深度运营的传统纯被动投资模式。 转折点体现在他们对社区平台 Skool 的重注布局（霍尔莫齐于 2024 年初以主要合伙人身份入局）。如今 Skool 已拥有 3,000 万用户，平台 GMV 突破 10 亿美元。霍尔莫齐引用扎克伯格的比喻：“扎克伯格做 Facebook 时可不会把做 Airbnb 房东当成副业（Zuckerberg didn't have Airbnbs as a side hustle）。”既然手中握有一匹顶级战马，就必须全力策马奔腾。 团队现在的核心打法是收拢战线，以极高门槛挑选极少数标的，将更多自有资本置于风险之中，同时倾注自身的超级品牌声量与实际执行力。“门槛只有一个：产品必须无可挑剔地变态好（The product has to be fucking insane）。”极致产品加上顶级分发渠道与充裕资本，三者结合构成了无可匹敌的“神圣三位一体”。 - **交易战绩与二八法则**：24 个月内落地 24 笔控股型收购，最终仅 3 家企业成长为超级超级赢家。 - **业务数据爆发**：咨询业务首年创收 3,600 万美元；图书发售单次斩获 1.05 亿美元；Skool 用户达 3,000 万，GMV 超 10 亿美元。 - **投资铁三角模式**： - 极致卓越的产品（Product） - 独家强大的品牌分发渠道（Distribution） - 充足的自有风险资本（Capital） --- ### [37:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2261s) 拒绝非黑即白：关于“跌落前与跌落后”的创始人神话 主持人引述其友人杰里米（Jeremy）的理论：创业者往往可以分为“跌落前”（Pre-fall）和“跌落后”（Post-fall）两类状态。经历过硅谷或私募股权残酷碾压、跌入人生谷底并被摔得粉碎的人，往往已被彻底磨去浮躁，行事严谨克制，不再盲目扩张；而“跌落前”的年轻创业者（如融了大钱的 24 岁天之骄子）常常花钱如流水、盲目自负，直到增长停滞、高管集体出走才大梦初醒。主持人据此询问霍尔莫齐，在开启本轮辉煌战绩之前，是否也曾经历过某种决定性的“至暗熔炉时刻”。 霍尔莫齐直接反驳了这种非黑即白的二元论假设。他认为人生并非被单一挫折简单切割成“之前”与“之后”，困难与苦难在人生的各个阶段都会以不同形式反复降临： > “我曾经两次倾家荡产、一无所有（I've lost everything two times）。但如果问我‘那你现在算跌落后了吗？’我当然希望倒霉事永远别再发生，但我敢肯定，操蛋的事未来一定还会找上门来。” 面对不可避免的风浪，霍尔莫齐的生存哲学极其纯粹：“承诺永不停歇，专注掌控你能掌控的事情，这就是我能做的一切。”与其寄希望于经历过一次失败就能获得豁免权，不如坦然接纳周期性的重创，并建立永不放弃的前进惯性。 --- ### [39:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2354s) 给年轻人的底层建议：产出等于行动量乘以杠杆率 对话最后聚焦于给年轻人的通用建议。针对许多访谈中空洞的“努力工作”（Work hard），霍尔莫齐直言不讳：一味宣扬努力工作甚至是危险的，因为现实中许多人正竭尽全力在极其愚蠢、毫无前途的事情上死磕，最终导致越努力越失败。 霍尔莫齐提出了一个清晰的成就计算公式： $$\text{最终成就} = \text{行动的数量（Volume of Activity）} \times \text{该项活动自身的杠杆率（Leverage of Activity）}$$ 每个人的目标不同，有人追求 100 万美元，有人追求 1 亿甚至万亿美元，但所有人都必须在起步阶段选对承载野心的“船”（Pick the right boat / opportunity）。无论选择哪条赛道，付出的艰辛往往是一样的。霍尔莫齐援引纳瓦尔·拉维肯特（Naval Ravikant）的观点：经营一家成功的传统餐馆极其艰难，打造一家市值十亿美元的独角兽企业同样极其艰难，两者每周都需要投入 80 个小时的超高强度劳作。 黑石集团（Blackstone）创始人苏世民（Stephen Schwarzman）的名言同样佐证了这一点：“与其小打小闹，不如放手一搏做大事；因为 10 级的顶尖人才只会被 10 级的大机会吸引。”在一个低天花板的烂机会里，你招不到顶级人才，所有苦脏累活都必须亲力亲为。 与此同时，霍尔莫齐也对传统领域的坚守者表达了崇高敬意。他以熊猫快餐（Panda Express）的创始人程正昌与蒋佩琪夫妇（Andrew & Peggy Cherng）为例：凭借极其纯粹的坚韧与执行力，夫妇二人花了 45 年时间专注做好一盘陈皮鸡，最终成为身家百亿的餐饮帝国传奇。这证明无论杠杆性质如何，将极致的坚韧与正确的高维追求相结合，才能创造跨越周期的商业价值。 - **成功底层公式**：成就 = 行动量（Volume） × 杠杆率（Leverage）。 - **艰苦守恒定律**：开餐馆与做独角兽每周同样需要工作 80 小时，赛道机会的杠杆差异直接决定终局量级。 - **顶级人才法则**：10 级的人才永远只追随 10 级的大机会；小机会无法吸引顶尖搭档，创始人终将被困于单打独斗。 ### [40:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2452s) 赛道复利与机会选择：在平庸赛道深耕还是从零换道？ 在谈及创业者如何挑选方向时，Alex Hormozi 指出，每个人做出的选择都受限于当时的认知水平。然而随着认知加深，创业者会意识到市场上存在更高杠杆的商业机会，此时便面临一个艰难的抉择：如果已经在一个项目上投入了四年时间，那么进入第五年所积累的复利与技能熟练度，相比于跳入一个略微更好的新赛道从“第一年”重新开始，二者不可同日而语。必须将“现有方向的第五年”与“新方向的第一年”进行对比，而不是拿“第一年对第一年”，因为时间是不可逆的。在某些阶段，即便身处一个相对劣势的工具或赛道，持续打磨能力的复利效应依然能带来超常的杠杆回报。 针对“顶级操盘手（A+ Operator）做平庸赛道（C++ Opportunity）”的现象，主持人提出疑问：外界对商业机会的判断往往充满误导，比如 Airbnb 最初听起来像是“把别人家的沙发挂上网租给陌生人睡”这样看似荒谬的愚蠢点子，日后却演变成巨无霸；反之，某些毫无前途的平庸项目，仅仅因为在《福布斯》或《商业内幕》上买了一篇公关软文，家人朋友就会连连赞叹，即便创始人日夜煎熬却毫无起色。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 机会选择与能力复利的权衡逻辑 accDescr: 对比在平庸赛道深耕到第5年与切换到更优赛道从第1年开始的产出差异 subgraph OptionA["路径 A：深耕现有赛道"] A1["前4年经验积累与刻意练习"] --> A2["进入第5年"] A2 --> A3["技能与系统形成高复利回报"] end subgraph OptionB["路径 B：切换至新赛道"] B1["发现更高杠杆的机会"] --> B2["从第1年重新摸索"] B2 --> B3["面临冷启动成本与时间流失"] end OptionA -. "必须用第5年的成熟度对比第1年的摸索期".-> OptionB ``` - **认知局限与时间不可逆**：人永远只能在当下的认知范围内做决策，但切换方向的最大隐性成本是“不可收回的时间”。 - **劣势工具的复利奇迹**：在一个平庸载体上坚持精进，其积累的技能和运营效率可能远超频频换道的新手期产出。 - **外界评价的欺骗性**：看似荒唐的商业构想（如早期 Airbnb）可能蕴含巨大网络效应，而媒体赞誉的“体面”创业往往缺乏真实的商业逻辑。 --- ### [42:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2521s) 行业的结构性壁垒：为什么做营销代理机构（SMMA）极其痛苦 Hormozi 进一步分析了商业分类与结构性难题。他认为每个细分领域都有顶级赢家，但某些品类具有先天的结构性缺陷。例如服装（Apparel）行业，竞争极其惨烈且毛利脆弱，全球虽有一两百家服装巨头疯狂印钞，但绝大多数普通创业者往往在熬过三年、摸清行业竞争格局后，才绝望地发现自己选了一个糟糕透顶的生意。这与“看似怪诞但天生具备网络效应与规模效应”的 Airbnb 有着本质区别。 评估一个细分市场时，关键在于观察行业内的“企业聚集分布”（Bolus）。如果行业底部聚集了海量小公司，而能够爬到顶端的寥寥无几，说明该业务在运营上存在巨大瓶颈。典型的例子就是社交媒体营销代运营（SMMA）： 1. **人才流失悖论**：一旦操盘手拥有极高的营销天赋，完全可以通过自己的业务赚大钱，根本不屑于在代理机构打工。 2. **客户群动荡脆弱**：中小型企业（SMB）天生脆弱易死，即便机构交付了卓越的推广成果，客户依然会因为自身现金流断裂而解约，导致代运营成为高流失率（Turn and Burn）的推石头游戏。 3. **旗舰客户天花板**：当大客户每月支付 10 万美元服务费时，他们必然会想：“我们完全能用这笔钱在内部招募 5 位顶尖专家全职负责”，从而将服务内化。 - **服装品类的陷阱**：表面光鲜但结构性极难做大，绝大多数小品牌陷入存货与价格战泥潭。 - **SMMA 的运营死局**：需要创始人兼具极强的运营、品牌、销售与交付能力，才能勉强跨越门槛，向上置换大客户。 - **中小企业客户的固有风险**：SMB 客户抗风险能力极差，外部环境波动随时引发退订，机构疲于拉新填补流失。 --- ### [43:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2628s) 传统“枯燥”生意的暴利真相与人生期望管理 在科技叙事泛滥的当下，Hormozi 呼吁创业者看清商业的全貌：绝大多数赚钱的生意根本不是高科技，而是空调暖通（HVAC）、泳池清洁、建材分销等所谓的“枯燥”行业。正如连续创业传奇 Brad Jacobs，他通过建材租赁、物流等传统行业先后六次白手起家做成数十亿美元规模的巨头公司。 > “只要你把视野完全拉长，在 40 年时间里专注于一件事并且每年都有所长进，你就注定能称霸全场。” 在科技赛道与超级巨头竞争难度极高，但在泳池清洁等传统服务业，竞争对手往往缺乏资本和现代管理思维，一个兼具“街头智慧”（Street Smarts）与极强勤奋度的人，很容易脱颖而出。现实中大量传统服务业老板年营收 700 万美元、净利润 250 万美元，手下有一批熟练工打理，生活惬意稳定。年轻人首先应当理清自己真正追求的人生愿景是什么，选择达成概率最高的那条路，并坚持 20 年配合持续反馈机制，失败的概率微乎其微。 - **传统产业的降维打击**：传统服务业参与者综合素质相对较低、资本投入少，现代运营手段极易产生碾压优势。 - **Brad Jacobs 的范式**：在非科技的“无聊”重资产或服务行业，通过极致执行力与行业整合，依然能反复打造百亿美元帝国。 - **人生目标与路径匹配**：不必盲目追逐万亿美元科技梦想，净利润几百万美元的小巨头生活同样具备高度商业价值与自由度。 --- ### [45:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2747s) 晨间习惯迷思：模仿富人的“平原期”还是“上升期”？ 针对近年来创业圈内风靡的“成功心法”——冷水浴（Cold Plunge）、桑拿、冥想与繁复的晨间程序，Hormozi 进行了直接的抨击。主持人调侃道，这就好比“因为富人坐私人飞机，所以我也要坐私人飞机来变富”，完全倒置了因果关系；成功人士在贫穷打拼时，唯一做的事就是起床立刻扑到电脑前干活。 Hormozi 强调，一切商业成果归根结底来自“实际工作”（The Work）。如果一项活动不能在单位时间内提升工作产出，就必须拿出极具说服力的论据来证明其价值。人类大脑在刚睡醒后认知精力最为充沛，因此最佳的晨间习惯应当极度精简：起床、摄入咖啡因、排除一切干扰、立即开始干活，并且尽可能压缩从睁眼到开始工作的间隔时间。外界之所以沉迷于冥想和冰浴，是因为人们在“模仿别人的平台期，而不是上升期”。功成名就的富豪在维持平台期时有闲暇拍视频展示松弛感，但他们在积累财富的上升期，几乎无一例外经历过每天高强度拼搏 16 个小时的残酷阶段。 - **因果倒置的晨间玄学**：冷水浴、桑拿本身只能算作个人爱好，绝非致富的核心杠杆。 - **极限缩短开工时间**：保护醒来后的黄金认知精力，利用咖啡因迅速进入深度工作状态，杜绝无效仪式感。 - **上升期与平台期的差异**：大众在社交媒体上看到的往往是成功者的“退休休养期”，而非早期无人记录的血汗打拼过程。 --- ### [47:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2856s) 创业阶段论：用现金流业务孵化长期梦想 主持人引出了一个现实案例：一位在时尚行业经营代运营机构的朋友，年利润已达近百万美元，其终极梦想是创立属于自己的独立时尚品牌。面对“要不要立刻全职投入做品牌”的冲动，主持人建议他先将现有机构做到数百万美元年利润，锁定 10 到 20 个长期签约的旗舰大客户，再利用充沛的现金流去反哺需要 20 年沉淀的时尚品牌。毕竟，破釜沉舟直接做重资产、慢回报的品牌，通常只适合有信托基金兜底的富家子弟，普通年轻创业者面临组建家庭的现实压力，不能盲目孤注一掷。 Hormozi 对此表示认同，但他指出这个问题没有唯一的标准答案，因为商业决策的核心变量是“个人风险偏好”。如果创业者愿意承担极致风险，将一切押上赌桌（Balls on the line），那也是一种个人选择。 - **现金流业务的跳板作用**：对于资本积累不足的普通创业者，稳定的高现金流代理服务是孵化长周期品牌的最佳防护垫。 - **时尚品牌的长周期属性**：建立全球性旗舰品牌通常需要数十年时间，前期的供应链、营销与渠道极为消耗资本。 - **风险承受能力的个体差异**：创业策略必须与个人现实财务底线、家庭规划以及心理抗压极限相匹配，不可盲从泛化的励志口号。 ### [49:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2949s) 先戴好氧气面罩：自由挥棒与下行风险的底线思维 谈到创业究竟该“倾其所有（All-in）”还是“稳步蓄力”，对话聚焦于风险承受力与个人追求的匹配度。如果目标是成为万亿富翁且具备极致的风险耐受度，那自然应该毫无顾忌、尽早全仓押注；但从个人生存策略来看，Alex Hormozi 强烈推崇“先给自己戴好氧气面罩”的哲学。他在职业生涯中之所以敢于下注越来越大，是因为他早早积累了足够的“安全底牌（Nest egg）”，让后续的投资和重注变成了毫无生存压力的“自由挥棒（Free swings）”——哪怕项目彻底失败归零，现实生活也不会发生本质改变。 在评估人生重大决策时，Alex 习惯从非常具象的战术层面拆解风险：输掉这场赌局，自己吃的东西会变吗？穿的衣服会变吗？居住的房子和开的车会变吗？相伴的伴侣会离开吗？如果生活的基本盘纹丝不动，这就从逻辑上证明这类高风险调整后收益的下注是完全可行的。然而在情感层面，尤其是对于背负家庭责任、房贷和子女教育支出的创业者，All-in 的代价往往直接绑架了家人的未来。Alex 引用了商业顾问基思·坎宁安（Keith Cunningham）的经典评估框架：看清上限是什么，看清下限是什么，并追问自己“能否承受最坏的下限”。一旦承受不起，就坚决不要上桌。 - **氧气面罩法则**：在冒险之前先为个人财务打造安全垫，后续才能在心理无负担的状态下进行大额下注（例如投资社区平台 Skool）。 - **生活不变性测试**：评估失败时衣、食、住、行及婚姻关系是否会遭受毁灭性打击，以此理清真实下行敞口。 - **基思·坎宁安的底线决策框架**：“我的上行空间是什么？我的下行风险是什么？我能承受这个下行结果吗？如果承受不了，就不要下注。” ### [51:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=3070s) 警惕“伪工作”：个人品牌与产品价值的因果倒置 面对 2026 年消费品及初创企业面临的社交媒体轰炸，许多创始人陷入了将“追逐流量”美化为“公司营销”的陷阱。对话直指这种所谓“个人品牌建设”在很多时候只是典型的“伪工作（Fake work）”——关注者数量蹭蹭上涨，但企业的实际现金流和利润却毫无起色。很多年轻一代创业者本末倒置，误以为必须先花大把时间抛头露面打造 IP，却忽略了最质朴的商业逻辑：只要做出一款让数百万人受益的惊艳产品，强大的个人声誉自然会随之附赠；如果只是沉迷镜头前的虚荣，大可以在产品成功之后再去满足表现欲。 Alex 坦诚表示，自己早期其实极其抗拒走到镜头前录内容，之所以坚持运营自媒体，纯粹是因为它是一套能跑通现金流、能赋能业务的真实商业闭环。如果创始人在某项自媒体探索中发现流量变现的能力已经远远压过了原本的主业，那么顺应市场反馈、彻底转型为媒体公司也未尝不可。关键在于对最终目标保持坚定，而对实现路径保持极大的灵活性（正如杰夫·贝佐斯所言）。贝佐斯本人几乎不发任何自媒体内容，但人尽皆知，原因就在于他创立了庞大的亚马逊。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 创业精力分配与品牌形成路径 accDescr: 对比错误追逐流量的伪工作与以过硬产品为核心构建真实影响力的路径闭环。 subgraph 伪工作陷阱["伪工作陷阱（追逐虚荣）"] A["沉迷镜头与内容产出"] --> B["粉丝关注量激增"] B --> C["缺乏过硬产品与现金流支撑"] C --> D["沦为无效营销与伪工作"] end subgraph 正确商业闭环["正确商业闭环（结果导向）"] E["专注打磨惊艳产品"] --> F["解决真实痛点 / 产生现金流"] F --> G["业务成果带来天然背书与声誉"] G --> H["顺势放大媒体影响力"] end ``` ### [53:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=3216s) 影响力的底层是硬证据：从 4620 万美元退出谈起 在探讨 B2B 领域的内容影响力时，Alex 斩钉截铁地指出：缺乏真实的商业胜绩，根本不可能成为顶级的 B2B 意见领袖。在当今商业互联网上，埃隆·马斯克之所以是最具号召力的商业偶像，核心在于他拥有最庞大的企业集群与世界首富的硬实力。Alex 分享了自己的亲身经历：他早在 2017 年 7 月就推出了名为《Gym Secrets》（后改版为《The Game》）的播客，但当时每月仅有区区 2000 次左右的下载量；直到他以 4620 万美元将旗下业务成功变现出售，播客的收听量瞬间暴增至数百万级别。市场的态度非常现实：只有看到实际落袋的成果，大众才会真正相信“这家伙懂怎么做生意”。 媒体影响力所需的“背书门槛”完全取决于消费者采纳建议时所承担的试错风险。如果是一位美妆博主，推荐一支口红或某种睫毛夹法，消费者的试错成本极低，只要博主能通过化妆实现从“丑”到“美”的强烈视觉反差，这就是最直观的证据；但在涉及真金白银的个人理财与企业经营赛道，试错风险极高，受众对资质的审视极其严苛。哪怕一位中学教师在地下室录视频拆解标普 500 指数，讲得比沃伦·巴菲特还要生动引人，他也成不了巴菲特——因为他唯一欠缺的，就是没有亲手造出一座伯克希尔·哈撒韦。 - **内容破圈的分水岭**：Alex 的播客收听量从 2000 次/月到数百万次/月的跃升，催化剂是他以 4620 万美元成功退出公司的实证背书。 - **消费者风险与背书门槛公式**： - **低风险领域**（如美妆、生活技巧）：视觉直观结果即是证据，门槛较低。 - **高风险领域**（如个人财务、B2B 运营）：消费者决策沉没成本高，必须依赖戴夫·拉姆齐（Dave Ramsey）、埃里卡·库尔伯格（Erika Kullberg）或商业巨头级别的硬核成绩单作为信用抵押。 ### [55:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=3353s) 硅谷与传统行业的地位游戏：九位数退出后买加油站 话题延伸至纳瓦尔·拉维肯特（Naval Ravikant）常聊到的“地位追求（Status Seeking）”与低社会地位生意的价值。硅谷文化中弥漫着强烈的追逐风口与同行攀比，而在中端市场和传统小微企业中，这种地位博弈同样存在，其本质完全取决于创业者在将自己与谁作比照。科技圈的创业者极度渴望赢得科技同行的认可，因而热衷于做那些被圈内人判定为“酷”的业务；而在暖通空调（HVAC）或本地服务行业，从业者同样会为了获得同行团体的认同去开展某些特定行为。 然而具有讽刺意味的是，圈子之间的围城现象极为普遍。Alex 观察到，身边有惊人数量的科技精英在以九位数（上亿美元）将科技公司出售套现后，立刻陷入了“渴望拥有能产生稳定现金流的闲适生意（Lifestyle business）”的执念中。这些刚刚完成了大额科技并购的创始人，转头就迫不及待地跑去线下大举收购加油站、高尔夫球场等看似“低门槛”的实体产业，充分展现了“围墙之外草更绿”的创业心理困境。 ### [57:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=3429s) 创业的代价与“万物皆苦”：关于现金流与人性的真相 主持人指出，许多人盲目憧憬经营小生意所带来的现金流和稳定性，却完全没有意识到背后的重负——例如凌晨两点加油站遭遇抢劫，你必须半夜爬起来赶到现场配合警察处理烂摊子。对于那些即将“得意忘形、盲目冒进”（over their skis）的人，Alex 犀利地剖析了人性的底层本质：人类在天性上永远处于“不满足”的状态。人们总是渴望自己得不到的东西：结婚的人怀念单身时的无拘无束；为人父母者怀念未育时期的轻松闲适，而没有孩子的人却又渴望拥有孩子；打工人渴望成为创业者，而真正背负无限责任的创业者，又无比艳羡那些每天下午五点准时打卡下班、什么都不用操心就能拿薪水的人。人性最普遍的弱点，就是“妄想获得某种选择的全部好处，却拒绝承担随之而来的负面代价”。 Alex 接触过大量经营现金流业务的创业者，他们日复一日陷入同样的焦虑：这类生意极难出售、无法真正沉淀个人的长期资产净值、资本市场上给出的估值倍数极低，每天还要面对复杂的低技能劳动力管理难题——不仅员工流动率居高不下，甚至连找一个上班时不喝得烂醉的技术工人都成了奢望。谈及此处，Alex 分享了他在得克萨斯州打造 Gym Launch 时期首席财务官 Suzanne Shifflet 的故事。Suzanne 是一位经验极度老练的实战派，曾先后担任过四家从 1000 万做到 1 亿美元以上规模公司的 CFO，操盘过 50 亿美元的并购退出，参与过 20 多场买方或卖方交易，也是 Gym Launch 最终得以成功出售的幕后功臣。当 Alex 还在为“要是能拿到更高的估值倍数该有多酷”而执念时，Suzanne 极其坦率而真诚地对他说了一句名言：“你知道吗，Alex，全都是狗屎（It's all shit）。每一种生意全都是狗屎。”她这番话彻底点醒了 Alex：商业世界中根本不存在完美的理想模式，全都很痛苦，“只是痛苦的具体形式有所不同罢了（it's just different type of suck, but it all sucks）”。 - **商业选择的不可兼得性**：高现金流生意往往伴随低退出估值、重运营负担和脆弱的个人资产杠杆；渴望稳定的现金流就必须接纳繁重的人员与日常琐事。 - **Suzanne Shifflet 的实战履历**：担任过 4 家规模从 1000 万到 1 亿美元以上企业的 CFO，操盘过 50 亿美元退出交易，拥有超过 20 次买方/卖方并购操盘经验。 ### [59:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=3548s) 商业真人秀的碰撞：《Scale or Fail》与《PMF or Die》的启示 对谈尾声，主持人邀请 Alex 为他的全新商业节目《Scale or Fail》做推介。Alex 介绍称，这部节目的核心看点在于展现创业者拼尽全力、在 90 天内经历彻底的“认知范式转移”（paradigm shift）以实现业务极限扩张的过程。在节目中，Alex 会与每位创始人闭门对谈一小时，直接开出一份详尽的行动蓝图——即“如果我今天以 100% 的股权全资收购这家公司，我会怎么做”。随后，创始人必须全面落地执行该方案，并在赛制中进行激烈的业务竞争。 这一概念让主持人联想到他们去年尝试制作的一档类似节目《PMF or Die》（找到产品市场契合点，否则就出局）。当时他们把一个创业团队封闭在纽约的一间公寓内，规定他们在 90 天内禁止离开，直到打造出年经常性收入（ARR）达到 100 万美元的业务为止。由于该节目采取了 24 小时全天候无间断直播，镜头实时对准他们在公寓里写代码、做饭的日常生活，吸引了数百名观众实时围观，最终整个局面逐渐陷入失控与混乱。更有趣的是两位联合创始人展现出的极端反差：其中一人极具内容创作天赋，在镜头前如鱼得水，非常擅长与弹幕互动；而另一人则极度抗拒，痛苦地崩溃质问“我为什么要上镜头？这简直太可怕了”。挑战结束后，两位创始人身心俱疲，不得不立刻通过旅行断联来休养恢复。Alex 笑着总结道，这个案例恰恰证明了为什么节目绝不能搞全天候无删减直播——唯有依靠专业的后期剪辑，才能真正把商业交锋与创业张力完美呈现出来。在融洽轻松的氛围中，双方致谢道别并结束了整场对话。 - **《Scale or Fail》的核心机制**：Alex Hormozi 闭门咨询 1 小时并输出全盘接管视角（100% Acquisition）的增长蓝图，要求创始人在 90 天内全力落地执行并进行规模化竞逐。 - **《PMF or Die》的实验教训**：90 天全封闭公寓挑战 100 万美元 ARR 的全天候直播极易演变为团队情绪失控；对于商业类真人秀，精细的剪辑（Edit）远胜于原始粗糙的实时直播。 ## Notable quotes > [09:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=592s) 体量消除运气（Volume negates luck） — Alex Hormozi > [09:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=592s) 暴力出奇迹（Violence is the answer） — Alex Hormozi > [20:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=1246s) 我做好了随时死去的心理准备。虽然我更倾向于活着，但哪种结果我都能坦然接受。 — Alex Hormozi > [30:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=1826s) 讲出全部真相，而非半真半假（The whole truth, not half-truth） — Alex Hormozi > [32:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=1950s) 陈述事实，说出真相，并且是完整的真相 — Alex Hormozi > [35:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2116s) 扎克伯格做 Facebook 时可不会把做 Airbnb 房东当成副业（Zuckerberg didn't have Airbnbs as a side hustle） — Alex Hormozi > [35:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2116s) 门槛只有一个：产品必须无可挑剔地变态好（The product has to be fucking insane） — Alex Hormozi > [37:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2261s) 我曾经两次倾家荡产、一无所有（I've lost everything two times）。但如果问我‘那你现在算跌落后了吗？’我当然希望倒霉事永远别再发生，但我敢肯定，操蛋的事未来一定还会找上门来。 — Alex Hormozi > [37:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2261s) 承诺永不停歇，专注掌控你能掌控的事情，这就是我能做的一切。 — Alex Hormozi > [43:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2628s) 只要你把视野完全拉长，在 40 年时间里专注于一件事并且每年都有所长进，你就注定能称霸全场。 — Alex Hormozi > [49:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=2949s) 我的上行空间是什么？我的下行风险是什么？我能承受这个下行结果吗？如果承受不了，就不要下注。 — Keith Cunningham > [57:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=3429s) 你知道吗，Alex，全都是狗屎（It's all shit）。每一种生意全都是狗屎。 — Suzanne Shifflet > [57:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8&t=3429s) 只是痛苦的具体形式有所不同罢了（it's just different type of suck, but it all sucks） — Alex Hormozi ## Mentioned Alex Hormozi, Leila Hormozi, Jeremy Giffon, Mark Pincus, Tim Ferriss, Dave Ramsey, Ryan Serhant, Bryan Johnson, Jocko Willink, Naval Ravikant, Stephen Schwarzman, Andrew Cherng, Peggy Cherng, Brad Jacobs, Keith Cunningham, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, Erika Kullberg, Suzanne Shifflet, Acquisition.com, Skool, CAA (Creative Artists Agency), Zynga, Panda Express, Blackstone, Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, Gym Launch, GMC Hummer EV, Fiat Topolino, $100M Leads, $100M Money Models, $100M Offers, Scale or Fail, PMF or Die, Gym Secrets, The Game, Selling Sunset, Invest Like the Best, Calendly, Discord, Adobe Premiere ## Video description This is our full conversation with Alex Hormozi. We discuss his philosophy on choosing the right business, the biggest mistakes entrepreneurs make with AI, why volume beats perfection in media, how he built one of the largest business education brands in the world, what founders get wrong about personal branding, why opportunity selection matters more than most people realize, and how Acquisition.com is evolving from a family office into a brand-powered investment platform. TBPN is made possible by: Ramp - https://ramp.com Public - https://public.com Cisco - https://www.cisco.com Console - https://www.console.com CrowdStrike - https://www.crowdstrike.com Figma - https://www.figma.com MongoDB - https://www.mongodb.com NYSE - https://www.nyse.com Railway - https://railway.com Shopify - https://www.shopify.com/ Codex - http://openAI.com/codex Sign up for TBPN’s daily newsletter at TBPN.com Follow TBPN: https://TBPN.com https://x.com/tbpn https://open.spotify.com/show/2L6WMqY3GUPCGBD0dX6p00?si=674252d53acf4231 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/technology-brothers/id1772360235 https://www.youtube.com/@TBPNLive [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68k355Fnse8)

[9:52] Alex Hormozi: 体量消除运气（Volume negates luck） [9:52] Alex Hormozi: 暴力出奇迹（Violence is the answer） [20:46] Alex Hormozi: 我做好了随时死去的心理准备。虽然我更倾向于活着，但哪种结果我都能坦然接受。 [30:26] Alex Hormozi: 讲出全部真相，而非半真半假（The whole truth, not half-truth） [32:30] Alex Hormozi: 陈述事实，说出真相，并且是完整的真相 [35:16] Alex Hormozi: 扎克伯格做 Facebook 时可不会把做 Airbnb 房东当成副业（Zuckerberg didn't have Airbnbs as a side hustle） [35:16] Alex Hormozi: 门槛只有一个：产品必须无可挑剔地变态好（The product has to be fucking insane） [37:41] Alex Hormozi: 我曾经两次倾家荡产、一无所有（I've lost everything two times）。但如果问我‘那你现在算跌落后了吗？’我当然希望倒霉事永远别再发生，但我敢肯定，操蛋的事未来一定还会找上门来。 [37:41] Alex Hormozi: 承诺永不停歇，专注掌控你能掌控的事情，这就是我能做的一切。 [43:48] Alex Hormozi: 只要你把视野完全拉长，在 40 年时间里专注于一件事并且每年都有所长进，你就注定能称霸全场。 [49:09] Keith Cunningham: 我的上行空间是什么？我的下行风险是什么？我能承受这个下行结果吗？如果承受不了，就不要下注。 [57:09] Suzanne Shifflet: 你知道吗，Alex，全都是狗屎（It's all shit）。每一种生意全都是狗屎。 [57:09] Alex Hormozi: 只是痛苦的具体形式有所不同罢了（it's just different type of suck, but it all sucks）

[0:00] Alex Hormozi: If you were to sit down and say, 'I'm going to write a book about this,' and then you have two weeks, it's like you don't have enough experiences that are diverse in a two-week period while you're writing to let the paint dry. [4:34] Alex Hormozi: If you think about the story of how you met your wife... if you told it the day after you did it, you'd have so much richer memory of all the tiny little things that happened. So I'm a big believer of, while it's wet, paint it—and then let it dry over time. [7:04] Alex Hormozi: If she's 10% happier, I have like a percent correlation to my happiness. And me being more comfortable has no correlation back... whatever she's good with, I'm good with. [11:08] Alex Hormozi: Volume negates luck all day. Volume negates luck. Violence is the answer. Yeah, it's like on our wall at HQ. [22:34] Alex Hormozi: I've never needed to take notes to achieve my goals in business... My meeting note system is like so dialed. I'm like, okay, like how much money have you made today? [29:13] Alex Hormozi: I want three agencies working for me and an in-house team. Like, all the impressions are out there... got to catch 'em all. [30:26] Alex Hormozi: The absolute simplest media strategy for any kind of change is the whole truth... I didn't have anything to sell. And I was like, 'Now I do.' [45:47] Alex Hormozi: Rich people fly private, so I should fly private in order to get rich, right? It's conflation. [47:36] Alex Hormozi: What's my upside, what's my downside, and can I live with my downside? If you can't live with the downside, don't take the bet. [55:52] Suzanne Shifflet: It's all shit. Every business is shit... It's just a different type of suck, but it all sucks.

[0:00] Grab that seat. Sit down for us. Do you [0:03] still own a Hummer EV? [0:05] >> Uh, yeah, we do actually. [0:06] >> You do? Give us your review. We were [0:08] just talking about the Fiat Topelino. I [0:10] don't think [0:11] >> you're going to be in the market for [0:12] that. Neck and neck. [0:13] >> Neck and neck. [0:14] >> It's a,000 pounds. [0:15] >> So, I think what we could do is like if [0:16] you just lined up like 10 of the Fiat [0:18] like kind of like chariot like [0:20] >> that's what I'm saying. [0:22] The Hummer [laughter] like be my [0:24] chariot. [0:24] >> I think the Hummer. Imagine Imagine if [0:26] the Hummers of the the Hummer is kind of [0:29] the front of the the train and then you [0:30] have like you you see the Hummer coming [0:32] at you and then and then a bunch of the [0:34] Topolinos kind of pull out in like a [0:36] Vshape Fast and Furious. That would be [0:37] that would be badass. Yeah. Take over [0:39] the whole smog. [0:40] >> How is How is life these days? [0:42] >> Good. [0:43] >> Is there a new book coming? [0:44] >> There is another book coming. [0:46] >> Okay. [0:46] >> Yeah. [0:46] >> Do you have a strategy for book launch [0:50] cadence? Is it an annual thing? It's [0:53] more like every 18 months to two years. [0:56] >> But do you imagine that um continuing [0:59] for your entire career? [1:01] >> Every book I write I say is the last [1:03] book I'm going to write and then I have [1:05] like a six-month refractory period and [1:07] then I'm like yeah, you know, I could I [1:09] could write a book about something and [1:10] then I just start writing again. [1:11] >> What's the process like? Um, I have a [1:14] bunch of notes on my phone of a topic [1:16] because right now I've have like [1:17] probably like 10 books that are at [1:20] different stages of so I just mind dump [1:22] wherever and then once there's enough [1:24] stuff that I think this isn't like this [1:25] is interesting I'll then start the book [1:27] writing process. But I'm a big believer [1:28] in um [1:29] >> surface area of thought. [1:31] >> Like if you were to sit down and say [1:32] like I'm going to write a book about [1:33] this and then you have two weeks it's [1:34] like you don't have enough experiences [1:35] that are diverse in a twoe period while [1:37] you're writing to like let the paint [1:39] dry. Sure. [1:40] >> So, I kind of want to like have I want [1:41] to be in, you know, a totally different [1:43] state talking to somebody and be like, I [1:44] didn't think about that. And then I add [1:46] it to the book. And so, then all of a [1:47] sudden, it's like the the density of of [1:48] thought and ideas per word is much [1:50] higher. But I think you just have to do [1:52] it by like spreading out the time that [1:53] So, like the time I'm thinking about a [1:55] book is much longer than the time I'm [1:56] writing the book. [1:56] >> Is it purely thinking and you want a lot [1:59] of thought to go into the different [2:01] sections of the book or over the course [2:03] of 18 months, is there actually a [2:05] benefit to going out and having real [2:06] world experiences? [2:07] >> Oh, that's I mean that's [2:08] >> and anecdotes, right? [2:09] I'll have a working theory of like I [2:11] think this is how I think people are [2:12] missing this part of it [2:14] >> and then I'll kind of start battle [2:16] testing it and then when I realize that [2:18] I'm using the same framework over and [2:20] over again and successfully overcoming [2:21] some issue I'm like this is it and then [2:23] that's what the book becomes. [2:24] >> How narrow do you want to stay? How [2:27] narrow have you been in the surface area [2:29] of thought around mainly the last three [2:32] books? [2:34] >> It's a really good question. um problem [2:36] definition for the book I think is the [2:37] hardest part of any book. Like the leads [2:39] book, which is the second book, was the [2:40] hardest book I've ever written. I'll [2:41] never write a book that hard because I [2:43] was like, I'm gonna write a book on [2:44] advertising. It's like Jesus Christ, [2:45] there's so many ways to get leads. And I [2:48] put it all in one book. It took 19 [2:49] versions to get there. [2:50] >> Yeah. [2:50] >> The Money Models book was uh the fastest [2:53] book because it was really just about [2:54] rappers for promotions. Super valuable, [2:55] but really easy to consume and use. And [2:57] so I was like, "Okay, this is the lesson [2:59] for me." Like, and offers super narrow, [3:00] super narrow. And that book too was like [3:03] all three of those books started as one [3:05] kind of gigantic thing and I gave it to [3:06] somebody and they're like dude you [3:07] cannot. It was you like this and they're [3:09] like I was like I'm going to have a tome [3:11] [laughter] [3:12] >> and then I decided to I want people to [3:13] actually read it. Is there a itch in the [3:17] back of your mind where you want to do [3:19] sort of the Tim Ferrris thing where you [3:22] go from 4hour work week, a business book [3:26] to chef, body, lifestyle, money [3:31] management, personal finance. Like [3:33] there's so many topics that you talk [3:34] about and people are interested [3:37] >> and I'm sure you could sell those books [3:39] and they might be edifying at a certain [3:42] point because you're like I've I've [3:43] scratched this itch three times, four [3:45] times, 10 times, but is there a level of [3:48] focus that you have to discipline [3:50] yourself or does it come naturally? [3:51] >> I only write about stuff that I feel [3:53] like I have some unique take on. I think [3:55] rewriting a book that already exists, [3:56] other people already know there's no [3:58] point. Um especially if like you're in [4:00] the thick of it and you're thinking, [4:01] >> "Oh, this has already been written [4:02] before. It doesn't really motivate you." [4:04] [laughter] [4:04] >> Like I think it like I want to write [4:06] something that only exists because I [4:08] made it. [4:09] >> Um [4:09] >> same thing with businesses. [4:11] >> Like there's [4:12] >> I've had the experience of building a [4:14] company or or just like starting to work [4:16] on a company and being like, I can stop [4:17] working on this and it will not matter [4:19] at all. [4:20] >> Yeah. the world. There's a bunch of [4:22] alternatives [laughter] and and and that [4:24] you can make that case for like most [4:26] businesses, but there are some where [4:28] you're like, if I don't build this, no [4:29] one's going to build it, at least in the [4:31] right way. [4:32] >> Yeah. No, I have 100% that perspective [4:33] when it comes to bookw writing. [4:34] >> Yeah, [4:34] >> it's funny. Uh, as as we talk about [4:37] this, uh, Jeremy Gon, I know, is a good [4:39] good friend of yours, good friend of [4:40] ours. Uh, and [4:42] >> every time he talks, people just listen. [4:44] Yeah. [4:45] >> And he's somebody who I would love to [4:47] write a book almost because I just want [4:49] him to go on another podcast, a proper [4:51] podcast tour where he just kind of pops [4:53] up, does invest like the best and then [4:55] goes goes dark for like 18 months. But [4:57] like it's somewhat of a tragedy that [4:59] he'll probably write a book someday, but [5:00] it'll be in like 40 years. So in the [5:02] meantime, you have to like in in the [5:04] meantime, you have to just like, you [5:05] know, take notes and and uh try to pick [5:07] stuff up from from the podcast. But [5:09] there's so many people that like so many [5:12] people that should be writing books just [5:13] don't have the time and they'll [5:14] eventually come and take like a victory [5:16] lap at the end of their career. But I [5:19] think it's like you could just do a lot [5:20] of stuff other than write books. Uh but [5:22] it's but it's it's it's very valuable to [5:25] be like writing in real time versus like [5:27] saving up a bunch of lessons and then [5:29] kind of summarizing it at the end. I [5:31] think you miss out on the the the [5:33] wrinkles, like the tiny little details [5:34] that like if you if you think about like [5:36] the story of how you met your wife and [5:37] you go back like you've told it a bunch [5:39] of times, but if you told it the day [5:40] after you did it, you'd have so much [5:42] richer memory of all the tiny little [5:43] things that happened. And so I'm a big [5:45] believer of like while it's wet like [5:46] paint it um and then let it dry over [5:48] time. But that's why like I always want [5:50] documentation to be as real as [5:51] >> Yeah. It's funny the final book will [5:53] actually be the easiest to write cuz you [5:55] have all the books and you're like okay [5:57] what what was actually like worth kind [5:58] of [5:59] >> greatest hits in that book. Yeah, [6:02] >> we we had Mark Pinkis on the show, [6:04] founder of Zingga. He wrote a book and [6:06] he said that he thinks everyone should [6:08] write a book in their life, but he also [6:09] said everyone should build a house. [6:12] >> Do you have any aspirations to build [6:15] real estate physically? [6:17] >> Like me do it, [6:18] >> you do it. No, not by not by hand, but [6:21] just take a take a a piece of dirt and [6:23] turn [6:24] >> working with an architect and team. But [6:26] is that something that you know a lot of [6:28] people that's on their bucket list? I [6:29] don't know where you've been in your [6:30] real estate journey, but how do you [6:32] think about that as a uh as a bucket [6:35] list item? [6:36] >> It's not. [6:37] >> Why not? [6:38] >> I mean, we buy big multif family that [6:40] are already existing and we do that. But [6:42] if there were an investment opportunity [6:44] that made sense, I would [6:45] >> it's you're not interested because it's [6:46] not productive. [6:47] >> It's just not on my list. [6:48] >> Purely for like, you know, the satisfy [6:50] like have you listened to like thought [6:51] about listening to Beyonce today? I'd be [6:53] like, not really. But I mean, like if it [6:55] was on, sure. You know, I'm not against [6:56] it. [6:57] >> Yeah. I think some people just have the [6:58] the itch to like customize their own [7:02] living environment. And I'm I'm curious [7:04] about how you see your living [7:05] environment because I mean from those [7:07] first YouTube videos like the monastic [7:11] what were you closet? You were in the [7:12] closet like like that that was I don't [7:15] know if that was intentional but it was [7:18] uh it was somewhat deliberate. You [7:19] picked that space over a big living [7:21] room, right? Uh, and I'm wondering how [7:22] you think about your li your living [7:25] space, your work space, your office [7:27] space today. [7:28] >> So, I would say all of the time that I [7:31] when I work, I'm very intentional about [7:33] that space. [7:34] >> When I'm not working, it's whatever Ila [7:36] wants. I don't care. Like, if she if [7:38] she's 10% happier, [7:40] >> I have like a percent correlation to my [7:43] happiness. And me being more comfortable [7:45] has no correlation back. [laughter] So, [7:47] so like whatever she's good with, I'm [7:49] good with. Uh but in terms of like where [7:51] I work, it's almost all how do I how do [7:54] I eliminate every sense of distraction [7:56] for me personally. And so it's like I [7:57] don't have windows. Some people like [7:59] having windows. I don't think anything [8:00] wrong with that. For me, it's like I [8:01] need no stimulation because I'm [8:03] >> I'm very distractable. And so I have to [8:05] have like I earplugs in, no light, all [8:08] artificial. I have like soundproof like [8:10] you know, like I want nothing. [8:12] >> Yeah. [8:12] >> Uh and then I can finally focus on what [8:14] I'm what I'm trying to work on. [8:15] >> Yeah. Uh, can we go back to the early [8:20] YouTube days on the latest channel, I [8:22] think 2020, [8:23] >> uh, in that closet. We both launched [8:26] YouTube channels around the same time [8:28] and we were talking about this. You com [8:29] you completely smoked me. [laughter] [8:31] >> It was John is, you know, obviously [8:34] pretty good at media and but and was [8:36] like the the his channel was like just [8:38] following his interests like Silicon [8:39] Valley history. The the execution was [8:42] like by all means amazing. Like got to [8:43] like half a million subscribers. I treat [8:45] it like a blog and you treat it like a [8:46] business. [8:47] >> Yeah. Yeah. And it was like but it was a [8:48] much smaller TAM. And like when you [8:50] compare the two channels and like your [8:52] strategy, the execution difference was [8:54] like was it me and like I had one remote [8:57] editor for years. I was like not [8:59] monetizing, not really thinking about it [9:00] as a business. But I'm interested to [9:02] know uh on day one of of that YouTube [9:05] channel because I know you've done media [9:06] stuff before, but like the the the the [9:09] current media business. Uh what was the [9:11] team like? What was the strategy? How [9:13] much time were you putting into it? [9:15] Because I know you had exited some [9:16] businesses, you had some space to [9:18] breathe, but how serious were and then [9:20] what was the evolution of that? [9:22] >> I'll walk you through as fast as I can. [9:24] So, uh, the first thing was I found any [9:28] media editor, uh, like an agency. And [9:31] they were like, uh, three YouTube videos [9:32] a week is what we do. And I was like, [9:34] all right, then that's what I'll do. And [9:35] so, I just webcammed like, and I had a [9:38] little suitcase that would open up so I [9:39] could travel cuz Leila and I were [9:40] traveling for the year of the sale. Um, [9:42] and so that's what I did. Wherever we [9:43] were, I was like, open up. And then [9:45] because at that time, I didn't have [9:46] really any work. So, I had all these [9:48] thoughts that I was like, I'm just going [9:49] to get them. I'm going to dump them all [9:50] out. And so, that's basically what [9:51] YouTube strategy 1.0 was. Yeah. [9:52] >> Um, I had somebody cold reach out like [9:55] legit uh to when right short started. [9:58] They were like, I'll do everything. You [10:00] already have YouTube stuff. I'm just [10:01] going to clip it. Just give me [10:02] permission. Yep. And I was like, [10:04] >> oh, cool. And so, [10:05] >> I accidentally started clipping [10:06] >> 100%. And so, that was like we were [10:08] really early on shorts. [10:09] >> So, good. And then as soon as he did a [10:11] pretty good job, uh he's like, "You [10:13] know, if I actually recorded you doing [10:14] these, they'd do even better." And I was [10:16] like, "Fine, but I only want to do one [10:17] day a quarter." And he was like, "Fine." [10:19] So he'd fly out for one day and we'd do [10:20] a 100 shorts in one sitting, 100%. I [10:22] would just do 100. And that that kind of [10:24] style of of filming and recording is [10:26] pretty much how I still kind of rock [10:27] that way, which is like I want I prefer [10:29] a marathon day. Like I'd rather just [10:30] start at, you know, six and then just [10:32] rock until every ounce of juice is gone [10:34] and then it's like great, we'll do it [10:35] again in a week or whatever. [10:36] >> Yeah. We're sort of like that marathon [10:38] every day. [laughter] [10:40] Yeah. Yeah. One of my one of my [10:41] questions is like what goes into a [10:43] twohour YouTube video because you'll do [10:45] these like master classes two hours and [10:46] I'm like that is insane. And then I'm [10:48] like I do three hours every day. So like [10:49] now it's become more possible. But I [10:51] imagine that there's lots of [10:52] >> but the three hours was kind of like [10:54] just going until we got tired. [10:56] >> Yeah. [10:57] >> Like by 3 hours we're usually like okay [10:59] like probably need to go to the [11:00] bathroom, probably want to eat some [11:01] food. [11:02] >> Yeah. And and this show is much less [11:03] structured. But when you're when you're [11:05] thinking about like the portfolio like [11:08] >> you the volume is just incredibly [11:10] important to everything in media these [11:12] days. You agree with that? [11:13] >> Oh 100%. [11:14] >> Volume negates luck all day. Volume [11:16] negates luck. Violence is the answer. [11:18] Yeah. It's like on our wall at HQ. [11:20] >> What formats are you most excited about [11:23] for 2026 2027? [11:25] >> Live interactive. [11:26] >> Okay. [11:27] >> Separate and together. [11:28] >> Okay. [11:28] >> So just going live like with the [11:30] audience Twitch style, YouTube live [11:32] style. [11:32] >> And that was the book launch strategy, [11:33] right? Was that your first t you've done [11:35] live? [11:35] >> No, I've done lives before, but that was [11:36] obviously, you know, intentional. And [11:38] then um and then interactive, which is [11:40] not like [11:41] >> sure there's chat interactive, but like [11:44] >> how do I bring the audience in so that [11:46] we can talk? That's why you see the uh [11:47] first it was cash cows now at scale or [11:49] fail, which is the show we just [11:50] launched. Um and we're doing we're [11:52] doubling down really hard on that [11:53] because if you think in a world of AI, [11:54] it's like what are the things that can't [11:55] be faked? Yeah. [11:57] >> It's people you like I want stakes. So [11:59] for example, like if Mr. beast sto uh [12:02] videos if it was not a real $5 million [12:05] um or not a real Lamborghini, the stakes [12:07] disappear. Now, to be fair, there's for [12:08] sure other like a fictional story. The [12:10] whole thing we know is fake and we're [12:11] fine with it and the story is the story [12:13] and it will crush that. But [12:15] >> people still want stakes. Like right [12:16] now, chess is more popular it's ever [12:18] been, but like humans haven't been able [12:19] to beat computers for a long time. And [12:21] so there are definitely these some areas [12:22] where we want the drama, we want the [12:24] stakes, and so I don't think that's [12:25] going to change at all. Uh, I love the [12:27] series that you've been doing with uh, [12:30] entrepreneurs that attend a conference. [12:31] They stand up, they give you the P. It's [12:33] so so good. I I just love all those [12:36] >> live interactive. [12:36] >> Live interactive. [12:38] >> I'm interested to know how you think [12:40] Legacy Media will fit into your media [12:43] strategy going forward. Is it about [12:46] prestige? Is there actually an audience [12:49] there still? Because you're part of the [12:53] New Guard. Yeah. and yet you signed with [12:55] CIA. I'm sure you have the ability to [12:57] walk into a large media company and get [13:01] a TV show. Does that make sense? Is that [13:03] something that's interesting to you? [13:04] What would the value be to [13:06] >> I think it's distribution that I don't [13:07] have access to. [13:08] >> Okay. [13:08] >> So like I think one of the biggest like [13:10] unspoken advantages that exists right [13:12] now in media is Dave Ramsey has been [13:14] murdering for 30 40 years because he has [13:17] 600 radio stations syndicated. [13:19] Everyone's like radio's dead. It's like [13:21] he's murdering it and it's because no [13:23] one's looking. So like I'm I'm an equal [13:24] opportunist when it comes to attention. [13:26] And so even if it's less or more, if [13:28] it's something that's completely in this [13:30] other bubble over here that I have z I [13:32] have no access to [13:32] >> and the beauty is like there's still [13:34] like closer to like there's no monopoly [13:36] online, right? The feed is like you can [13:38] just get anybody can log on and it's [13:40] beautiful because anyone can log on. You [13:42] don't have to have an audience. You can [13:43] suddenly have an audience. Maybe it's [13:44] one video, maybe it's a flash in the [13:46] pan. But uh TV still like if you can [13:50] figure out the right lane you have this [13:52] sort of like differentiated access to [13:54] attention and so it's like a different [13:56] group of people and it's differentiated [13:58] access that's not just like log on [14:00] immediately have access [14:01] >> and when something super pops like you [14:02] look at all the real estate shows that [14:04] have come out you've got selling sunset [14:05] uh sir has his show like like there's a [14:09] huge distribution base that they gain [14:10] access to as a result of that all you [14:11] have to do is look at those stars look [14:12] at their look at their social media and [14:14] I would say this is I say this lovingly [14:16] it's pretty weak in terms of what [14:17] they're doing, but their following. [14:19] Exactly. But their following is still [14:20] really strong because it's carried over. [14:22] And so I'm like, if those people [14:23] actually tried [laughter] [14:25] >> on this side and had So I'm an and it's [14:27] like, how do we get it all right? And [14:29] that's kind of the the [14:30] >> I think this is uh just underrated [14:32] broadly for mostly tech people. They see [14:34] the trend of the internet growing [14:36] exponentially or e-commerce and they [14:38] think, [14:39] >> oh well, in a couple years like 100% of [14:41] everything will be bought online. It's [14:43] like, no, retail still exists and you [14:45] know, for certain categories, you [14:46] probably need to be in retail as well. [14:48] And the same thing with, you know, the [14:50] aging audiences on radio or TV, they're [14:53] still there. They have they still watch. [14:55] And so, uh, interesting. What about the [14:57] level of production polish? I imagine [15:00] that there's a tradeoff there. If you go [15:02] with something uh more produced that's [15:05] not just you opening your laptop and and [15:07] yapping, right? uh you can get st you [15:10] can you can get stuck in like the [15:12] production quagmire if you're trying to [15:14] build the Mona Lisa or or some [15:16] incredible show at the same time there's [15:18] prestige that comes with that there's a [15:20] new level of authority uh how do you [15:22] think about that trade-off [15:23] >> I think it's [clears throat] barbo [15:24] >> so it's either like make it the Mona [15:26] Lisa and like play to win that game [15:29] >> or you're in the volume game and the [15:31] volume is just value per second and just [15:32] trying to get as many of those seconds [15:33] out as you possibly can and like I just [15:35] think it's it's it's both and they're I [15:37] think they serve They serve different [15:39] objectives to your point of like you [15:40] gain authority in different ways. It's [15:42] definitely there's an element that it [15:43] shifts the brand. There's access to new [15:45] distribution and eyeballs. All of that [15:46] happens over here. Yeah. But over here I [15:48] think is where you get a lot of the [15:49] closer to buying behavior, believe it or [15:51] not. And so I see this as more top of [15:52] funnel and this is like closer to middle [15:55] and bottom. Obviously you can get [15:56] discoverability. Like I said this is [15:57] full stack but you get way closer to [15:59] purchases on the site. [16:00] >> Yeah. Is there can we offer you a diet [16:03] coke? Can we offer you anything? Uh we [16:05] have a variety of beverages if you'd [16:06] like. What's a category of business that [16:09] you haven't uh built or invested in uh [16:12] that you're excited to at some point? [16:14] >> I'm still looking for the the magical [16:16] med spa. [16:17] >> Um I think med spas are super I love [16:19] pseudo medical. [16:21] >> Um because you [16:22] >> maxing [16:23] >> Yeah. All of it. Well, think about it. [16:25] Like there's this aging population that [16:27] has more money than anyone else. They [16:28] don't want to age. They see the Brian [16:30] Johnson's like it is the zeitgeist of [16:33] right now of like I want to live [16:34] forever. I want to look beautiful and [16:36] young forever and they have all the [16:38] money. And so if you look at the demand [16:39] side of that, it's huge. And look at the [16:42] supply. Med spas are are t they're still [16:45] wildly understaffed. And I know this [16:46] because I see business owners every [16:48] single week. And so I've like there's a [16:49] handful of categories right now that [16:50] I'll meet business owners and they're [16:52] doing better than they should be. [16:54] >> Like there's some business owners. [16:55] >> I met a I met a med spa owner when I [16:57] first moved to LA. They had started [16:59] their business and within a year they [17:01] were doing like 1.2 2 million of like [17:03] like straight free cash flow [laughter] [17:05] off of like $400,000 invested. Yeah. [17:08] >> And it was like actually unbelievable. [17:10] Yes. The entrepreneur in this case was [17:11] like very talented [17:12] >> cuz he watches this and he's like, "Oh [17:14] yeah, he's great though." [17:15] >> No, but this was this was, you know, [17:16] years ago. But yeah, I'm I'm surprised [17:18] that also like differentiated shots at [17:20] that category because if you look at [17:22] like I would expect Brian Johnson to do [17:24] something like this, right? because [17:25] there's a lot of people that follow him [17:27] and he has, you know, as many maybe he [17:30] probably has like 10 times as many like [17:32] critics as he does people that are like, [17:34] I'm going to do exactly what he's going [17:37] to do. But that group of people that [17:38] will just like copy what he's doing is [17:41] actually pretty pretty meaningful, [17:43] right? And souge meds boss, you go into [17:45] these like high ticket kind of like [17:47] procedures, treatments, things like [17:49] that. To me, that's where I think he [17:51] could uh really start to print. He had [17:53] 1,200 people apply for his million-doll [17:55] per year thing. [17:57] >> 1,200. Do that math [17:59] >> real fast, right? [18:00] >> That's a lot of money. [18:01] >> And then there was a $60,000 per year [18:02] thing that was underneath and multiply [18:04] that by just probably an order of [18:05] magnitude greater. [18:06] >> Yeah. [18:07] >> Wildly underestimated. So you take that [18:09] and then you have these 10,000 or 15,000 [18:11] med spas that exist. It's like it's [18:12] nothing. And the it's super fragmented [18:15] because still no one's really like [18:16] gobbled that up. Well, not that that [18:18] I've seen. Um, and to your point of like [18:20] when I asked them like, "Hey, so what [18:22] are you doing right now to get your 6 [18:23] million a year topline and you know 40% [18:25] margins and they're like we kind of [18:27] just, you know, we just opened up and [18:29] put the sign up and you just did a good [18:31] job and and you know, you know, people [18:33] customers tell customers like you know [18:34] that's not how it [ __ ] works." [18:36] >> Yeah. [laughter] [18:36] >> And it's not how it's going to work [18:37] forever. [18:38] >> They're just in a completely uh supply [18:40] constraint environment. They just don't [18:41] know it because when you're on the [18:41] inside, you don't know. You're like, [18:42] "Oh, I'm doing a good job." is part of [18:44] the problem that a lot of the med spa [18:47] like founders get a little bit too [18:49] sucked into the biohacker nature of [18:51] these things and it feels a little bit [18:53] too scientific. [18:53] >> I don't I don't think it's that at all. [18:55] I think it's like it's it's so [18:57] shortterm. A lot of the med spas I think [19:00] are like very short-term cosmetic [19:02] driven. They're like how do we make you [19:03] look good for the next 3 to 6 months [19:06] >> which is not necessarily what makes you [19:08] look good over the next 3 to six years [19:10] >> or over the next few decades. Mhm. [19:13] >> So that's at least [19:14] >> generally [19:15] >> there's a slice for Johnson to attack [19:17] which he obviously he's a very smart [19:19] dude. [19:20] >> Yeah. [19:20] >> How would you attack the problem? Roll [19:22] up, find a bunch of operators, put them [19:24] together, start start something from [19:26] scratch. [19:26] >> I mean, yeah, I mean the role model [19:28] would make the most sense. Um the thing [19:30] is is like denovo is not that expensive. [19:32] Sure. Yeah. Um, and if you are a good [19:35] operator, you can go in and just smash. [19:37] Yeah. Yeah. Because when when when [19:38] people are coming in, when you're when [19:40] your CAC's zero and your your gross [19:42] margins on these services are absurd, [19:43] the the actual difficulty in that model [19:45] right now is getting the talent for the [19:47] technicians because [19:48] >> because it's supply constrained at the [19:50] business level, it's also supply [19:51] constrained at the talent level. And so, [19:53] >> and it's so easy for them to open up a [19:55] door. [19:55] >> Exactly. They hang their own shindle. [19:56] They take the customers and like that's [19:57] the issue that those companies have. And [19:59] so, um, the key to really winning that [20:01] game is having a really good talent [20:03] strategy for [20:04] >> how do I make their lifestyles? How do I [20:06] how do I compensate them as directly as [20:07] possible on what they're generating and [20:09] get it to the point where my godfather [20:11] is in wealth management and he has a [20:13] really cool model. He's managed several [20:15] billion dollars and he but he started at [20:16] nothing and built it all himself. And [20:18] his big thing was heyo um and his big [20:21] [clears throat] thing was uh basically [20:23] letting the other person have a little [20:24] more. Yeah. And so it's like he'll he's [20:26] like I'll give you 51 [20:27] >> so that you don't ever want to leave. [20:29] >> Uh but then you do all the work. [20:30] >> Yeah. It probably looks more like a law [20:32] firm over [20:32] >> 100%. It's more of a partner pro. And to [20:34] be fair, if you've been to any of these [20:36] uh I would say it's a high touch [20:37] service. They're they're not loyal to [20:39] the business. They're loyal to the girl [20:40] who does her injections or does their [20:41] lasers or whatever. [20:42] >> And so it's like we just got to tie [20:44] those people in like a partner firm. [20:46] >> Yeah. [20:46] >> Uh speaking of Brian Johnson, do you [20:49] care at all about living forever? [20:52] >> I don't even think about it. I expect to [20:54] die. Um I would prefer not to, but like [20:57] >> I'm good. I'm good either way. Like I I [21:00] think Marcus really has said um the the [21:02] old and the young lose the same thing [21:03] when they die, which is the present. [21:06] >> That's all we got. [21:06] >> So yeah, [21:07] >> I love it. [21:08] >> I'm a similar way. I want to have a full [21:10] life, but I never at any point in my [21:13] life have I thought, "Oh, it would just [21:15] be the best thing ever if I could never [21:18] die." [21:18] >> Yeah. [21:19] Uh [clears throat] [21:21] going back to sort of core audience [21:25] >> I think of like the sweet spot is like [21:28] mid-market owner operator founder types [21:31] is that roughly after [21:32] >> yeah 1 to 50 million [21:32] >> 1 to 50 million [21:34] >> what is the expansion opportunity? Is [21:36] there a business for you where you're [21:39] giving keynotes at Fortune 500 [21:40] companies, motivational speaking for [21:43] like, you know, middle managers at [21:45] companies [laughter] [21:46] >> or or or is it or is it getting people [21:48] on the founder journey who are leaving [21:51] companies, breaking out into their own [21:53] and going from zero to 1 million? What [21:55] do you think? [21:56] >> Well, from an expansion opportunity, [21:57] like I think there's still plenty of [21:58] people in the 150 million who don't know [21:59] who I am and haven't consumed my stuff [22:01] or whatever. So, like [22:02] >> plenty there. Um, but the like if I just [22:05] focus there, I get the zero to a [22:07] million. [22:07] >> Sure. [22:08] >> Anyways, because if you're helping [22:10] people go from one to 10, people are [22:11] like, he could probably help me go from [22:11] one zero to one, right? Um, and so [22:14] >> I'm super broadly zooming out. I'm a big [22:18] fan of capitalism and I think as many [22:19] people as possible participating in a [22:22] free market is a good thing for the [22:24] country and for that person uh and for [22:26] everyone else that they serve. And so I [22:28] would like as many people to taste that [22:29] that uh that forbidden fruit as humanly [22:31] possible. And so I try and make it as [22:32] simple and as easy as possible for [22:34] people to get started. [22:34] >> Yeah. What mistakes do you see [22:37] entrepreneurs making around AI? I'll [22:39] give you one. [22:41] >> The the small business owners that I [22:43] know that get too in like into AI and [22:47] maybe they're listening to podcasts and [22:49] they're on X and and and uh we're [22:51] >> orange glasses ready to go. [laughter] [22:53] >> Um [22:54] >> they'll like they won't just apply AI to [22:57] their business. they'll like start a new [22:59] company that's like AI oriented and uh [23:03] and I just think that's like the worst [23:04] possible mistake because they end up [23:06] doing something that like the model just [23:07] does well and it's like okay so you're [23:09] going to compete just directly with like [23:11] all the biggest companies in the world [23:13] on something that you don't even know as [23:15] well as the biggest companies in the [23:16] world when you could just like and so [23:19] and so there's like this like [23:20] >> grass is greener thing happening where [23:24] instead of seeing like oh I can just [23:25] make you know these parts of my business [23:27] even if it's just 10% more efficient. Uh [23:29] I can I can, you know, keep compounding. [23:31] But what are you seeing? [23:33] >> All right. Uh one, they're using AI to [23:36] do dumb things really fast. Um so [23:38] they're doing the wrong stuff with AI. [23:39] So even like they were like a small [23:41] business owner that wasn't making money [23:42] now still doesn't make money but has a [23:44] lot more token cost than they did [23:46] before. Number two, they're [23:47] >> meeting meeting summaries. Like I've [23:49] never been successful. Like I I've never [23:52] >> That was my bottleneck. I just need a [23:53] >> summary. No, but but it's one of those [23:55] things like like I think it's cool that [23:56] these apps exist. I've never uh I've [23:59] never needed to take notes to achieve my [24:03] goals in [laughter] business. Like I'm [24:04] just like, okay, what's the next most [24:06] important thing to do? I'm going to do [24:07] that thing. Okay, what's the next most [24:08] important thing? I'm going to do that [24:10] thing. I've never I've never been like, [24:12] okay, like what did we say? I mean, and [24:14] I've worked in like small companies, [24:15] right? I've only only been a founder. Um [24:17] but but that's just such an example of [24:19] like yeah, my meeting note system is [24:21] like so dialed. I'm like okay like how [24:23] much money have you made today? [24:24] >> Okay. [laughter] [24:26] >> So I'll say to to to counterans answer [24:28] the two things that I think are the [24:29] right way to use it which is number one [24:32] how do we take every [clears throat] [24:33] function of the business [24:35] >> take it from an org chart based thinking [24:37] to workflow based thinking and then [24:39] saying okay this editor used to be [24:40] involved in these six workflows. uh we [24:43] actually only need him to be now [24:44] involved in three of those workflows and [24:46] the other three we can have AI do the [24:48] vast majority of the work and so all of [24:49] a sudden we can three 5x output uh and [24:51] so revenue per headcount on service [24:53] based businesses should decrease which [24:54] means margin should go up now there's [24:55] this great opportunity window right now [24:57] where prices aren't really going to [24:58] adjust for a minute which means that [25:00] your margins get absolutely stupid and [25:02] so like you should do that so there's [25:04] two flavors of that one is the uh the [25:07] like I'm I'm an advocate of like don't [25:09] tell people you're using AI [laughter] [25:11] like go have service business that [25:13] people think is all humans in the [25:14] background and then charge human prices [25:17] and then have costs of tech and have the [25:20] scale and operational or the the lack of [25:21] operational drag of tech. That's the [25:23] good game, right? Or take it department [25:25] by department so you can just become [25:27] more efficient at at it, right? So those [25:28] are I think the two good ways of doing [25:30] it to your point of like well uh being [25:33] distracted is still a terrible idea as a [25:34] founder and so this has just made it so [25:37] much easier for people to get distracted [25:38] because like I could start a business on [25:39] this or that or that and it's like yeah [25:41] but you still have your dry cleaning [25:41] store dude like [25:42] >> what are we going like and to be fair if [25:44] you have if you want to be a [25:45] trillionaire you are going to need to [25:46] get into bleeding edge tech and AI but [25:48] you probably should get rid of your dry [25:49] cleaning store and go all in. And so [25:50] they're trying to juggle two plates and [25:52] not really succeeding it either. [25:54] >> Totally. Totally. Yeah. the the dry [25:56] cleaning example is like use AI to [25:58] constantly be monitoring every possible [26:01] >> new space that you could expand into [26:03] within your area or in in the county [26:06] over etc. and just do that, do that, do [26:08] that. But it's like grass is greener. [26:09] Like oh what if I what if I made the [26:12] operating system the agent operating [26:14] system for dry cleaners. It's like no [26:17] just like do the thing. [26:18] >> Just win at dry cleaning because it's [26:19] also so much easier to compete against [26:21] other dry cleaning owners cuz you for [26:23] sure know that they're not adopting it [26:24] the right way because they're doing the [26:25] same thing with orange glasses and and [26:27] banging out their their replicated [26:28] software, you know, like fine. [26:31] There's also like a fair amount of AI [26:33] that a lot of small businesses are [26:34] probably getting for free just in the [26:35] sense of like if you have a CRM that's [26:38] sending emails like that company has [26:40] probably adopted AI and is doing [26:43] somewhat smarter targeting and so you [26:45] might not need to go and build your own [26:47] CRM that sends emails that are [26:49] customized for every customer because [26:51] like you get it for free out of the box. [26:53] >> There's also this this tendency to [26:55] rebuild the existing software that [26:57] you're using. So it's like, oh, I've [26:59] got, you know, I don't I don't need to [27:00] pay Calendarly, you know, $9 a month [27:04] when I It's just like, oh, so instead [27:05] you're going to use 200 hours to try and [27:08] recode what they just did and it breaks [27:10] all the time. [27:11] >> If there's an error, then you lose nine [27:12] grand, [27:13] >> but like that is what I'm saying all the [27:15] time. [27:15] >> Yeah, we did have a uh Ben on our team [27:17] here was having had been we he does uh a [27:20] lot of the automation that we do around [27:21] like captioning videos. he had reached a [27:24] point where all the existing software [27:25] didn't do the thing that he needed to do [27:27] that he built something yesterday that [27:28] now works and that it's saving him a [27:30] bunch of time. So there is the there are [27:31] these edge cases [27:32] >> very narrow point solutions for us [27:34] >> I think specifically flip live streams [27:37] very quickly with captions with our ads [27:40] added on at the end and it saved a bunch [27:42] of time in Premiere [27:43] >> in media it's huge right like we're [27:45] using it like I'll give you two examples [27:46] we're using on the ad side what we did [27:48] was we built this gigantic data [27:49] repository which by the way I think [27:50] that's what the big the huge gap that [27:52] small business owners are missing is [27:53] they don't have a data layer and so it's [27:54] like if you want to have anything that's [27:55] unique it starts with data if you want [27:57] to build any kind of AI right that's [27:58] actually useful [27:59] >> and So one is like how do we build a [28:01] repository of all the data that we have [28:02] in terms of sales copy, testimonials, [28:05] videos, collateral, all of that in one [28:07] place and then have that get piece meal [28:10] out into ads [28:11] >> um in real time and then also match [28:13] those to dynamic landing pages. So we [28:14] have that live right now at [28:15] acquisition.com in terms of how we're [28:16] doing it. So we have several hundred [28:18] landing pages that are getting pushed [28:19] against several hundred different uh ad [28:21] ads that are going out all being done [28:24] programmatically with AI which is really [28:26] like we're we're not a we are not an AI [28:28] company. Um, but we use the [ __ ] out of [28:30] it. And so I think that those are like [28:32] those are the the the on the paid side [28:33] where it's really really exciting. Yeah. [28:35] >> And then on the on the organic side, [28:37] it's like right now we started Mormo [28:38] Mosy, which is like the highlights [28:39] channel. [28:39] >> Yeah. [28:40] >> Um, and I've got one one cracked out [28:43] teenager um who's doing who's putting [28:46] out 20 20 clips a day [28:49] >> on his own. [28:50] >> No, no, [28:51] >> he's doing five five mids. So like we [28:53] call mids, which is like call it like [28:55] three to 10 minutes clips. And then he's [28:57] putting out I think 15 or something like [28:59] that shorts per day on his own. And so [29:01] he just takes all the time if I'm [29:03] talking to business owners takes it, [29:04] runs it through, it highlights the [29:06] points from there. He just basically [29:08] just makes sure that it's good, inserts [29:10] automatically the the the CTAs that we [29:12] want and then boom, it's all in one. [29:13] >> What's your philosophy on uh bringing [29:15] the cracked out teenager inhouse uh [29:18] remote inperson versus agency versus [29:22] platform where clipping can happen. a [29:24] discord that just you hear about these [29:26] discords with like 200 clippers and they [29:28] all get paid on a CPM basis randomly. It [29:30] feels deeply chaotic, but if you can [29:32] harness that, maybe it's powerful, but [29:34] what's your philosophy? [29:35] >> Uh, yes. [29:36] >> Okay, [29:36] >> that's 100% my philosophy. Okay. [29:38] >> Um, but like are you an agency fan or [29:40] in-house? It's like I want three [29:42] agencies working for me and an in-house [29:43] team. Like it's all all the impressions [29:45] are out there. Like got to catch them [29:46] all. Like go get them. You know what I [29:47] mean? And same thing with um like if I I [29:50] pay a lot of attention, especially on [29:51] the paid side, to e-commerce. I think [29:52] they're almost always the most cutting [29:54] edge when it well actually porn's the [29:55] most cutting edge right before that is [29:57] I'm being real right e-commerce is [29:59] second most cutting edge um and those [30:01] guys are all completely the ones who are [30:03] crushing it going to zero to 100 million [30:05] plus and call it like 12 to 24 months [30:06] like all the companies that are running [30:08] the same playbook is decentralized [30:11] um UGC with kind of like AI backend for [30:14] screening for control and then just [30:15] letting it [ __ ] rip. [30:16] >> Yeah. [30:17] >> And there's obviously some [30:18] considerations for brand, right? Which [30:20] is like how do we make sure but [30:21] >> Yeah. But if the raw footage is [30:23] >> and you only put money behind the things [30:24] that are exactly [30:25] >> Yeah, it's probably pretty safe. [30:26] >> Do you expect to uh integrate parenting [30:30] content into your universe? [30:34] >> I don't think everything that's not [30:36] business has not been like super [30:37] deliberate. I just don't hold back. So [30:38] if someone asks a question about it, [30:40] I'll just answer honestly. Um [30:42] >> but everything I try to think like the [30:43] middle spoke is still I'll use this. [30:45] There we go. The middle spoke is still [30:46] business. And then it's you know how am [30:48] I seeing parenting through the lens of [30:49] business as a business owner if you [30:51] want. [30:51] >> [laughter] [30:52] >> How do I [30:52] >> exclusive? We got it over there. [30:55] >> Like how do I see like my my [30:56] relationship with Ila, but it's we're [30:58] business partners, but we're also [30:59] married. So, it's it's always I try to [31:00] keep that at the middle. [31:01] >> Um, but some people are like, I just [31:02] want, you know, with with Taylor and and [31:06] Travis pairing up. [31:08] >> Hopefully, they have children. You guys [31:10] having children. I think we could see a [31:12] real baby boom. [31:13] >> Yeah. [31:14] >> Uh, but uh we need to get it out there. [31:16] >> That's what we're doing. The Lord's [31:17] work. Uh, can you walk me through how to [31:21] sort of evolve a brand through what I [31:24] expected to be more difficult, but you [31:27] executed it very well. The headline was, [31:28] "I have nothing to sell you. Now you [31:30] sell books. I people want to buy stuff [31:32] from you. Obviously, you sold a ton of [31:34] books." Uh, but there's probably like a, [31:37] "Oh, I wasn't expecting this." How did [31:39] you work through that? Because I think [31:41] there's a lot of companies where the [31:43] business model evolves and they need to [31:45] change their communication strategy and [31:47] they need to deliver [31:48] >> like an lab is like we're not going to [31:50] compete with [laughter] [31:52] >> what it's crazy asking for a friend [31:55] here. [31:56] >> Um [laughter] [31:58] I'm I'm such an like I I think the [32:00] absolute simplest media strategy for any [32:02] kind of change is the whole truth. [32:04] >> Yeah. [32:04] >> Not halftruth. And I think if you just [32:06] manage that so it's like I didn't have [32:08] anything to sell. [32:09] >> Yeah. And I was like, "Now I do." [32:11] [laughter] [32:11] >> That's so simple. I love it. [32:14] >> That's amazing. Wow. [32:16] >> And And if if you don't want to buy it, [32:19] >> here's the great thing about capitalism. [32:20] It's voluntary exchange, so you can just [32:22] keep getting the free [ __ ] [32:23] >> Yep. [32:24] >> All good. [32:24] >> There's tons of it. There's tons of free [32:25] stuff. [32:25] >> Tons of free stuff. And we still [32:26] continue to do that. If you choose to [32:28] want more help with stuff in person [32:30] where we're limited. [32:31] >> Yeah. [32:32] >> Spend money and we'd love to have you. [32:34] >> Yeah. Yeah. It's fascinating. What is [32:36] the term for like the economic ladder [32:39] that you help build help companies [32:40] build? I feel like the first time I was [32:42] exposed to this with Jaco Willink, you [32:44] you get to the end of the show and it's [32:45] like if you want to spend a dollar with [32:48] me, I got something for you. If you want [32:49] to spend $100 with me, I got something [32:50] for you. If you want to spend $1,000, [32:52] you can come to my conference, $10,000, [32:54] I'll hang out with you for a weekend, [32:56] $100,000. And that ladder of price [32:58] discrimination is a hard for a lot of [33:00] businesses where it's not token based [33:02] pricing where it's just as you know uh [33:04] consumption based usage of the product [33:06] but actually getting to the place where [33:07] look if you have a billionaire in your [33:09] audience who loves what you're doing how [33:11] do you actually get an offer to them [33:13] that's the right size. Um I'm a so [33:17] customers are super fractal right and so [33:19] you can absolutely make the same amount [33:22] from 1% of your customers as you can [33:23] from the other 99 and have half your [33:25] revenue from one. Um, and typically like [33:27] at each level you have another double. [33:28] So it's like if you're at, let's say, a [33:30] $100 a month price point, there's going [33:32] to be another double of revenue at a [33:34] $500 a month price point. Another double [33:36] of revenue at $2,500 a month. Uh, [33:38] another double at, you know, whatever [33:40] five or 10 times that is going to be. [33:41] And so, um, I think making offers [33:44] available to people, that is where [33:46] business owners like struggle. They feel [33:47] weird about it and they sell out of [33:48] their own wallet [33:49] >> when it's just like just make them [33:51] available and state the facts and tell [33:53] the truth. So, it's like if we had one [33:54] big plaque in our our marketing team, [33:57] it's state the fashion and tell the [33:58] truth, but it's the whole truth, which [33:59] is, hey, we're going to do this thing. [34:02] It's absurdly expensive and it's only [34:04] for somebody who if you're reading this [34:05] and you're like, oh, that's not absurdly [34:06] expensive for me. It's for you. And if [34:08] you read that and you're like, oh my [34:09] god, I'm offended by that. Good news. We [34:11] have less offensive prices that are [34:13] lower. And for that, we do all these [34:15] other things that you're going to get [34:16] way more people who are going to be [34:17] doing it with you. But if you're a [34:18] special snowflake, we have special [34:19] snowflake prices. I just don't think and [34:21] to be fair, you're not going to make [34:23] everyone happy. Like there's always [34:24] going to be trolls. There's always going [34:25] to be people. But like I think you have [34:26] to make the decision of like do I care [34:28] more about the people I help or the [34:30] people who are angry at me for trying to [34:31] help? [34:33] >> What's your international strategy? I [34:36] imagine the content goes everywhere. [34:38] Yeah. At the same time, you can't be [34:39] flying around the world constantly. How [34:42] do you think about different countries? [34:43] I struggle a lot with international um [34:45] because [34:46] >> the business side of me is like I don't [34:49] want them to clog up our funnels. [34:51] >> Oh [34:52] >> yeah. [34:52] >> And like have people who can't speak [34:53] English that well talking to the team [34:55] and it's just like it's like we don't [34:56] have Italian versions of whatever. [34:58] >> Yeah. [34:59] >> Yeah. Right. So I struggle with that [35:01] part. Um on the other hand, we're taking [35:03] steps now to have something to, you [35:07] know, serve that audience. That being [35:08] said, I don't think I'm going to be [35:09] traveling internationally anytime soon. [35:10] Um, but having called services and [35:12] offerings for that audience, I'm I'm [35:14] more inclined to be able to. [35:16] >> Yeah. How are you thinking about scaling [35:18] acquisition.com, the investing side of [35:20] the business, raising outside capital, [35:22] scaling up the fund? We talked to VCs [35:25] all day who are just like bigger and [35:26] bigger mega funds. [35:28] >> Yeah, we're like 30 days away from [35:31] closing a gigantic deal. So, um, [35:33] >> come back. [35:34] >> Yeah, it'll [laughter] be great. [35:36] Uh but like uh I would say that what [35:39] Acquisition.com was when we started was [35:41] a cash flow-based family office that [35:43] Leila and I ran and that was honestly [35:45] the chillest my life has ever been. I [35:47] was also bored to tears. Um but like a [35:49] good life and probably might have been [35:50] better for the season I'm about to get [35:52] into. [35:53] >> Um but it became apparent after we did [35:55] something like 24 deals in 24 months and [35:57] these were not like VC style deals. They [35:59] were like real, you know, purchases. um [36:02] that you know portfolio theory rules and [36:05] of the 24 like you know threeish were [36:07] like the really good companies and then [36:09] on top of that there was like our brand [36:12] blew up in this time period and so we [36:14] had to basically have this recalculation [36:15] of like okay well [36:17] >> these are all the resources we have at [36:18] our disposal. We have cash but like this [36:20] brand is getting really big even almost [36:22] greater than the cash that we have [36:24] access to just our own money. Yeah. [36:25] >> And so then it was like, okay, well, we [36:27] started the advisory practice in January [36:29] of 24 and I think we did 36 million in a [36:33] year [36:34] >> just on that one unit. And so I was [36:35] like, okay, [36:36] >> founder. [laughter] [36:38] >> And so and then obviously, you know, the [36:40] book launch uh last year we did, you [36:43] know, 105 and we still had the advisory [36:45] practice which grew the next year. And [36:47] so, um, I've we basically we stopped [36:50] doing, um, deals that we were just [36:54] investors in, [36:55] >> and now it's brand plus capital plus [36:57] work. And I'd rather have fewer eggs [36:59] that we're going to get huge outsized [37:00] returns on. Like school, uh, was junior [37:03] of 24 as well. [37:05] >> Um, but school has, you know, we have 30 [37:07] million users now. [37:08] >> Um, and, you know, we have a billion [37:10] plus GMV. Like, it's it's a very big [37:12] platform. And so like I you know [37:15] Zuckerberg didn't have Airbnbs as a side [37:17] hustle, you know what I mean? [laughter] [37:18] >> Yeah. [37:19] >> And so it's just like if you have if you [37:20] have a stallion like run it. And so I [37:23] think that's where we're at where it's [37:24] like we're being really really specific. [37:26] I'm I'm willing to put more capital at [37:27] risk now because I'm going to put my [37:29] brand behind it um and make sure the [37:31] product's exceptional. And that's I mean [37:32] the bar is the product has to be [ __ ] [37:34] insane. [37:34] >> Yeah. [37:35] >> And then we bring distribution and cash [37:37] and like that's when it's like the the [37:39] holy trinity. [37:39] >> Yeah. Uh Jeremy, our friend Jeremy has [37:42] this idea that that everyone is like pre [37:45] or postfall, [37:46] >> where are you? [37:48] >> You familiar with this concept? No. So [37:50] yeah, uh he he says you can instantly [37:52] tell if someone has had their downfall, [37:54] had their darkest moment, you know, [37:56] they've been through the ringer. They [37:58] got chewed up and spit out by Silicon [38:00] Valley or private equity or whatever [38:02] industry they were in. And you can tell [38:04] that this person is now they've they've [38:07] been humbled and so they're ready to [38:09] build back appropriately, not get over [38:12] their skis. And then you can also see [38:14] the founders. It becomes a massive [38:15] advantage. Then you also see the [38:17] founders that are sort of prefall and [38:19] they're doing a lot of things that [38:20] you're like [38:20] >> yeah this is like the 24 year old who's [38:23] like on a crazy terror has raised money [38:27] back they're spending it and then [38:29] suddenly like you know the business [38:31] stops growing like execs are leaving [38:34] things like that but I'm wondering if [38:36] you there was like this like crucible [38:37] moment for you before this latest run [38:40] that you've been on. I two answers. One [38:42] is I'll reject the premise, but um just [38:45] because I don't like [38:47] >> to say it's super binary, right? Like [38:49] people are either before or after the [38:50] hard thing in their life. It's like I [38:52] think people have lots of hardship that [38:53] happens at different seasons in their [38:54] life. Like I've lost everything two [38:55] times. [38:56] >> Um like twice. [38:59] >> Um but like that then it's like, okay, [39:00] am I now postfall? It's like, well, I [39:02] mean, I I hope that nothing bad ever [39:05] happens to me again, but I'm pretty sure [39:06] bad shit's going to happen to me again. [39:08] Um, and so I just commit to not [39:10] stopping. [39:11] >> Yeah. [39:12] >> Controlling the controllable, and that's [39:13] basically all I can do. [39:14] >> Do you have a good answer to pathy [39:18] advice for young people? We got asked [39:20] this on a podcast recently and it was [39:22] like the closing question. It was like, [39:24] you got one minute. And I was like, I [39:26] could you could talk for hours. Like, [39:28] where do you even start? How do you [39:29] think about packaging information like [39:32] that? And I actually want your your your [39:34] advice for young people. If you have one [39:35] thing, [39:36] >> it's so hard to like like work hard. [39:39] It's like good general advice, but then [39:40] I I' I've been in points in my life and [39:42] I know people that are like working hard [39:44] on like the dumbest thing [39:46] >> and like that ends up being the worst [39:47] thing that they can do. [laughter] [39:49] >> Well, think so. What you accomplish is a [39:53] direct output of the volume of activity [39:56] that you do multiplied by the leverage [39:58] of the activity itself. And so you have [40:01] to pick the right boat. You have to pick [40:02] the right opportunity based on your [40:04] goals. Some people only want to make a [40:06] million dollars. Some people want to [40:07] make 10. Some people want to make 100. [40:08] Some make a trillion. Like everyone has [40:09] different. So like the the leverage that [40:11] what's interesting about that is that [40:12] you just get to pick. And it's going to [40:14] be hard no matter what. I think Nal said [40:15] this thing where it was like it's really [40:17] hard to build a restaurant that's really [40:18] successful. It's also really hard to [40:20] build a you know billion dollar unicorn. [40:22] They're both going to be 80hour weeks. [40:23] And so you know and Stuart Schwarzman [40:26] from Black uh Blackstone said like you [40:28] might as well play big because level 10 [40:30] talent has only attracted level 10 [40:31] opportunities. It's harder to attract [40:33] good people for bad opportunity because [40:34] then you got to do it all yourself. [40:36] Which is why I have so much respect for [40:37] some of the guys like um uh Peggy and [40:39] Andrew Chung who are Mr. and Mrs. Panda, [40:41] Panda Express. Yeah, [40:42] >> dude. Deck of billionaires selling [40:44] selling chicken. [40:45] >> Passing royalty, [40:46] >> dude. Like [laughter] [40:48] >> but like like so much respect for that [40:50] level of grit. 45 years selling orange [40:52] chicken, right? Um all that to say, [40:57] >> you will pick based on the level of [40:59] awareness that you have at that time. [41:00] Where it gets more difficult is that you [41:02] learn more [ __ ] as you go and you [41:03] realize that there are higher leverage [41:05] opportunities. The difficulty is that if [41:07] you're four years into one thing, year [41:09] five of an existing thing that you have [41:11] four years of reps on versus year one of [41:13] even a slightly better opportunity, you [41:15] have to compare year one versus year [41:17] five of the other one, not year one [41:18] versus year one because time you can't [41:20] get back. And so that's where the [41:22] compounding of getting better at [41:23] something at some point does have [41:24] outsized returns even it's an inferior [41:26] vehicle. [41:27] >> Yeah. talk about that idea of uh you're [41:29] an A+ uh operator, but you're going [41:33] after a C++ opportunity. How do you [41:36] assess your opportunity? Because I feel [41:38] like I run into people who are working [41:41] on A+ opportunities and everyone will [41:43] say that's the dumbest idea ever. You're [41:44] going to put couches, it's going to be [41:46] called Airbnb. That makes no sense, [41:47] right? And then it's a boom and it's [41:49] huge. And then simultaneously you can be [41:51] working on a terrible idea, but if you [41:53] went and got, you know, a puff piece in [41:55] Business Insider in Forbes, it's like [41:57] your parents are like, "Oh, it's [41:58] amazing. Good job." [41:59] >> Even if you're grinding and it's not [42:01] going anywhere. [42:01] >> Yeah. The way the way I look at it is [42:03] like in every single category there's an [42:05] amazing business. And the funny thing [42:07] the funny thing with everyone thinks [42:09] about like Airbnb as like the dumb idea [42:11] when it's like it wasn't a dumb idea. It [42:13] just seemed ridiculous. And that's very [42:15] different than uh like somebody that [42:17] like chooses apparel as a category which [42:20] everyone knows is like structurally [42:23] really really really challenging really [42:25] really competitive. Yes. There's like a [42:27] hundred companies in the world that [42:29] absolutely print and if you're one of [42:30] those companies then you're then you're [42:32] great. But some people like choose [42:33] apparel and then 3 years in then they [42:36] understand the competitive dynamics and [42:37] they're like I'm in a shitty business. I [42:39] think that's very different than like [42:41] choosing the thing that seems silly even [42:43] though Airbnb at this point is now [42:46] >> like the best business, right? Massive [42:48] scale, network effects, uh a great [42:51] product, uh all these things. But [42:53] >> I think if you look at the marketplace [42:55] that you're trying to get into, there's [42:57] usually going to be a bolus of [42:58] businesses at some part and that gives [43:00] you some idea of where the difficulty in [43:02] that business is. And so like for [43:03] example, if you're going to get into I [43:04] want to start a social media marketing [43:06] agency, it's like well there's a bullis [43:08] at the bottom and then very few who [43:10] ascend to the top and it's because it's [43:11] really really difficult operationally [43:13] because if you're really good at [43:14] marketing then you can usually make [43:16] enough money to not work at one of those [43:17] types of businesses and so you're [43:19] constantly uh you have to be so good at [43:21] ops and so good at marketing and [43:22] branding and sales in order to just [43:24] slowly get these bigger and bigger [43:26] accounts and you kind of level up the [43:27] types of customers that you can go [43:28] after. Um because all those businesses [43:30] go after SMBs and SMBs are inherently [43:32] volatile and so even if you do a great [43:33] job, they'll still cancel and so it's [43:35] just a turn and burn business. [43:36] >> Yeah. Not not to mention your flagship [43:38] client will eventually say like, "Hey, [43:39] we're spending $100,000 on this service. [43:41] We could hire five people that are the [43:44] best in the world at what they do and [43:45] they'll just focus on us. Let's do that [43:47] instead." [43:48] >> Yeah. Like there are there there are [43:49] impediments to that business scaling. [43:51] Can you do it? Absolutely. But I'm just [43:53] a huge advocate of just like just look [43:54] at what the biggest version of that [43:56] business looks like because this is [43:58] obviously a more tech forward show. But [44:00] like the vast majority of businesses are [44:01] not tech businesses, [44:03] >> right? There's like HVAC businesses all [44:05] over the place. There's pool cleaners [44:06] there. Like there's a lot of [ __ ] you [44:07] can do for money. [44:08] >> And so I like unless you want to be a [44:11] trillionaire like you can be a [44:13] billionaire in just about any boring [44:14] business. You look you look at um what's [44:16] his name? Is it Brad Jacobs? [44:18] >> Yeah. [44:18] >> Yeah. Yeah. actually six times over make [44:21] a few billion. [44:22] >> Yeah. A few And then he has a sequel. A [44:23] few more billion. [44:24] >> Few more [laughter] billions. [44:25] >> You guys are kind of You guys are very [44:26] Yeah. I never I never thought of you as [44:29] >> home building materials. [44:30] >> Yeah. There's just a lot of businesses [44:31] out there. And so it just depends on [44:32] like what the goal is. But any business [44:35] done for like zooming all the way out, [44:38] if you do one thing for 40 years and you [44:40] get better every year, you're going to [44:41] [ __ ] dominate. And so on some level [44:44] going after the tech opportunity though [44:46] there there for sure are the big the big [44:47] mega winners. [44:49] It's easier to compete against the [44:51] people who are going after the pool [44:53] cleaners. There's just there's like [44:55] there's less sophisticated players. [44:56] There's less capital. Um and so having a [44:59] little bit of street smarts and a lot of [45:00] work ethic can get you pretty far there. [45:03] And you look at that compared to like [45:04] you know you look at the guy who's doing [45:06] 7 million a year topline, $2.5 million [45:08] in bottom line. Doesn't really work that [45:09] much. has a crew of guys. [45:12] >> Is that the life you want? [45:13] >> Yeah. [45:13] >> Cuz there's nothing like there's nothing [45:15] wrong with that. And so I think it's [45:17] deciding first to the younger guy like [45:19] what do I want [45:20] >> or what is an acceptable outcome? And [45:22] then what of the many many paths that [45:25] are ahead of me have the highest [45:26] likelihood of me getting there. And then [45:28] once you pick that path, know that if [45:30] you stick with that path for 20 years, [45:32] the likelihood that you fail is [45:33] basically zero. As long as you have some [45:35] feedback loop for improvement. [45:36] >> That's basically it. Figure out where [45:38] you want to go. Find the highest likely [45:40] path of getting there. And then do not [45:42] let the opinions of strangers or people [45:44] who do not have what you want dissuade [45:46] you from getting there. [45:47] >> Yeah. What do you think about uh there's [45:50] this odd trend of uh entrepreneurship [45:54] like uh I don't know like mindset stuff [45:57] where you got to be doing sauna, cold [45:59] plunge, meditation. And I feel like that [46:02] only makes sense once you're successful. [46:04] And then you look at the successful [46:05] people and you're like, "Well, yeah, the [46:06] rich guy has a sauna." But what was he [46:09] doing when he was broke? He was waking [46:10] up and getting on his laptop. But yeah, [46:12] how have you reacted? [46:12] >> Yeah, rich people fly private, so I [46:14] should fly private [laughter] in order [46:15] to get rich, right? It's it's [46:17] conflation. Um, [46:19] >> okay. So, at the most basic level, you [46:22] have to do work. [46:23] >> Yeah. [46:24] >> And if it is not the work, then you have [46:26] to have a very strong argument that is [46:27] going to increase your output per unit [46:29] of time. [46:30] >> Period. And so if you have a morning [46:32] routine and that's the first day when [46:34] you're probably the cognitive [46:36] energy, [46:37] >> you would have to have an incredible Do [46:39] you curse on this show? [46:39] >> We don't. [46:40] >> Okay. A credible darn argument for [46:42] [laughter] [46:43] our kids are our kids are watching, but [46:45] you know, by all means, [46:46] >> you have to have an incredible argument [46:47] for why that's going to improve your [46:48] output. And so like the morning routine [46:50] that I'm a big advocate of is you wake [46:52] up and then you caffeinate. [46:54] >> You shut off your your distractions and [46:56] then you begin the work. and how how [46:58] much you can compress the time from [46:59] waking to beginning work. [47:01] >> Sure. [47:01] >> Is the ideal and you are the freshest [47:03] whenever you are postleep. [47:05] >> Yep. [47:07] >> And so I like if you want to do that [47:10] stuff I'm like by all means go for it. [47:11] But like just understand like you can [47:13] >> plenty people have hobbies. You can have [47:15] hobbies. Like there's nothing wrong with [47:16] that. It's just is this actually and you [47:18] also didn't need to work 16 hours a day [47:20] in order to get what you want. I I have [47:21] plenty of friends who are super [47:22] successful and don't work that much. [47:23] Now, did they work 16 hours a day to get [47:26] there? Probably. And so, this is the [47:28] modeling the rise, not the plateau. And [47:29] what's difficult is the plateau is [47:31] what's more visible. [47:31] >> Sure. [47:32] >> What do you think there? And then you [47:33] can make the content, right? No one's [47:35] making this part. [47:36] >> No. No. [47:36] >> What do you think about uh people sort [47:40] of like staging out their sort of career [47:44] as an entrepreneur? I was talking to [47:46] >> a friend of mine who has a something [47:50] like an agency business in fashion. He's [47:53] gonna do like about a million dollars [47:55] this year of like profit. It's a [47:57] fantastic business. [47:58] >> He has he he eventually wants to have [48:01] his own his own brand. My my advice to [48:04] him is like fashion is such a like bad [48:07] business until it's a great business [48:08] till you have like a flagship brand that [48:10] takes 20 years to make. Uh I was like [48:13] get your business to like a couple [48:15] million a year. Get it like established. [48:17] It's a couple million a year profit at [48:19] least. Get it established. get, you [48:21] know, 10, 20 flagship clients that are [48:24] on sort of long-term contracts and then [48:27] basically use that cash flow to invest [48:28] in your brand. And like a lot of people [48:30] would be like give them the advice now [48:32] of like just go all in on go all in on [48:34] the brand. Like why are you wasting time [48:35] with this other thing? And I feel like [48:37] that's very uh that that works super [48:40] well like if you have a trust fund, but [48:41] for somebody who's like 27, let's assume [48:44] they want to have a family in a few [48:46] years. I was pushing him to say like [48:48] make this thing great even though you [48:49] know it's not the thing that you want to [48:51] be doing for that 40y year chunk of your [48:54] career. But how would you talk to to [48:57] somebody in that sort of space? [48:58] >> So I don't think there's a right answer [49:00] because it's all dependent on risk which [49:01] is entirely personal. Yeah. [49:02] >> And so if you want to go balls on the [49:05] line that's not cursing um then then do [49:09] it. Go all in. But like just understand [49:11] the risk that you're taking on. And so I [49:13] would say that that's not a risk that I [49:15] would take. Um I would say that I'm [49:17] relative [49:17] >> there's there's risk to being allin and [49:20] then not having the capital to actually [49:22] fuel the opportunity. Right? My point of [49:24] view was like you're going to be way way [49:26] higher likelihood of success if you sort [49:28] of build slow and you can put half a [49:30] million a year of like outside capital [49:32] into the business versus like trying to [49:34] build this brand when you don't have a a [49:36] capital source. [49:37] >> Depends on goal, depends on risk [49:38] tolerance. like I want to be a [49:40] trillionaire and then and I'm willing to [49:42] take the risk then it's like yeah I mean [49:44] you should have started yesterday you [49:45] know what I mean um but my perspective [49:47] is I would like to get my oxygen mask on [49:50] personally and I was able to make I've [49:53] been able to take significantly bigger [49:55] and bigger bets in my career because I [49:57] don't they're free swings. [49:58] >> Yeah. [49:59] >> If I lose my ch my life changes to zero. [50:01] >> And so in thinking about big life [50:03] changes what's been really helpful for [50:04] me is what is my what tactically changes [50:06] about my life. Do I change what I eat? [50:08] Do I change what I wear? Do I change [50:09] where I live? Do I change the car I [50:10] drive? And and do these things matter, [50:12] right? Does it change who I'm married [50:14] to? If none of these things change, then [50:18] almost none of these decisions are going [50:19] to actually have a huge impact on my [50:20] life, which then makes the argument for [50:22] like maybe I should take a higher risk [50:23] adjusted return move. But I would say [50:26] that from the emotional side rather than [50:27] the logical side, um it was I have tried [50:30] I very quickly tried to have a nest egg [50:32] to be like I'm good [50:34] >> and that's what's allowed me to take [50:35] really big bets like things like school. [50:37] school for the likelihood that [50:38] >> oxygen mass is a is a great way to put [50:41] that on if you're going to be [50:42] >> if you want and if you have [50:43] responsibilities too if you're if you're [50:44] a parent and you've got kids and you've [50:46] got mortgage and you want a certain [50:48] lifestyle for them and certain schools [50:49] that they you know that cost money um [50:51] then then you're also risking their [50:53] futures to a degree and so again it's [50:56] your decision [50:57] >> but just know what you're putting at [50:58] risk and how much is my life going to [51:00] change if I lose Keith Cunningham has a [51:02] great frame on this which is just um [51:04] what's my upside what's my downside and [51:05] can I live with my downside side. [51:07] >> If you can't live with the downside, [51:08] don't take the bad. [51:10] >> You mentioned that uh you know the [51:13] success and the habits are visible at [51:15] the plateau but not on the rise at the [51:18] and I agree with you like you're not [51:19] actually seeing the accurate picture of [51:22] the upand cominging entrepreneur, the [51:24] future trillionaire as it's happening. [51:26] But at the same time, a lot of [51:28] businesses increasingly need to do some [51:30] form of social media on their way up. [51:32] And the risk there is like sometimes [51:35] companies just get sucked into just [51:36] being full media companies or the or the [51:38] brand value and the and the cash flow [51:40] from the media business outgrows [51:42] whatever they were doing originally. Uh [51:44] what is the right balance? How should [51:45] entrepreneurs think in the modern era [51:47] like if you're starting a company [51:48] consumer product in 2026? What's the [51:51] right level of social media and and [51:54] actual owned content without it becoming [51:56] like fake work? [51:58] >> What do you mean by fake work? fake work [51:59] would be like you're you're growing your [52:02] following account but you're not growing [52:04] your cash flow or your actual [52:05] >> Yeah. There's a generation of [52:06] entrepreneurs and like you're probably a [52:08] huge driver of this that are like uh [52:10] that are like I need to work I need to [52:12] like I need to build my personal brand [52:14] and they don't realize that like if they [52:15] just make an amazing product that [52:18] millions of people benefit from they [52:19] just default get the personal brand and [52:21] they could just if you care about like [52:23] attention and being on camera then you [52:25] could just do that later but maybe just [52:26] make something amazing. [52:27] >> And also your personal brand is an [52:29] actual media company that has cash flow [52:32] and is like a successful business. You [52:33] wouldn't you wouldn't be you wouldn't I [52:34] I don't think you would be like on [52:36] camera if you weren't making [52:37] >> No, I wouldn't. I [laughter] hated it. [52:39] It was like it was very hard for me to [52:40] decide to do this. [52:40] >> Yeah. But there's a lot of people that [52:41] are basically doing the media for the [52:43] cloud and they don't and they and they [52:44] think put it it's fake work because [52:46] they're saying they're justifying the [52:48] cloud chasing by uh saying oh it's [52:50] marketing for my business. [52:52] >> If what you do does not translate into [52:54] the money that you make and money that [52:56] you make is the goal then you are doing [52:58] work that is not effective. [53:00] >> Yeah. Um, if to the the example you gave [53:03] earlier, if you start a a business and [53:06] you get better at media and the media is [53:08] making more money than your existing [53:09] business, then maybe you're better at [53:10] media than you were at your business and [53:11] maybe that should be your business. And [53:13] so I think constantly being flexible [53:14] about reassessing what the market wants [53:16] versus what you have. Um, [53:18] >> you know, I think Basos says this, but [53:19] you know, uh, determined on goal and [53:21] flexible on path or whatever way he says [53:23] that. And he's also a great example of [53:25] what's Basos's personal brand. Well, [53:26] everyone knows who he is. Does he make a [53:27] lot of content? No. Why? just happens to [53:29] own Amazon, right? Um and so I think [53:32] >> it depends on what what um sphere you [53:35] want to get into. This is kind of [53:36] interesting. Um if you were to say I [53:38] want to be a big B2B influencer, [53:41] >> you cannot be a big big B2B influencer [53:43] without evidence that you are good at [53:45] business. [53:46] >> Period. You could take and there's [53:48] plenty of people who take word for word [53:49] the stuff that I say. [53:50] >> There's some aren't there there's [53:51] probably some good counter examples to [53:52] that. We don't need we don't need to [53:53] name them. [53:54] >> Yeah. You know, it's it's tough. It's [53:56] tough. like I would say the biggest the [53:58] big I think the biggest B2B influencer [54:00] right now is Elon. [54:02] >> Oh, sure. Sure. Right. And he also has [54:03] the biggest business and is the richest [54:05] man, right? And so and that I think that [54:07] just cascades all the way down. The only [54:08] reason that so like I was I had a [54:10] podcast that started in July of 2017. [54:12] That's when I started was called Gym [54:13] Secrets and I rebranded as just the [54:14] game. [54:15] >> Um [54:16] >> but the as I continued to make it uh we [54:18] went from like you know 2,000 downloads [54:20] a month to millions [54:23] >> when I sold my company for 46.2 million. [54:25] And then people were like, "Oh, this guy [54:26] actually knows what he's talking about." [54:27] And then the brand took off because I [54:30] had evidence [54:30] >> legitimacy. [54:31] >> And so I think that the amount of [54:33] legitimacy that you need to be an [54:35] influencer depends on the risk that the [54:38] consumer has in taking action on the [54:41] nature of the content that you're [54:43] making. And so if I'm a beauty [54:45] influencer, if I buy lipstick or I do a [54:47] a you know a lash technique, I'm getting [54:50] the waters I'm not familiar with here. [54:52] [laughter] You paint your face in some [54:53] way, right? [54:54] Um the risk is relatively low. Sure. [54:56] Right now you move a little bit over [54:58] here and you got like personal finance. [54:59] Well, it's like who's the biggest there? [55:00] Dave. And then there's there's some of [55:02] the new age ones. Erica Clover. She's [55:04] got her but she was also um [55:06] >> and there's Vivian too I think. Uh, but [55:08] like they have some credibility behind [55:10] and like there's tons like if a teacher [55:12] is in in her basement talking about how [55:15] you should invest in the S&P 500 and [55:17] says exactly what Warren Buffett says [55:19] and maybe they even say it a little bit [55:20] more compelling than the way than what [55:22] Warren Buffett says. [55:23] >> They won't be Warren Buffett because [55:25] they just forgot to build Berkshire [55:26] Hathway. [55:27] >> Sure. Sure. Sure. [55:28] >> And so it's like the proof is the [55:29] pudding. I think at least my perspective [55:31] on media is the proof is the pudding. [55:33] But it varies in terms of how much proof [55:35] you need. Now, if you're ugly as [ __ ] [55:37] very hard to be a beauty influencer. [55:39] >> Yeah. [55:40] >> But if you can use But if you are ugly [55:42] and then you paint your face so well [55:43] that you become hot, [55:45] >> then you absolutely Yeah. Because you [55:47] have evidence, [55:48] >> right? And you have a more dramatic [55:49] report. No, 100%. This is how it works. [55:51] Yeah. [55:52] >> I like that. Uh talk about status [55:54] seeking. It seems like in Silicon Valley [55:56] there's often uh you know, Naval talks [55:58] about this like there's value. [55:59] >> Silicon Valley. [56:00] >> Yeah. Well, well, that's what I want to [56:02] know. Uh in Silicon Valley there's a lot [56:03] of trend chasing. there's a lot of [56:05] status seeking and there's value in like [56:07] doing low status activities and I'm [56:08] wondering in in mid-market [56:11] entrepreneurship small businesses like [56:14] what is the shape of that is it [56:15] different than Silicon Valley is it less [56:17] pronounced more pronounced like what is [56:19] the version of look you just need to run [56:22] a series of golf courses and be happy [56:24] with that that type of thing or whatever [56:25] whatever the equivalent is [56:26] >> I think it depends on who they compare [56:27] themselves to I think it just comes down [56:29] to that I think tech guys compare [56:30] themselves to other tech guys and they [56:31] want approval from tech guys and so they [56:32] do the the activities that tech guys [56:34] approve of. If you're an HVAC guy, then [56:36] it's going to be you're going to do the [56:37] activities that HVAC people think are [56:39] cool if they're the peer group that you [56:41] actually uh compare yourself to, which [56:43] they might not be. [56:44] >> Um, and to be fair, [56:44] >> I love the tech guys that that sell [56:46] their business for nine figures and then [56:48] are like, I need a cash flowing [56:49] lifestyle business ASAP. [56:52] >> I know a lot of them. A lot. Like a [56:54] crazy amount. Like buying gas stations. [56:56] Like it's a lot. [56:59] >> How how bad is that? [57:01] >> Bad? What do you mean? Like because I I [57:03] imagine it's a grass is greener on the [57:05] other other side thing where they [57:06] enjoyed building their business, they [57:08] sold it, they have all this cash, but [57:09] they want cash flow. They want the [57:10] stability of the cash flow and so they [57:12] want the idea of of running a small [57:15] business every month [57:15] >> and they don't Exactly. But they don't [57:17] think about what it means to like at 2 [57:19] a.m. your gas station got robbed and you [57:21] got to go down there and sort it out [57:22] with the cops or something like that. [57:23] And so I'm wondering about like what is [57:25] the actual lesson there for someone [57:27] who's like about to get over their skis? [57:30] Yeah, I think humans are inherently [57:31] dissatisfied. [57:32] >> Okay. [laughter] [57:33] >> And I think whatever you have, you want [57:34] what you don't have. And so if you're [57:36] married, you're like, "Ah, life would be [57:37] different if I was single. If you're a [57:38] parent, you're like, "Ah, can you [57:39] remember when we didn't have kids?" And [57:40] when if you don't have kids, you're [57:41] like, "I wish I had kids." If you're an [57:42] employee, you're like, "Man, I wish I [57:43] had an entrepreneur." And somebody [57:44] you're an entrepreneur, you're like, [57:44] "Man, it would be so nice to just show [57:45] up and clock out of five and have to [57:46] think about it and get a check." Like, [57:48] we just always we want to make we want [57:50] the benefits of a trade-off without the [57:52] negatives of the trade-off. [57:53] >> Sure. [57:53] >> Yeah. And so when guys are in the cash [57:55] flow business, because I'll because [57:56] that's who I talk to the majority of the [57:57] time is like what they're thinking about [57:59] all the times is like it's hard to sell [58:01] this business. Um I'm not really [58:03] building my net worth. The multiples [58:05] that I'm getting on this aren't going to [58:06] necessarily be that high. Um I'm dealing [58:08] with people all day. I've deal with low [58:09] skilled labor and I've got, you know, [58:11] turn issues or finding texts that aren't [58:12] going to show up drunk on the job. Like [58:14] there's like my one of my favorite [58:16] quotes of all time. I'm gonna try not to [58:17] cuss on this one, but um [58:19] >> my CFO was uh deep South Texas when we [58:22] were when we were in Texas when we were [58:23] building Gym Launch. Um Suzanne [58:25] Shifflet, shout out to Suzanne. Um she [58:27] was the reason we were able to sell Gym [58:28] Launch. Um she's she had been she had [58:32] been a CFO for four companies from 1 to [58:35] 100 million plus had done a $5 billion [58:38] exit and I think she had she'd been [58:40] either buy side or sellside over 20 [58:42] times. [58:42] >> Wow. She was just like she was like just [58:45] so weathered in a good way, right? Um [58:47] and she said, "You know what, Alex?" [58:49] She's like, "It's all shit." [laughter] [58:52] She was like, "It's all [ __ ] Every [58:53] business is [ __ ] It's all shit." And I [58:56] and it was but it was like she said it [58:57] with so much sincerity because I was [58:59] like at the time I was like, "Man, it'd [59:00] be cool if we got this kind of multiple [59:01] blah blah blah." And she was like, "It [59:03] just doesn't it's it it all sucks." And [59:05] it's just different type of suck, but it [59:07] all sucks. [59:08] >> Be satisfied. Uh, we're at time, but [59:10] give us a pitch for scale or fail. [59:13] >> If you like seeing entrepreneurs try [59:16] their absolute hardest and have a [59:18] completely new paradigm shift in 90 [59:20] days, uh, to scale their business the [59:22] most, uh, then watch the show. I meet [59:24] with them for an hour, give them a whole [59:26] blueprint of what I would do if I bought [59:27] the business 100% today. Um, and then [59:30] they execute and they compete. [59:31] >> I love it. [59:32] >> Amazing. So, reminds me of PMF or die. [59:34] >> Yeah. [59:34] >> We we we experimented with the show last [59:37] year. Uh it was like [laughter] [59:40] yeah it was like it was like we we we [59:42] put this team in an apartment in New [59:44] York. They were not allowed to leave for [59:45] 90 days until or or until they build a [59:48] million-dollar AR business. Uh it it it [59:50] it it descended into chaos [laughter] [59:53] and and [59:55] situation for sure. [59:56] >> It was totally crazy and we were like we [59:58] don't have time to do this and this. [60:01] >> But it had it had like hundreds of [60:02] people watching at all times. It was [60:04] actually gripping [60:05] >> and it was just a live stream of them in [60:06] the apartment just like cooking. It was [60:08] >> but one of them got really good at [60:09] talking to chat. It was a whole thing. [60:11] It was sort of opened us up. [60:13] >> That was a good example because like one [60:14] of them clearly was like a gifted [60:16] content creator and the other one was [60:17] like why am I on camera? This is [60:19] terrible. [60:19] >> This is terrible. [60:20] >> Did he become a content creator? [60:21] >> Uh we got to check in with [60:23] >> we got to check in with him. [60:24] >> But they're both very talented travel a [60:26] little bit. [60:26] >> Yeah. They both needed to like [60:27] disconnect. It was [60:28] >> but uh yeah. So, so don't do the show [60:31] live. Then people will will actually go. [60:33] >> The edit is is awesome, [60:36] >> dude. Thanks for having me. [60:38] >> Thank you so much for coming on. This is [60:40] great. We'll talk to you soon.